The Cheat Sheet: Victims and Voir Dire

Summary

Murder Sheet: The Cheat Sheet – Victims and Voir Dire

Air Date: January 2, 2026
Hosts: Áine Cain (C), journalist; Kevin Greenlee (B), attorney

Overview

In this “Cheat Sheet” installment of the Murder Sheet, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee present updates and insights on four cases: two cold-case developments involving murder victims, and two legal stories highlighting public access and right-to-counsel issues in the criminal justice system. The episode blends detailed case reporting with legal analysis, personal anecdotes, and the hosts’ trademark banter to explore how victims and legal safeguards are treated in the American justice system.

---

Key Discussion Points & Case Summaries

1. Judy Lord Case (Concord, New Hampshire, 1975)

Segment: [05:08–13:38]

• Overview:
  Judy Lord, a 22-year-old mother, was murdered in her Concord apartment. She was found dead after her landlord entered due to overdue rent and her baby’s cries. The scene indicated sexual assault and strangulation, with her 17-month-old son unharmed.

• Suspect Analysis:
  Her neighbor, Ernest Stanberry (aka Ernest W. Gable), was investigated early on due to a pattern of criminal behavior and a stormy relationship with Lord. He reportedly broke into her apartment and frightened her, with physical evidence (his prints, African American hairs) tying him to the scene.

  “He once let himself into her apartment at 2am 10 days before the murder and was telling her that he wanted to see her naked… His fingerprints were on her window as if he’d been sliding it open.” — Áine Cain [07:09]

• Later Developments:
  Despite the strong suspicions, the case went cold. Gable moved to California and was murdered there in 1987. Recently, New Hampshire Cold Case Unit determined that with today’s evidence, they would have charged him, closing the case unofficially.

• Host Reaction:
  Áine reflects on why Stanberry/Gable wasn’t previously prosecuted, criticizing the failure to act:

  “…why was this guy allowed to just run around and do this stuff and, like, break into people’s apartments…?” — Cain [08:57]

---

2. Sasikala and Anish Nara Case (Mapleshade, New Jersey, 2017)

Segment: [13:38–18:34]

• Overview:
  Sasikala Nara, 38, and her 6-year-old son Anish were found brutally murdered in their apartment. The crime was initially suspected to be motivated either by family strife or hate crime, given the victims’ Indian origin.

• Break in the Case:
  In 2019, investigators discovered a drop of blood at the scene not belonging to the family. A co-worker, Nazir Hamid, emerged as a person of interest due to a possible grudge and his residence nearby. Hamid returned to India six months after the murders and refused to give a DNA sample.
  Eventually, investigators collected a sample from his company-issued laptop in India, confirming it matched the unidentified blood.

• Current Status:
  Hamid has been charged, but extradition proceedings remain unresolved.

  “In November of 2025, prosecutors announced that Hamid has been charged with murder and related offenses… They’re still seeking his extradition back to the United States.” — Cain [18:34]

• Host Reflection:
  Áine and Kevin praise the persistence of investigators, but express frustration at the ongoing extradition struggle and the horror of the crime.

---

3. Public Access & Voir Dire Decision (Colorado, 2020: State vs. Sandoval)

Segment: [19:12–31:18]

• Case Background:
  During jury selection for Sandoval’s murder trial, a large prospective jury pool meant no in-room space for spectators. The court offered a livestream as an alternative, but no in-person public access for voir dire.

• Legal Issue:
  The Appeals Court ruled this violated public access rights and ordered a new trial:

  “By not letting members of the public sit in the courtroom during jury selection, public access violated. He needs a new trial.” — Greenlee [24:40]

• Analysis:
  Áine challenges the court’s rigid stance against livestreaming as sufficient access, noting:

  “…when is being there in person [so] sacrosanct, but technology that would actually allow even more people to access it is not good enough?” — Cain [25:06]

  Both hosts regard the decision as extreme, but recognize the seriousness of public transparency in courts.

• Memorable Quote:

  “If the state has that power to do that to the guy down the street... in theory, they also have the power to do that to you. So it’s all of our responsibilities…” — Greenlee [20:36]

---

4. Right to Counsel Issues (Mississippi, Appeal – William ‘Polo’ Edwards)

Segment: [31:58–44:06]

• Case Overview:
  Edwards, convicted of murder, sought new counsel a week before trial; the judge denied a continuance even though the prosecution had no objection to a delay. Edwards was left to “represent himself” or go ahead unprepared, an action that violated his right to counsel.

• Analysis:
  The hosts criticize the judge’s refusal to delay:

  “…when a judge makes a decision that almost could be read as, like, a fit of pique, then that’s not a good thing… It’s a murder trial.” — Cain [35:07]

  Further, the judge also inappropriately instructed the jury to disregard defense suggestions that evidence could have been tampered with, undermining the defense’s case.

  “[The judge told the jury:] ‘There is no evidence sufficient that there was any tampering with any evidence. You are instructed to disregard any indication of manipulation or tampering…’ So she’s basically telling them what to conclude.” — Greenlee [40:18]

• Legal Principle:
  The right to counsel is nonnegotiable, especially in murder trials. The judge’s handling is seen as a likely cause for appeal and retrial.

---

Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Áine on public access:
  “We don’t have the people who have the framework or the knowledge to actually interpret what they’re seeing. We have a lot of eyeballs. Not a lot of people attached to brains that understand it.” [21:27]

• Kevin on technology in court:
  “There are justices and judges out there who I don’t think fully appreciate the role of technology in giving the public access …” [23:37]

• Áine on judicial overreach:
  “You just don’t say that to the jury… you want to keep everything very nice and respectful because otherwise you could be seriously violating someone’s rights.” [43:09]

---

Timestamps for Notable Segments

| Time | Segment/Topic | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------| | 05:08 | Judy Lord murder case summary and suspect discussion | | 13:38 | Sasikala and Anish Nara murder, discovery, and charges | | 19:12 | Colorado appeals ruling on public access to voir dire | | 31:58 | Mississippi appeal: right to counsel & judicial conduct | | 53:32 | Personal anecdote: Áine and her dog, Albus Dumbledore |

---

Anecdotes & Tone

Throughout, the hosts maintain their signature blend of sharp wit, journalistic rigor, and conversational informality. Notable is Áine’s story about searching for her runaway dog in penguin pajamas, which closes the episode with warmth and self-deprecating humor [53:32].

"...This strange child is wearing penguin pajamas and screaming the name of a fictional wizard." — Cain [53:51]

---

Overall Takeaways

• Case Updates: Two cold cases see major developments thanks to DNA evidence and persistent investigation.
• Legal Principles: Courts’ commitment to public access and defendants’ right to counsel remain deeply relevant, but technological and procedural change causes tension.
• Host Dynamic: Áine and Kevin’s interplay injects levity and perspective, inviting listeners to question, learn, and care about true crime and justice.

---

For Listeners

No prior knowledge of the cases is required to follow the episode—the hosts supply context and explanation throughout. Legal points are explained accessibly, and the storytelling remains engaging for true crime newcomers and experts alike.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[A]

Why choose a Sleep Number Smart bed?

[B]

Can I make my site softer?

[C]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[A]

Sleep Number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D. power ranks sleep number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online. And now the more you buy, the more you save on beds, faces and more limited time. For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit jdpower.com awards check it out at the Sleep Number Store or sleepnumber.com today.

[C]

VRBO makes it easy to claim your dream summer spot with early booking deals. From homes with pools to poolside loungers. When you book a vrbo, you don't have to reserve any loungers. They're all yours. Get that early booking [e-mail] I'm Anya and today we're going to be covering a couple of cases on the Cheat Sheet. Two have recent developments in long unsolved cases and then two cases that highlight issues around public access and then right to counsel content Warning. This episode includes discussion of rape, violence and murder, including the murder of a child.

[B]

Anya, it's. Are you at this point fully recovered from your non alcoholic New Year's binge?

[C]

Oh, yeah. Went nuts on the mocktails or. Yeah. So when is this episode coming out?

[B]

Weren't you guzzling the eggnog from here to next Sunday?

[C]

I don't. I don't like eggnog and I resent you putting the image of me guzzling eggnog in. Many people listen to this show and I don't want them thinking about me in such a way. You always make me sound ridiculous.

[B]

I remember a few weeks ago you.

[C]

Have me dressed in Santa outfits.

[B]

You were furious when I said you were dressed in a Santa outfit.

[C]

Yeah, I was.

[B]

So you've instructed me. I'm not permitted to make any comments about any holiday outfits you may or may not have worn for New Year's.

[C]

Yeah, that's actually right. We actually had a conversation. There was a conversation on the drive to Costco this morning.

[B]

Yes, Anya had her spokesperson on speed dial.

[C]

Yeah, I had my lawyer on speed dial too. I. Yeah, no, I. I'm appalled by. By your shenanigans. You always make me sound terrible and now somehow you managed without saying I'm wearing some stupid New Year's baby outfit. You managed to make me still sound weird and disgusting by talking about me guzzling eggnog. You always find the most unflattering ways to describe what I'm doing even though I'm not doing those things.

[B]

You're welcome. Yeah.

[C]

This is what I have to deal with. This is what I have to deal with. Murder she listeners. Murder she people.

[B]

And we're guessing that Anya had a big non alcoholic New Year's binge, because we're actually recording this a little bit before New Year's.

[C]

Yeah, we're recording this on December 19th.

[B]

Haven't even had Christmas yet.

[C]

Christmas hasn't happened. We're just trying to get ahead of things. You know, holidays can be hectic, so going to do a cheat sheet a little bit early, but hopefully these will be some interesting cases for you all. And hopefully I can think of something to make Kevin sound absolutely ridiculous and goofy. Although, frankly, I think you do that yourself.

[B]

With all due respect, you've been trying for a long time. You always say I haven't been trying.

[C]

I just treat the show with some, like, level of decorum and respect. I know it's totally alien concept to you.

[B]

I encourage you. If you think I present a target in some way, by all means.

[C]

See, I have a theory, guys. I have a theory, listeners. I feel like if I started doing jests and japes on Kevin, everyone would be like, Anya, so mean. Oh, my poor Kevin. All I can say hashtag, save Kevin.

[B]

Our audience is pretty perceptive. They're pretty smart. So, yeah, that would happen.

[C]

I did appreciate. One recent listener in our Facebook group noted, hey, Kevin's been getting really ridiculous lately. I think he. I think Anya is actually the one keeping him in line now, so. Oh, how the tables have turned. All right, let's get on with this. Anya. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[B]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[C]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[B]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're the murder sheet.

[C]

And this is the cheat sheet. Victims and voir dire. It.

[B]

Well, you were up late last night festooning the Cane Train with holiday decor for our first stop in. I believe it's the Granite State. New Hampshire.

[C]

That's right, New Hampshire. Both of my states today have new in the name, so.

[B]

So you have a little bit of a theme going.

[C]

A little bit of a theme. And they're all both like, older cases, although one's substantially older than the other. So this. My main source for this was NBC Boston, and I also accessed news articles that were older from the Concord monitor via newspapers.com, a great resource for Anyone who enjoys researching anything, actually. And so this is the case of Judy Lord. She was murdered on May 19, 1975. She was a young woman living in an apartment in Concord, New Hampshire. She was 22 years old and she had a 17 month old son. That night at around 10:30, she was seen leaving a volleyball game. And that was going on in like the kind of general common area of the apartment complex. And then the next day, the apartment manager went to her apartment to, for two reasons. One, he, there was overdue rent. And then two, more ominously, the manager had heard a baby crying there for a while, for a number of hours. So he was concerned. So when he went inside, he found Judy Lord dead. There were signs of a struggle. She apparently had a plastic bag over her head. She was naked, she'd been sexually assaulted and she died of strangulation. Her 17 month old son was unharmed. So now this is where things get a little bit, I think, interesting. It seems like from the modern day news reporting on this, this isn't really clear, but it seems like her neighbor was somebody that was being looked at pretty quickly. So she's listed as having a neighbor named Ernest Stanberry. Stan Barry was looked at pretty substantially. Again, he's a neighbor of hers and he also had a criminal record. On September 25, 1974, he pled guilty to giving false information to a gun dealer. He had previously in February of 1971, been, you know, made ineligible to buy a firearm because he was convicted of burglary then. But then he, you know, got a gun. Then on October 26, 1974, he was actually the victim of a crime when another guy lit his door on fire. I don't even know how you do that, light a door on fire. But apparently that was happening and then October.

[B]

I'm glad you don't know how to do that.

[C]

Yeah. Oh, you think I would if I. Oh my God. Go. Jesus Christ, Kevin. So October 7, 1975, the Concord Monitor reported that Ernest, a guy named Ernest W. Gable entered no plea for, for possessing marijuana. So. So this is where things get weird. Ernest Stanberry is listed in some of the original reporting on, on the Lord case. But, but nowadays people say his name was Ernest W. Gable. So I don't, I don't really know what's going on. I believe that they are the same guy because Ernest Gable is also listed as a neighbor of Lord. And Ernest Gable is also listed as dying in 1987. So I think it's the same guy. Maybe he had an alias. I don't know. It's possible they're different guys, and I just am totally confused. But, yeah, anyways, on April 13, 1976, Gable was also found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. So he was. He was a, you know, career criminal. And this is. This is kind of where things get even odder. Early reporting on the Julie Lord murder mentions the Stanberry guy, saying they had a kind of a stormy relationship. I don't know what that means. They talk about how he was a suspect early on because he would let himself into her apartment. He once let herself into himself into her apartment at 2am 10 days before the murder and was telling her that he wanted to see her naked and that she was also very scared of him, according to her coworkers. And his fingerprints were on her window as if he'd been sliding it open. There were also African American hairs at the scene. He was black, she was white. So it was. I mean, I don't understand how they didn't convict this guy then, I guess, is one thing that I don't really get. But, you know, like, apparently it went cold again. I. I guess I'm confused by their relationship too, because I feel like in many situations, if that was happening with your neighbor, people would, like, call the police. I don't know if they had been in a relationship and it ended and then this happened, or if it was like just. Just a neighbor relationship. And for some reason, either she wasn't reporting it or that or the. Or the police weren't taking it seriously, but it's pretty scary. So this is where things get interesting. And, you know, frankly, you know, so. So frankly, karma. I mean, I hate to say it, and no one should get murdered, but if anyone's gonna get murdered, if it's a murderer and a rapist, good. He was murdered himself. He was stabbed to death in California in 1987. And now DNA, or rather the Cold Case Unit, the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit, announced that they would have charged him today with the murder based on the evidence. So, like, yeah, anyways, it is a sad story of this young mom losing her life in a horrible, horrible way. But it also just makes you wonder, like, why was this guy allowed to just run around and do this stuff and, like, break into people's apartments and, you know, good questions. Second case is also, you're just chop, chop. Yeah. So right through these, we're going from New England to I guess the mid Atlantic states. We're going to New. New Jersey, where this is a case that happened in 2017. So my sources for this one are CBS News's report on this as well as there's a. I accessed articles from the Trenton Times in the South Jersey Times via newspapers.com Oftentimes, you know, I. I feel like when there's an update on a case, those kind of new news articles are helpful and kind of get you caught up, but they don't give you all of the whole context. And so I. I find newspapers.com very helpful in that respect. So this one actually reminded me of an Indiana case. You know, there's a horrible case out of Indiana that's the Blake and China Dickus murders. This was a young boy and his stepmom who were brutally murdered a number of years ago. It's still unsolved. One of those cases I've always been kind of interested in, maybe diving into more because it's one of those ones that really stands out. The. The crime was apparently extremely brutal, but it's also not known to be connected to anything else. So it's certainly like what happened there. But anyway, this was the case of a mother and son. It was. And I'm sorry if I say their names wrong. It was Sasikala Nara and her son, Anish Nara. She was 38, and he was only 6. They were living in the Fox Meadow Apartments in Mapleshade, New Jersey. That's where they were living in March 24, 2017. And the father and husband was a guy named Hanumantha Rao Nara. And the Naras both worked for a company, a technology company called Cognizant. And they were originally from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. This is on India's east coast. So they came over there. They had jobs. So anyways, Mr. Nara returned to their home around 9:30pm that night, he found his wife and child stabbed multiple times. It's a horrible crime scene. Lots of defensive wounds. They put up a fight. Their throats were cut, and it's just horrible. Neighbors at the time reported seeing him crying outside. I mean, it's just like a really bad situation. So it's interesting a couple of different things would come up. Indian media in India reported marital strife possibly. So some people, I think, were looking at Mr. Nara. Some people were worried that it was a hate crime. This is a couple. They're from India. Sometimes people have hate in their hearts, and they're gonna try to hurt people who are. Who are different from them or from a different place. And so people were concerned. It was that. But in 2019, a lab report, they're kind of going over it again and they sh. They find that this is a very bloody scene. But there's a single drop of blood at the scene that does not belong to anyone in the Nara family. And at that time, the name of a possible person of interest came up. This guy is named Nazir Hamid. He was a co worker of the Naras and he lived within walking distance of the family. This is all very vague. No, I don't know what went on between these people. But what's been reported again, very vaguely, is that he may have had a grudge against Mr. Nara, maybe followed him around. I don't know. I don't know what that means. If they're saying like he was stalking him or he was just obsessed with them or like what was going on. And Hamid. Mr. Hamid was. Yeah, Nazir Hamid was working in the United States on a visa. He was also from India. And six months after the murders he moved back to India. So investigators teamed up with federal law enforcement, I'm assuming the Federal Bureau of Investigation, although it doesn't make that clear, as well as police in India. And they wanted to get his DNA sample to compare it to the blood. He declined. So then in 2024, they actually got a court order. They went to Hamid's employer and they got them to send them his company issued laptop. And they got DNA from that and it was a match. So In November of 2025, prosecutors announced that Hamid has been charged with murder and related offenses. If you're like me, you're so into true crime that you kind of get extra careful about stuff, making sure you're not followed, for instance, staying situationally aware. And of course checking the locks on your doors and windows before bed. Better safe than sorry, right? Because we all know bad stuff can and unfortunately does happen.

[B]

Well, our sponsor, Simplisafe can help with your peace of mind. We've trusted Simplisafe's home security system for years. Traditional home security systems just don't cut it. They only go off after someone's breaking in. They are purely reactive.

[C]

Simplisafe is proactive. Their AI powered cameras detect threats while they're still outside. That's when live monitoring agents jump in. They can address the intruder directly, tell them they're on camera and that the police are coming. They can even set off alarms and sirens and lights.

[B]

We love Simplisafe. We used it when we were renters, we used it when we bought our home. It is so easy to set up and allows you so much flexibility. It's reliable. We've gotten threats over our reporting before, so we take this stuff very seriously. And with Simplisafe we feel we're in great hands.

[C]

So protect your home with SimpliSafe and get 50% off any new system. For a limited time, just go to simplisafe.com msheet that's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like Simplisafe. It's a new year. That means you need a new wardrobe and you need one without breaking the bank.

[B]

Our sponsor, Quince makes refreshing your style easy. Their pieces are high quality and thoughtfully designed, so you're not just buying clothes. You're making a good investment in a garment that will last a long time. We love their Mongolian cashmere sweaters, their silk dresses and their cute berets.

[C]

Quince keeps prices down on these premium fashion staples by cutting out the middleman. We've bought a lot of their clothing and we love the way these garments feel. They hold up really well.

[B]

I love my quince wool and Mongolian cashmere sweaters and my quince suede bomber jacket. Never been a big fashion guy, but I wear all of these regularly and I love the way they feel. The new purchase I'm most excited about getting in the new year is their cotton piquet knit overshirt. I really like the way it looks. It looks like an elevated version of what I usually wear and it seems great to help me layer and stay warm this winter. I'm really excited to get it and try it on.

[C]

I'm excited for Kevin to model it too. When you support our sponsors, you support us and we only support brands that we believe in. We know firsthand that Quints is the place to go for coats, sweaters, silk shirts, dresses, shoes, home goods, jewelry and more. You can get more with Quince because their prices for quality goods are significantly less than other brands.

[B]

Refresh your winter wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet why choose a sleep number? Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

[C]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[A]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D. power ranks sleep number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online. And now the more you buy, the more you save on beds, bases and more. Plus, get free home delivery on most beds with base limited time. For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit J.D. power.com awards. Check it out at the Speed number store today.

[C]

Now, that's all a great development, but here's where it kind of is. Not so great from what I can tell. And there may be updates. I. I haven't seen them, but they're still seeking his extradition back to the United States. So he may actually remain in India right now. It's not clear to me. He may have. They may have got him. I don't know, but they may not have. So hopefully they can get him and he can stand trial for this brutal murder of this innocent mother and child. That's a horrible, horrible crime. I can't even imagine that. So. Yeah, but good that there's been some developments and that they kept working on this one.

[B]

Absolutely.

[C]

So now I think we're going west.

[B]

Going to Colorado, the empire state of the middle of the country. No, my source for this is actually an opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals. Anya. We talk sometimes on the program about public access, by which we mean the right of the public to know what's going on in the court systems, to see how different trials operate, to see how the legal machinery operates. I'm curious, why is that important?

[C]

Well, so I. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, but we want, in our country, we want there to be no secret police or secret trials or secret courts that. Where citizens are being essentially grabbed and, like, thrown in prison. We want public scrutiny. We want people to be able to go and view trials. So it kind of goes back to that impulse of wanting everything to be out in the open and that people can comment on it. I mean, it's basically about the public should be an active participant in this in terms of reviewing it and making sure the system is working as it should. Is that basically it?

[B]

That's basically it. Because when you think about it, the state has an awesome power because the state has the power to take someone and arrest them and deprive them of their liberty and in some cases, deprive them of their life. And if the state has the power to do that to the guy down the street because they say, oh, he's a killer or he's a bad guy, in theory, they also have the power to do that to you. So it's all of our responsibilities Ultimately, in our own self interest, to really keep an eye on how this power is exercised. To make sure, to put it simply, there's nothing shady going on. It's very important for us to know how our courts operate. So public access, extraordinarily serious.

[C]

You know, it's interesting you say that, and it's like there's so much focus on true crime. So we have the interest in scrutinizing things, but we don't have the people who have the framework or the knowledge to be able to actually interpret what they're seeing. We have a lot of eyeballs. Not a lot of people actually have eyeballs attached to brains that understand it. So true crime is we fixed half of the puzzle. We got to keep working on the second part of that.

[B]

So this case involves a guy named Edward R. Sandoval, and this is a Colorado case. Back in 2020, he shot and killed his mother's boyfriend, Dennis Lozoya. He was found guilty of second degree murder in a trial that from the beginning of jury selection to verdict, I think lasted something like eight days. So here's what happened here. Both the state and the defense said, we want to have an extra large pool of prospective jurors. Number of reasons for that. Sometimes you're worried, oh, it's going to be hard to get the number of jurors we need. Let's get an extra large pool just to make sure that we'll be able to get done what we need to get done. So because of the extra large pool of jurors, the judge said, wait a minute, there's not going to be room in the courtroom for spectators. And if we try to squeeze some spectators in, they're going to be mixed in with the prospective jurors. They might contaminate what the jurors learned by talking about the case. So he says, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to have the public leave during jury selection and instead we're going to live stream it so people who are interested in watching it can watch it via livestream. Do you, Anya Cain, what do you think? Is that a good solution?

[C]

Yeah, that seems great.

[B]

Yeah, I agree. I think a lot of there are justices and judges out there who I don't think fully understand or appreciate the role of technology in giving the public access to these cases.

[C]

That's because we live in a gerontocracy.

[B]

I think back to the Delphi trial, where technically the public had access to go in and want the trial, but it was extraordinarily difficult to get in.

[C]

Oh, was it? I don't remember that.

[B]

No.

[C]

Yeah, I think it was.

[B]

If a choice had been made to live stream it, that would have created more meaningful public access.

[C]

We could have been warming at home.

[B]

So I, I think people need to recognize that.

[C]

I mean, ideally you do both, in my opinion. Ideally. But in this case, there were special circumstances.

[B]

Yeah, but the appeals court said, nope, by not letting members of the public sit in the courtroom during jury selection, public access violated. He needs a new trial.

[C]

Okay, I don't want to just like. I don't want to just be like, oh, that's stupid, because maybe there's. I don't know, maybe they have a point where there were the reasons that they gave that, you know, like, why is it, why is, why is it sacrosanct? When is being there in person, but technology that would actually allow even more people to access it is not good enough.

[B]

Well, they, they said the trial court judge, he could have done things differently. Like maybe instead having one big session of jury selection, break it up into two half sessions. That way you would need to have all the jury pool in the courtroom at one time. Or maybe after jurors are excused and leave the courtroom, say, okay, now members of the public can come in one or two at a time. So they're saying, what if all seats are taken by prospective jurors and jurors are dismissed, therefore there are empty seats. Why not invite the public to come in and fill those seats? That's what that argument is.

[C]

But how does the. Okay, I also understand why we have this rule, and it's a good rule. I believe in public access strongly, but how did them not getting to sit in on Voir, like, how did that deprive him of his rights? Exactly.

[B]

It's public access. Jury selection was, I think, basically one day of the eight day trial. That's a pretty big percentage of the trial, which, if you don't count the streaming, that's a big part of the trial that the public didn't have access to.

[C]

Okay. I mean, I'm looking at these folks and they don't even look that old. So I don't even think it was a problem where it was like, grandpa doesn't understand how zoom works. It sounds like they're just sticklers for, you know, kind of the traditional view of what public access is. You know, I don't think we can blame it on their age, necessarily.

[B]

I don't think it's necessarily their age. I think there's a lot Of I.

[C]

Think there's just maybe a more conservative view of this stuff within the judiciary because, like, that's not how it's always been done. So therefore, you know, like, we got, you know, we got to do it the way it's always been done. I mean, I, I mean, I, I get that to a certain extent you want to be cautious. Right. But I think I can see kind of having this be an issue. But giving someone a new trial base on this seems like just kind of dumb, I guess.

[B]

I can remember instances in Indiana where a prospective juror pool filled the courtroom and there wasn't really room for the public to come in. And it wasn't seen as a big deal. And that was even before live streaming. But I think certainly maybe judges and attorneys in the future may be aware of things like this.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's good to be aware of things like this. I guess I just think it seems like kind of like an, an extreme reaction to this, I guess, was. Is what I would say. It's kind of. It's kind of extreme. You're going to throw out a verdict, you're going to throw out a whole, you know, court case, you're going to throw out a whole trial because people didn't get in to sit in with. And like, I mean, obviously it doesn't matter whether or not the case is high profile or not. It doesn't matter whether it's a case like Delphi that we went to, where people are, we're doing the Hunger Games without the violence to get in, or whether it's a case where, like most cases, nobody shows up because people aren't aware of it and they don't care either way. It's. It's got to be treated the same.

[B]

If I remember correctly from the opinion, there was only a small number of the public there, maybe 10, 12 people. And I don't believe anybody logged in onto the streaming.

[C]

I guess. What do you think about this? On the one hand, like, the practical side of me is like, you're gonna make everyone go through another trial for this, for like, for, for this. But at the same time, I mean, I guess if they have like a very sharp, you know, strict interpretation of public access, it seems, as a layperson, it seems really misguided, but maybe they are just trying to protect public access in the way that they feel it should be done. I don't know.

[B]

I think in this day and age, I would be inclined to count streaming. I'd be inclined to say that serves the Purpose. We talked about the purpose of public access. Basically, we want to be able to see what's going on, to have a little bit of a check on government power. And to me, being able to see what is going on, I can do that from the courtroom. I can do that from my house. Watching live streaming, I'd be open to.

[C]

Hearing if somebody has some interpretation of this, where, for streaming somehow is lesser than or not fulfilling, you know, what it's supposed to be doing with public access. I'd be certainly open to that, because it's possible that there's something we're just totally missing here. But, yeah, I think streaming in many cases is superior to making people schlep in there. You know, I mean, it. It's. It's. It. So this is surprising. And again, the. The. What they're doing then where. Okay, do it again. Is also surprising to me. Yeah, it seems misguided, but again, there's maybe something wrong with.

[B]

It seems misguided to me too. They make a big deal. The prosecutor again suggested, let's do it in two sessions so we can fit people in if they want to. So there were other options. So they're saying the judge went to the most restrictive option, which was inappropriate. But, yeah, I think streaming counts, and.

[C]

So the relief is due a new trial. I just. I don't know. This is where, like, I feel like sometimes you see decisions and you're like, do these judges live in the same reality as the rest of us? Because, like, sometimes it doesn't feel like that in some of these decisions.

[B]

Shall we move on to the great state of Mississippi?

[C]

Yes, let's do it.

[B]

Mississippi, Mississippi mud. Isn't that a song?

[C]

What?

[B]

I think Bing Crosby sang about the Mississippi.

[C]

You deserve floundering because you don't know what the nickname is.

[B]

Do you know the nickname of Mississippi?

[C]

It's the Magnolia State. I just looked it up on my computer. I'm not gonna lie. But that sounded so good for a couple minutes.

[B]

For a second, I was really impressed.

[C]

All the Mississippi people listening were like.

[B]

Damn, she gets us.

[C]

She gets us.

[B]

Okay, so this is another appeal. I decided to look at two appeals today. This is an appeal that is in progress. So I'll be talking about a brief that was filed by attorneys representing a man named William Polo Edwards. Polo is a nickname. He had some sort of online presence on Facebook and new media, and I guess he used the name Polo. So he was accused and ultimately convicted of murder. So with that in mind, let's look at what happened. Not only during his trial. But before his trial, he had some strained relations with his attorney. At one point, a few months before the trial, he tries to get a new attorney. Then he and his attorney seem to reconcile. But then as the trial date approached, actually one week before the trial, he again says, I don't feel comfortable with this attorney. So the judge says, do you definitely wanted to discharge him? And he says, yes. And again, this is a week before the trial. So the attorney is discharged. After which the judge says, well, guess what? The trial is still happening in a week, and I'm not going to postpone it. And the prosecutor says, wait a minute. So this guy's going to be representing himself? And Mr. Edwards says, I don't intend to represent myself. Obviously, even if you are a highly skilled attorney, even if you are a combination of Perry Mason and Clarence Darrow, it would be a bad idea to represent yourself in a murder trial. It would be an extraordinarily bad idea, an unprecedentedly bad idea to represent yourself in a murder trial if you're not an attorney. So he says, no, this was never my intent. I'd like to have a new lawyer. And they ultimately are able to find a woman who says, yes, I would be willing to take this case on, but if I do, there needs to be a continuance, because the trial is literally a few days away. And so because of that, I'm not going to have time to prepare. And the prosecutor and the prosecution say, that's fine. We'd have no problem with the trial being delayed so this other attorney can get up to speed on it. And the judge says, nah, let's go ahead with the trial. And she lets this man have a legal advisor, so he goes onto the trial and is ultimately convicted. So what do you think of that?

[C]

I mean, I don't know. He sounds like an idiot. But at the same time, like, you should have a lawyer. If the prosecution. It feels like the judge. When a judge makes a decision that almost could be read as, like, a fit of pique, then that's not a good thing. And it sort of sounds like it's sort of like, you know, the judge is basically like, you know, you messed around and now you're gonna find out. But the thing is, like, again, it's a murder trial, so.

[B]

And a right to counsel is very, very important.

[C]

This sounds like it's gonna get overturned on appeal.

[B]

Think of all the things that we do in life that would be a bad idea to do without an expert. You know, if you buy a house, you're gonna get a real estate agent. If you need a car repair, you're gonna take it to a mechanic. We rely on experts in a specialized world.

[C]

Well, this guy's the cipher voice. So, you know, he obviously thought he.

[B]

Cypher voice.

[C]

That's what they call him, the cipher voice.

[B]

He didn't. He did not want to represent himself.

[C]

And yeah, again, he sounds like an idiot, but at the same time, that, that doesn't mean he doesn't have constitutional rights. Here's the thing, like, there's stuff where it's almost like, from, like, just like in life, letting someone make a terrible choice and kind of fall down the hill, you can kind of understand that. But you can't really just do that as a judge. You have to. If everyone's like, let's just delay it, then just delay it. That's obviously the right thing to do.

[B]

Right to counsel. Tremendously important. If you go into a trial without an attorney at your side, the deck is stacked against you. You're probably going to lose. And I think that's a violation of your rights. And I don't feel comfortable when that happens to anyone. And it's a reasonable check on governmental power to make sure that everybody who is tried, especially in a murder case, needs to have an actual attorney. So I find that very, very troubling.

[C]

So you think it's going to get overturned, presumably?

[B]

I would hope so, unless the facts in this brief are completely wrong. And they don't appear to be, because I also looked at some media articles.

[C]

Why did he want his first attorney off?

[B]

He didn't like him, didn't feel he was giving him enough time. People often have complaints about their lawyers.

[C]

People have really stupid expectations of defense lawyers, I think. You know, like, I mean, to. To the point where it's like, I think also people watch TV and they think, oh, that's good defense attorneying. And it's often not. Like, sometimes the thing that you're going to really need to do is get a really good plea deal. That's not sexy. And people want like, no, I want you to go out there and yell and defend me. And it's like, that's not necessarily going to get you the best outcome. But yeah, no, I mean, it just. Just delay things. I mean, you can't. You're not in a position where you could just be like, you know, okay, whatever, and then pushing it. I feel like for me, like, pushing it to go forward really kind of seals the deal here. Because when there was an option to just delay and everything works out.

[B]

If you, as a prosecutor, saying, I don't have trouble with the delay.

[C]

Yeah, maybe. Maybe do a delay, that's a problem. So, yeah, it sounds like that might. Might get thrown out.

[B]

I want to talk about something else this judge did during this trial.

[C]

Oh, my God. What else?

[B]

So another thing to keep in mind is if you're.

[C]

She dressed up as Elvis.

[B]

No, you're getting very confused, Anya. Another thing to keep in mind is that when you're a juror in a trial, you tend to give a lot of deference to the judge. The judge is the one that's there explaining the process. The judge is the one sitting on the bench. And there's a real tendency to think this is the ultimate authority on things. The judge, before the trial begins, after the trial over, before you begin deliberation, the judge reads instructions. The judge is telling you things that you think have the authority and rule of law. So at one point during the trial, the defense, as defense often do, they try to impugn the quality of some evidence and try to suggest it may have been tampered with. And the fact of the matter is, defense attorneys do this all the time. If there's evidence against your client or your side, maybe there's something wrong with that evidence.

[C]

Oh, maybe it was tampered with. Maybe the cops planted it.

[B]

The judge said, I'm going to read some of the things the judge said to the jury. Quote, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're instructed that a moment ago there was an attempt to manufacture some testimony that certain evidence had been manipulated or in some other way tampered with. The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence sufficient that there was any tampering with any evidence. You are instructed to disregard any indication of manipulation or tampering of any evidence. End quote. So she's basically telling them what to conclude.

[C]

Okay, I'm. I. I have a question for you.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

Like, where is the line with that if a defense attorney is essentially lying? We've seen that. You know, I mean, we've seen people lying in briefs, essentially. Where is the line like, can you say that? Or do you just have to let the jury interpret it?

[B]

Or.

[C]

Or is this a situation where it's like. I mean, because it seems to me like if a defense attorney wants to call into question the bona fides of evidence or expert testimony, they should be allowed to do that, because that's how you defend your client.

[B]

That's how you defend your client. And to my way of thinking, if the defense overstates it, and if the defense crosses some lines, the prosecution, God knows, can put on rebuttal witness.

[C]

Right. That's what I was. That would be.

[B]

She's basically.

[C]

She's putting her thumb on the scale.

[B]

She's putting her thumb on the scale in a way that makes me uncomfortable. And in addition to that, if your authority figure is basically saying, oh, the defense is doing something shady here, I think that also might be. Make you inclined to think, well, maybe the defense is just generally shady. Maybe I shouldn't give much credence to anything they say.

[C]

Right. You know, I mean, we often can have some harsh words for defense attorneys who are pulling shenanigans in the courtroom. Is that fair to say?

[B]

That's fair to say, but we're podcasters.

[C]

We're not judges. The judge doesn't need to weigh in on it. If there's something where, like, someone's suborning perjury, I guess, then that's something. That's a different situation. But if it's something where it's just like she didn't find whatever they said compelling to kind of knock down the evidence, then, you know, that's something you kind of keep to yourself. I think in most cases, unless I'm really missing something here.

[B]

I find it troubling.

[C]

Yeah, this is you, you, you. This is why you need to have judges who are going to be patient and fair to both sides. Like, we, again, not to bring everything back to Delphi, but when oftentimes it was discussed, you know, online. Oh, well, Judge Goal is so unfair to the Delphi defense team. And I think that was overstated because in court, I mean, she often deferred to them or made rulings in their favor at trial. I mean, that was. That was not uncommon. And people were collegial at that point. You know, there were things that got heated beforehand, and it was sort of like, definitely more dramatic than most cases. But even in a case where I am sure there was a lot of personal animosity in the sense that, like, these people all do not like each other, there was still, like, a level of professionalism, and there was never anything where, you know, Gull was saying, like, don't believe these guys. They're liars. You know, even though. Because they had, you know, because of their behavior, I'm sure she had doubts about their credibility. You just don't. You just don't say that to the jury. It's like, you know, it's. It's sort of like you don't want to say certain things in front of the kids. Right. You know, you don't want to be like, you know, your father's a lying, you know, sack of. You know what, like, you want. You. You want to keep everything very nice and respectful because otherwise you could be seriously violating someone's rights. And in this case, it sounds like possibly wasting everyone's time and wasting a lot of money to put on a trial that then is going to be thrown out, and then you have everyone has to do it all over again. And that can be re. Traumatizing to victims, families. It's, it's, you know, it's not good for anybody to have to do everything over because stuff went wrong.

[B]

Yeah. I find the actions of the judge of this case to be troubling.

[C]

Indeed.

[B]

But in fairness, I'm just responding to what was in the brief filed by the defense. And there's always another side, so who knows? And if you have any background information on either of these two appellate cases I've discussed, please feel free to share it. I always love getting new information and insights.

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

And you said, speaking of new information and insights, you said you have a rollicking tale to ring in the new year. You said it'd make me laugh and then I'd find myself wiping away at 2.

[C]

I don't think it's that good. I'm really running low on anecdotes. I don't know.

[B]

But before that, are there any. Are there any things we should talk about prior to the. The story?

[C]

No. I mean, we. We might have some Author events in 2026. Certainly could happen.

[B]

So you can get your cane fix in 2026 potentially.

[C]

Don't say cane fix. That just sounds weird.

[B]

It rhymes.

[C]

People are coming to see both of us, not just me.

[B]

Then if you're cane and Greenleaf fix, we have to add other syllables.

[C]

No one's making you be Dr. Seuss. You don't have to rhyme. I choose to talk like a normal person.

[B]

I choose to be Dr. Seuss. No, I know. You're also very excited because here in early 2026, we're going to be seeing the nationwide rollout of Mr. Pip, which I think will unite this great nation.

[C]

Yeah. Working class Dr. Pepper.

[B]

Anya. Yeah. What, if any, are your New Year's resolutions?

[C]

I'm not a big New Year's resolutions person.

[B]

You feel you're perfect as you are now?

[C]

I'm just. I'm too overwhelmed and lazy to do anything. How about yourself?

[B]

Oh, I'm going to try to get More fit. Oh, you're going to get more exercise.

[C]

Hit the gym.

[B]

As you just say. You're just lazy. You'll just be lollygagging with your feet up.

[C]

That's right. And you'll be hitting the gym. Is that right?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Well, we'll see if that happens. That'd be great. I mean, yeah, you should start lifting irons.

[B]

Lifting irons.

[C]

I don't know what they do. Pumping the weights. Kevin becomes a gym bro. Slowly, over the course of. Of this podcast.

[B]

If you want to watch my progress, I never said I was going to join a gym. I said I was going to try to get in a little bit better shape.

[C]

Like, what. What are your methods, your proposed ideas?

[B]

Perhaps periodically I can take a walk.

[C]

Okay, that's good.

[B]

Because all we do now sit around is we just sit around and stew.

[C]

Sit around and look at each other.

[B]

That's not fun for anybody.

[C]

Oh, geez. All right. So, yeah. But nothing really to announce. I will. I'll say this like, we've been really gobsmacked by the response to our book, and we're really grateful to everyone who got a copy. If you have any true crime sleuths or true crime people in your life, feel free to get them a copy, because I think it's. I. I'm extremely proud of the work we did, and I think it's a book that will make people understand the Delphi case and also the drawbacks of true crime in general. So I hope that it's a warning flare that can go out and sort of let people know of, like, what's going on here and how we need to do better within true crime. So if you have somebody that you want to get it for, then we appreciate that. And the book is called Shadow of.

[B]

The Bridge, and there's actually a resolution for both of us that I think the listeners can help us with. We've worked way too hard this last year, so we're going to try to take more time for our personal lives this year. And I think you would agree, Anya, that one thing we've completely failed on one thing. We've just completely fumbled the ball. On one thing that's just been a complete disgrace for us on a personal level is how we spend our Valentine's Days.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

Do you remember one year we wrote an email to Keg and Klein on Valentine's Day?

[C]

Oh, my God. Yeah. That was like, the least romantic thing ever. Yeah, I do remember that.

[B]

Now, is that the least romantic thing or. I remember when we lived in Brooklyn we saw that White Castle was having a special Valentine's Day event. Oh.

[C]

Who. Who do you think insisted upon doing that, though? That was more of a you problem.

[B]

So we have the Kegan Klein email for Valentine's Day. We have the white.

[C]

So if you know what, I don't like White Castle. I did not care for that meal.

[B]

I'm not defending it.

[C]

He loves White Castle. I'm saying this man is obsessed.

[B]

I'm saying we gotta do better for Valentine's Day this year. Maybe listeners can send in ideas for us to do.

[C]

No pedophiles and no White Castle. If we can. If we can avoid that on Valentine's Day this year, we are winning. We're doing better than the past.

[B]

Do you think you're setting the sights too high?

[C]

I don't know.

[B]

I. I don't know.

[C]

We live a very strange life.

[B]

I don't know if we can clear both those hurdles. I think one at least. But if people have ideas.

[C]

Yeah, no, no. Maybe no one actually in prison in general. But yeah, if anyone has. I mean, so you're. You're soliciting Valentine's Day ideas from the listeners.

[B]

Obviously, we need help.

[C]

That's kind of weird. Okay, we're going to do my silly story now.

[B]

And then one year, we went to, like, a romantic restaurant, and it was like, you melt cheese or something.

[C]

That was a billion dollars. Remember? That was somehow the most expensive thing that ever happened.

[B]

Yeah, you. These very, very tiny portions. And anyway, it's okay because it's fun to have, like, an open fire on your table and be dipping things in goo. Yeah, that's. That seems pretty good.

[C]

That screams Valentine's Day.

[B]

And so I would have been fine with that. But then the bill was comically high.

[C]

The bill, like, I don't know why. Like, I'm sure, like. Like there's been more expensive places we ate up. But, like, it felt like there were more. There was more value in those places with the. Yeah. You know, Valentine's Day is tricky, and neither of us are very, like. I feel like we're just kind of weirdos. That's why we got married.

[B]

So we need the help. I'm not telling the listeners to be like Cyrano and be like, it sounds like you are. Like, we just have little earpieces where listeners.

[C]

Yeah, it sounds like that's gonna happen. And you know what? I know that you guys have a sense of humor, so that would go disastrously wrong pretty quickly, I think. Go back to the fondue place, Kevin. Anya, go to White Castle people can.

[B]

Tell us what worked for them. What was a fun, romantic Valentine's Day?

[C]

Okay, well, we're recording in December, and then this is coming out in January.

[B]

So, like six weeks away. That's a blink of an eye. A twist of the head.

[C]

What?

[B]

The kick of the heels.

[C]

Oh, God. Okay, let's just move on to my anecdote before this continues. So my anecdote. This sounds so sad.

[B]

This is. Should we get. Should we hire Kevin Tyler Greenlee to write Anya anecdote theme music?

[C]

It's not just. I'm not the only one doing them. You're doing them too. So would you have a different theme?

[B]

I think you'd have to.

[C]

It's Kevin's haunting anecdote theme.

[B]

Because I think our anecdotes have a. Have a different flavor.

[C]

So this is my anecdote. It was. It was kind of funny. So the first dog I ever had was a mini poodle. Mini poodle. He was a white mini poodle, fluffy guy. A senior dog we adopted. And his name, I named him. Well, I. I mean, me and my siblings named him. In fairness, I think he was originally named Rocco. We changed his name to Albus Dumbledore because we were really into Harry Potter. So this is. I was like, in. I want to say, like, eighth or ninth grade. Albus Dumbledore was a great dog. I remember my parents were like, we're gonna get an older dog. And I was like, oh, he's going to die immediately. So we're all, like, freaked out that he's going to die immediately, but he was fine. We had him for, like, many years. And he was a great dog. Very sassy. And he. He kind of. Though, because he was older, he kind of had like a. How do I say this? He didn't really give much of a care about what anyone was going to tell him to do. Like, he was like a good dog. But he was also kind of like, listen, I have my way of doing things, and it's worked for me so far, so I'm going to go and proceed to do that. So one day he got out of our yard. I get. He was a little guy, and there was, I guess some kind of hole in the fence that he slipped out from. And I was the one who was supposed to be watching him. So I am in, like, eighth or ninth grade, and I'm in, like a full set of penguin themed pajamas. That's. That's how I'm dressed. It's like in the morning, I'm. He's gone. I can't find him. I start freaking out. I immediately go and start running down my street because I have a hunch that he got through the fence and that he's basically, like, went on another street. But the thing is, like, I would. You can't really get. It's a whole complicated geographical thing. But I'd have to basically run down to this area where, like, there was a dog park and then kind of cross over and then I might get on the street where he's probably on. So I'm running, I'm screaming his name. So again, I'm in penguin pajama pants and I'm screaming Albus Dumbledore. And this, like, older couple's walking their dog, and they're just looking at me like, what the hell's going on here? This strange child is wearing penguin pajamas and screaming the name of a fictional wizard.

[B]

What is.

[C]

What is happening? And I'm like, have you seen a small dog? And they're like, no. And then I keep running, and then I. I do cross over onto the street that they think he's on. And he is so casually just walking down, just literally strolling, strutting, one might say, looking really pleased with himself and looking at me like, oh, hey, Anya, what's up? Just went for a walk. So I grabbed him. He was funny. But, yeah, he. He didn't really run away. Like, we could bring him to the dog park. He was funny at the dog park. He acted like he was the police of the dog park, even though he was little, ridiculous poodle people. Some of the dogs would be, like. The younger dogs would be roughhousing a bit, and he'd go up to these big dogs and he'd be almost barking at him, like, stop it. Slow down. And, yeah, he was a great dog, but he was. That was the time that he embarrassed me in public because I had to go run around in my penguin pajama pants. And I was a very awkward young lady. So I was very embarrassed about that for a while afterwards.

[B]

Like, 19. 20.

[C]

19. When I was young, it was 1920.

[B]

No, I'm asking. Is that how old you were? Like, 19 or 20?

[C]

No, I was, like, in ninth grade. So, like, I don't know, 15. Yeah, it's an awkward phase for a lot of people, and I was no exception to that rule.

[B]

No.

[C]

But my love for my dog prompted me to go out and embarrass myself. Yeah, he was a sweetie. RIP Albus. Anything else? We got it. All right, well, thank you all so much. And welcome to 2026. Hope this is a is a good year for all of us. Bye bye.

[B]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[C]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[B]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[C]

Other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Early Birds Always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on verbo and save over $530 on week long stays. Average savings $550 select homes only minimum 7 day stay required.