Loading summary
Transcript117 lines
- [00:00]
A
It's full fledged fall out there. It's sweater season and I'm thrilled about it because that means we went on a new Quint's shopping spree.
- [00:08]
B
We love our sponsor Quints. It's our go to for quality pieces. They offer $50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters for everyday style, Italian wool coats with designer cuts, fashionable denim, silk tops and skirts.
- [00:24]
A
To upgrade your closet. The the perfect ingredients for a wardrobe that's affordable, easy to maintain and always in style. Just recently I got Kevin two lovely looking new quince sweaters. One is a black Australian merino wool cable crew neck sweater. The other is a true navy Mongolian cashmere crew neck sweater. I think he looks rather handsome in them and I think he's adorable.
- [00:47]
B
Plus they're super comfortable and easy to wear. I'm not one for expanding my style all that often, but but Quince makes it so easy by offering prices 50% less than other brands. They cut out the middleman and make it easy for you to spruce up your style this holiday season. Check them out now.
- [01:06]
A
Step into the holiday season with layers made to feel good, look polished and last from Quince, perfect for gifting or keeping for yourself. 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 to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quinns.com msheet we love cornbread Hemp's CBD Gummies We've had a busy year in terms of writing and promoting our crime nonfiction book and continuing to produce the podcast. At the same time. Cornbread Hemp Gummies have helped us with sleep, stress, aches and more.
- [01:45]
B
Cornbread Hemp CBD Gummies help us manage eggs everything. We've been enjoying their berry CBD gummies which taste so good and their sleep CBD gummies as well as their CBD lotion. What we love about Cornbread Hemp is that these products work with your body, not against it. We've been really impressed by the results.
- [02:06]
A
As a tense and pretty anxious person, Cornbread Hemp CBD Gummies help me feel less stress. These gummies are made with full spectrum CBD for maximum potency plus their flour only extraction means you're not eating sticks, stems or leaves. It's all organic, vegan and gluten free and I love it.
- [02:24]
B
Cornbread Hemp is all about quality products. They're looking to help improve your life through the highest quality CBD plus they're based in our neighboring state of Kentucky, which has a hemp tradition going back 250 years. Cornbread products are all third party lab tested and are USDA organic. So what you're getting is safe and pure CBD. And as a reminder, CBD is non intoxicating right now.
- [02:54]
A
Murder Sheet listeners can save 30% on their first order. Just head to cornbreadhemp.com msheet and use code MSHEET at checkout. That's cornbreadhemp.commsheet and use code msheet content warning this episode contains discussion of violence and murder. So today we are going to talk once more again about the University of Idaho murders. And this, of course, was the brutal homicide of four young people in Moscow, Idaho. 4 University of Idaho students, Ethan Chapin, Zander Kernodle, Kelly Gonzalez and Madison Mogan. This case really gripped a lot of people, understandably, because it was so brutal and just bizarre in terms of why would anyone do this? A person was ultimately arrested, and while we were all waiting for trial to go through, that person subsequently pleaded guilty to all four counts. There was a plea agreement, and that plea agreement saw that this person would be essentially, you know, get a life sentence and have no ability to appeal that.
- [04:02]
B
Right.
- [04:03]
A
So part of that plea agreement that was less, I think, talked about involved money, involved compensation. And so today we are going to talk about it and get into that because there have been some recent developments in the case over the topic of money, or as it's called in this situation, restitution.
- [04:25]
B
Let's get to it.
- [04:26]
A
Let's do it. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.
- [04:30]
B
And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.
- [04:33]
A
And this is the Murder Sheet.
- [04:34]
B
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder sheet, and this is.
- [04:43]
A
The University of Idaho money. SAM.
- [05:31]
B
So the heart of the issue, and correct me if I'm wrong, Anya, is that is part of the funeral expenses that the convicted or the the killer who pled guilty agreed to pay. The the state has come back and said we think this should include the cost of some urns for some of your victims. And his attorneys are saying he doesn't have the money to pay for the urns. And that was what this hearing was about.
- [05:59]
A
Yeah, that's kind of in the nutshell of what sparked it. The hearing occurred on November 5, 2025, and it was before, again, Judge Steven Hippler, who was running all the pre trial things from Ada County, Idaho. And it involved these urns. And it was about additional payments. There had been some payments and restitution rather for funeral costs that were around some of the victims. And then they were saying, well, these count as funeral costs too. And, and it was a pretty short hearing. And we can kind of just go over, I guess what happened and talk about sort of the implications. And what some of this means is that, is that okay?
- [06:39]
B
Yeah. But basically, wasn't the, the killer's defense arguing, we just don't have the money to pay for these urns? He's incarcerated, he's not making money?
- [06:50]
A
That's exactly right. So it's a situation where it's about funeral costs. And just before we get started, I do want to go over what the Apple agreement said on this because I think that's what we're all basing this off of. That's what we were all talking about. And of course, the perpetrator pled guilty to four counts of murder in the first degree as well as burglary. And was, was got fixed consecutive life sentences for those murders, 10 years for the burglary. And in addition to that, it said, quote, state may seek restitution orders regarding funeral expenses and crime victims compensation reimbursement in an amount to be determined. So previous things for that, previous monies that were kind of, kind of put toward that from this criminal, were around 14,000 for the Crime Victims Compensation Program, around 8,800 for Jeffrey Kirk Kernodle. That of course, Zanna's, Zanna's father, Jim and Stacy Chapin, Ethan's parents, 5700. So those are some of the funeral expenses. Now what happened recently that complicated things was when Bill Thompson of the Lato County Prosecutor's office, he's the county prosecutor there, when he filed asking for additional restitution, he also wanted to put lodging and travel expenses on this. And they did address that in this hearing in terms of whether or not you're allowed to do that. Because you might think, okay, well that would make sense. Right? But, but no, but does the statute cover it? And the answer is no.
- [08:33]
B
Yeah.
- [08:34]
A
So this meeting essentially started out with Bill Thompson saying, hey, my bad, I looked at the law more. That was a mistake. We, we, you know, we can't get lodging, travel. We, we can only get funeral expenses and victims compensation fund. So he's like backing off that immediately in terms of who was representing. This was a zoom meeting. So the attorneys were not in the same room. You had Judge Steven Hippler, who is amazing. I love him. He has no nonsense. He's the definition of no nonsense. He's in his courtroom, in his robe, at the bench, and then you have all the attorneys in just separate places. So those included Alyssa Massath and Bica Barlow and of course, Ann Taylor, the lead counsel for the perpetrator here. And then Bill Thompson is the only representative of the state. And they're all in their little offices. It's all very 2021, but. Yeah, so that's kind of where we start.
- [09:40]
B
And so the real matter of contention is, again, the price of these urns, where the prosecution says the convicted killer should have to come up with the money to pay for these urns. And his representatives are saying he doesn't have the money, not clear how he could be expected to get the money. And so then there is a discussion. Well, we know in the past he's received money from family, from people online. And so there was a reasonable expectation that he will continue to receive money. And in fact, the money he received from those sources is said to have been in the five figures. And so if he continues to receive said monies, it shouldn't be a big deal for him to have to bear this expense. Why not go ahead and basically put this debit on his account so this expense could be first in line. And then they got into a discussion essentially of Son of Sam laws.
- [10:43]
A
Yes. So we should explain what the Son of Sam laws are.
- [10:49]
B
Yeah, the Son of Sam laws are laws put in place inspired by the Son of Sam case, obviously, which state that a perpetrator of a crime cannot profit from that crime by, like, writing a book or being in a documentary or a movie. And I think the reason for the intent behind that is pretty obvious. I'll use our classic example. If you, Anya, go on a wild spree stealing cereal boxes and get nationwide notoriety for that slow news day, I guess, should you then be able to write a book or be in a movie about how you did all these. This damage to a variety of small businesses across this great land. While they're suffering, they've incurred all these losses. You get a lot of money from your crimes. Oh, boy.
- [11:47]
A
Yeah.
- [11:48]
B
That doesn't seem right, does it?
- [11:49]
A
Sounds pretty good to me.
- [11:52]
B
Well, most people would take the other point of view. That's not right.
- [11:58]
A
Serial Heist, Yanya Cain Story, the Visions of Hollywood.
- [12:04]
B
I've given you an idea. And as you indicated there, it's also possible that if you commit a crime and write a book about it, and become a celebrated figure or well known figure that might even inspire other people to say, oh, if I commit a crime and write about it, I'll be rich. And so because of this, some laws were written forbidding that, saying a person can't profit from writing a book or being in a movie or whatever about their crimes. That money will be taken and given to the victims families. But Anya, are there any problems with that?
- [12:43]
A
I don't know.
- [12:44]
B
Well, we have a First Amendment in this country, don't we?
- [12:48]
A
Ah, I see. So that, that butts up against your First Amendment, your constitutional rights with which don't necessarily completely disappear, even if you are incarcerated and convicted and lose some of your rights from doing crimes.
- [13:03]
B
And also keep in mind that there's a lot of celebrated books which include depictions of crimes perpetrated by the authority. I'll give you a couple of the classic examples. What about Malcolm X's autobiography? This is a person who in his younger days committed some crimes, then he reforms and he becomes a religious leader and he wrote a book about it with Alex Haley.
- [13:35]
A
Was there a statute of limitations though?
- [13:38]
B
But if the law is you can't be paid for a book about your crimes and he writes a book which covers some of his crimes, couldn't that arguably be prohibited under that law?
- [13:50]
A
Right, I see what you mean.
- [13:52]
B
Another example, which you're probably more familiar with than me, the Confessions of St. Augustine.
- [13:58]
A
I love it.
- [13:59]
B
Would that be. Would he be allowed to profit from that under the Son of Sam law?
- [14:03]
A
Oh, man. I mean, was he doing. I mean, I don't really recall. He was definitely living a life of. Of sin. But I don't know, you're.
- [14:13]
B
You're the Catholic.
- [14:14]
A
I guess maybe back then it would have been some crimes. I. I guess, yeah. No, I mean, it definitely raises the question it's not just necessarily murderers that this would affect, it's anyone who breaks the law whatsoever. So if I write a book about how much I love jaywalking or something, you know, pretty boring, probably not going to make a lot of money, but whatever money I do make would possibly be covered by a Son of Sam law.
- [14:37]
B
And then what about. I've been reading a lot about Watergate recently, so that's subject to another argument. People had a lot of questions about Watergate that we only got answers to because some of the people involved had a profit motive to write memoirs. So if we have this Son of Sam law in place, will that create a situation where it's less likely for us to get some information about Crimes.
- [15:04]
A
I want to say a couple things, too, because I see comments around this a lot. You know, when, when we're talking about. And I think I even saw some comments around this where there's supposed to be some sort of Lifetime movie being made about University of Idaho murder specifically. And a lot of people ask us, can't the family stop this if it's exploitative? And the answer is no, Usually no. Because the First Amendment is pretty sacrosanct in our society, in the United States. And that doesn't mean something's ethically good or morally good. But there's a big difference between having legal recourse to deal with the situation and, you know, like, something being good. So that's another little wrinkle here. I do want to say, though, you know, in. In this situation, I personally feel. And again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a fancy. I'm a simple country journalist who maybe. Maybe is also a serial thief. But when I look at this, it seems like a really big difference between a mass murderer. I mean, let's go back to the, you know, the, the person this. These kinds of laws are sort of named after. It's David Berkowitz. Not going to use his stupid little serial killer name. He was a serial killer. He, I think, killed like, six people, wounded seriously, a lot of others, just in a shooting spree in New York city in from 75 to 77. So he did. He did a lot of harm. And there was, I know in the instant he was captured, there was all of these whispers about, like, big publishing contracts coming his way and he's going to get a lot of money from this. And so, you know, to me, they're just. I mean, just morally, there seems like a difference. Now, I don't. I'm not saying I know how to. I would know how to tailor some legislation so as to not affect the rights of everything else. But. But certainly in this situation, I can understand why people would be completely outraged that this guy was gonna make a lot of money off of the heinous things he did. And also, you know, I mean, you could say, well, you know, just shame the publishers or whatever. Don't boycott them or something. And. Yeah, I mean, I hear that, but I can. I can understand why people were just, like, incensed by that.
- [17:20]
B
But as you said, it's hard to tailor a law so it only applies to the worst of the world or.
- [17:25]
A
The situations where we could all agree that it's necessary versus situations where it's like they're just caught up in this.
- [17:31]
B
We are busy, busy, busy. Between producing multiple episodes of the Murder Sheet each week and doing talks and signings for our new book, we strive to make time for chores and house cleaning every single day. Gotta maintain those habits, but sometimes it just adds to our sense of being overwhelmed.
- [17:48]
A
Sometimes. That's why our terrific new sponsor, Homaglo is such a game changer. This top rated home service platform will meet you where you are. To help you get your space clean and tidy, you can book cleaners on your schedule. You'll be checking tasks off your list and boosting your own peace of mind. With Homaglow. You can opt for a quick clean or book something well in advance. If you're looking for even more affordable options, you can go for their Forever Clean membership. You'll save $30 an hour on all future cleanings.
- [18:18]
B
The process is so simple. You go on their website. You pick a date, time and duration of service, then you match with a cleaner. All of their cleaners go through a certification process so you know you're getting the best.
- [18:31]
A
We're all working hard. Whether you've got a job you're passionate about, mysteries you need to solve, kids that need care and support, or side hustles that need tending. But you also need to take care of yourself. Opt for Homaglo. Whether you need long term cleaning support or just a touch up here and there, it's going to save you time and give you peace of mind and a clean house you'll be so happy with. Take home cleaning off your plate this fall by using homaglo. Head to homaglow.com murdersheet get your first three hours of cleaning for only $19. That's h o m e a g l o w.com murdersheet studying true crime tells us that sometimes the worst can happen. There's a real danger out there and you never know when it can strike within your own home.
- [19:18]
B
The big problem with traditional home security systems is that they react after an intruder is already breaking in or inside after your safety in space has already been violated. That's why we trust SimpliSafe to protect our home. And you can too. Murder Sheet listeners are going to get a great deal during SimpliSafe's biggest sale of the year, getting 60% off when you go to simplisafe.com msheet our SimpliSafe.
- [19:47]
A
Home security system is proactive. If our system detects potential criminals outside our residence, live agents are on it. They will confront Potential criminals before they even break in to let them know someone's watching. Monitoring agents take care of everything for you. Confronting the intruders with news that police are on the way. Flashing spotlights and sounding loud sirens.
- [20:09]
B
We've used Simplisafe for years. As true crime podcasters, we know all too well how important and life saving a home security system can be. We want to feel protected all the time because we know all the scary stories and we trust Simplisafe to prevent those kinds of things from happening to us.
- [20:29]
A
Don't miss out on Simplisafe's biggest sale of the year. 60% off. Right now, our listeners can save 60% off on the SimpliSafe home security system@simplisafe.com msheet that's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like Simplisafe.
- [20:48]
B
I'm going to give you another example. This is a rather famous example of someone profiting from their crimes. I'd be curious what your reaction is to this. And we haven't talked about this. Emmett Till. Emmett Till was a young man, happened to be black. He's visiting the south from Chicago. He is alleged to have behaved in some disrespectful way, allegedly, according to the white people, to a white woman. We've done an episode on the case.
- [21:20]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [21:21]
B
And because of that, a group of white people kidnap him, beat him, kill him.
- [21:28]
A
He was like 14.
- [21:30]
B
Tragic case. Couple of white people are put on trial for that. The jury acquits them. After that, because of double jeopardy, you can never charge them again. Life magazine gives them a big check and then they confess to the crimes and describe it for Life magazine.
- [21:54]
A
Jesus.
- [21:57]
B
And then after that they're kind of like shunned in their community. So do you think in that case, should we be appalled that these men got money for their crimes or is it a good thing that it got exposed and people could see what really happened?
- [22:15]
A
It seems like that's a pretty unique situation. I wouldn't necessarily like, say, oh, yes, they, it backfired on them spectacularly. So therefore, every single instance where something like that happens, you know, definitely write a check to these monsters. I don't know.
- [22:32]
B
I honestly go back and forth on that.
- [22:34]
A
I, I don't, I don't think it's good. I mean, I don't. I, I think it's like one of those things where just because it, like, you know, they are like Wily Coyote and they lit the rocket and then it smashed into them and Threw them off a cliff. You know, I mean, that seems like that would be the exception to the rule. In most instances. That wouldn't necessarily happen. So I wouldn't. I think that's appalling that they wrote them a check, but. Yeah. And also if they're that dumb, someone probably could have gotten them to confess for, you know, get them at the bar and start asking them questions.
- [23:06]
B
But, but all these are just examples how once you start regulating speech, First Amendment rights come into play and things just get very, very complicated. During this hearing, Judge Hippler actually raised another issue that can come into play with laws. Namely is it's not that hard to find loopholes. No matter how well a law is written, it's not terribly difficult to find loopholes. So if you can come up with a good argument saying, yes, yes, I believe despite the First Amendment issues, a criminal should never be allowed to profit from their crimes. I believe that. Okay. Do you believe there's any rationale to extending those prohibitions to members of the criminal's family who've done nothing wrong? And the reason I ask that is because Hitler says, what if a member of the killer's family in this case makes a deal to do a book or a documentary and gets a huge amount of money and then sends it to the killer? That doesn't seem to be in violation of the law.
- [24:20]
A
Right? Right. Done nothing wrong except raise a piece of trash and inflict it on society.
- [24:27]
B
So our argument in this case would be, you know, I get paid to participate in a documentary about your serial heists and I share some of my inside insights and information about that and then I just send the money to you in prison.
- [24:43]
A
Right, Right. So there's workarounds.
- [24:47]
B
So, and the whole point of all this discussion, of course, is to set up the idea that it's entirely likely, if not probable, that the killer is going to continue to receive money even though he is incarcerated.
- [25:03]
A
Here are some follow up questions. Kevin. You know, we've talked about maybe how Son of Sam laws can be precarious and that even I, I'm aware of the, the United States Supreme Court striking down at least one in terms of New York's Son of Sam law. Of course that's where Son of Sam happened.
- [25:27]
B
I think California's also might have been struck down. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- [25:30]
A
Right. So these are, these are on shaky ground. My understanding though is then New York basically rewrote it to be like, you know, victims of the crimes get like some sort of like alert when the person convicted gets over a certain amount of money, and at that point they can sue possibly to get some of that.
- [25:57]
B
So basically, instead of limiting a person's right to speak, they're trying to shift the focus on the victim's right to recoup some of the profits that the perpetrator is getting.
- [26:10]
A
That seems more so.
- [26:12]
B
It's like if the criminal gets a big paycheck, the state's gonna send a. Out a letter to the victim, say, hey, he's getting some money. You know, if you want to, maybe you can sue.
- [26:23]
A
Yeah, yeah. Get. Get us getting a certain amount back of that. Yeah.
- [26:27]
B
I mean, so you're more comfortable with that.
- [26:29]
A
It's not that I'm uncomfortable the first one, because it's just like, I don't know, if you're a serial killer, then you don't deserve to make money off of that. But it seems like I can understand why that would be constitutionally unsound. This sounds more constitutionally sound. It sounds more like. I don't know what the objection would be here. If it just gives crime victims and their survivors a leg up on recomping some of this stuff. I mean, if they're making money and, you know, they're getting a certain. Getting a concern amount where it would be worthwhile to file a lawsuit, then I feel like that's a. That's a compromise where. Doesn't preclude anyone's First Amendment rights, but it also ensures that, you know, hopefully in those cases, money won't be going to the perpetrator.
- [27:15]
B
Yeah. And what's key is, I think we all agree that the victims deserve to be compensated for what's happened to them if they're a victim of a crime. Not just in this case, but in any case. So we all agree on that objective. The only question is, how can we tailor the law that we can get to that objective without violating anyone's rights and without drawing in books like the Autobiography of Malcolm X or The Confessions of St. Augustine, which we don't believe should be, you know, affected by this.
- [27:55]
A
Right. And. And I'll note this New York law is. Is it's not even limited to projects a possible perpetrator could be involved in. It's actually any source, virtually any source. So I would imagine that it applies to, like, the bank of mom and dad as well. Yeah, you know, it just. I think the threshold looks like it's $10,000. So there's like, a certain amount where if it's under that, they're not. It's not necessarily gonna flag anything. Yeah, I mean, I. I think. I agree. I think ultimately you wanna. You wanna make the victims as whole as possible. They're never gonna be whole again because their loved ones in this case were murdered. But, you know, if you can kind of keep. Keep a substantive amount of money out of the creep who did the Idaho murders out of his hands, then that's a worthwhile goal and you just have to do it in a way that is constitutionally sound.
- [28:47]
B
And as you mentioned earlier about tailoring things, you don't want to violate someone's First Amendment's rights because you really can't tailor a law. So. Oh, it only applies to the worst of the worst. And the rest of us still have all of our rights. So you have to be very careful about how you tailor these things.
- [29:04]
A
You definitely do. And, you know, we're talking about this hearing. I will note that. Yeah, I mean, it was really about, as you said, putting the payments for these funeral expenses on top of everything else in order to have whatever funds he receives flow into that. And what was interesting was the defense was really strenuously arguing against this. And that really ticked off Judge Hipler. Having watched this thing, what were the.
- [29:34]
B
Arguments they were making?
- [29:36]
A
Well, Massath did most of the arguments. And one thing we learned. I will back up a little bit. One thing we learned that was interesting is, like, you know, you mentioned this perpetrator receiving five figures and, like, having a substantive amount of money in the past. And we learned a bit of where that came from. It came from his family, his family members. And, you know, they were putting in thousands of dollars. And I think that's. That's, you know, it's not a situation where it's like this person's fans are coming and furnishing. Furnishing him with a lot of money. It was his family.
- [30:14]
B
So all the money came from the family. None came from fans?
- [30:16]
A
No, it said. It said. I mean, this is what was said. I mean, this is. It wasn't. So the court does not have a breakdown of how those funds came into this person's inmate funds, but said it was mostly family. So, I mean, I'm sure there was some stuff from fans and whatever weird creeps who want to admire violent people. But I think most of it was family. And so what was said here was, you know, I mean, what. What the defense kept arguing through Mass off was, well, it's all speculation that he would even get any more money because, like, it's highly speculative. There's. There's there's no, there's no indication that he's, he's never, you know, gonna profit in terms of an interview or a movie. And there's no, you know, agreement with his family to do interviews or movies or whatever. And the judge is just like, well, it's not speculation because we're looking. He said, one of the best indications of the future is the past. In the past, this perpetrator's family put thousands of dollars on his books. And in this situation, the judge said, I'm not aware that his family has disowned him. So it's really a violation of the plea agreement to argue that your client doesn't need to pay the funeral expenses that he quite literally agreed to pay. And you know, it seems very reasonable for the defendant to pay or the, you know, the convict to pay restitution here. And the judge, I mean, it just kind of got intense between masseth and the judge. It always seems like there's little love lost and, and he's just like, what's the point of a plea agreement on restitution if the defense is able to argue against the restitution called for in the plea agreement? Like, you agreed to do this, you know, what are we doing? And like there was something about like, well, the urns were asked for later. There was a delay in that. And it's. But it, I mean, none of that really is outlined in the plea agreement. It just says restitution for funeral expenses. And as we noted, Thompson made the mistake of asking for more than that and then rectified that in this hearing.
- [32:23]
B
And I don't understand what the problem is because if they basically just put the expense for the earns at the top of the list and for whatever reason his family and whatever fans send money stop and he stops getting money, then obviously if he doesn't have the ability to pay, he can't pay.
- [32:40]
A
Yeah, that's what, that's what the judge said.
- [32:42]
B
And I think the judge said, yeah, we're not concerned with his credit rating at this point.
- [32:45]
A
Yeah, we're not considered, we're not worried about that. His financial well being is not really super important anymore in the scheme of things. And I mean, what Mass off objected to somewhat heatedly was we acknowledge that urns are funeral expenses. But now that there's a question of whether he has the ability to pay, that should trigger a review about what he is able to pay. Like that. She basically was arguing statutarily the court needs to order a review of what he can Pay because he can't pay this stuff anymore. And what the judge is like, I don't need to do that. This is in the plea agreement. Just add it to the top of his expenses as he gets money. It'll, it'll trickle into that. So I mean it was, you know, it got a little heated. It was a pretty short hearing. And I remember just Hitler saying very exasperatedly, what's the point of the plea agreement if you're not going to be bound by it? Massauth saying, no, the court needs to do this analysis under Idaho code. And Hitler said, hasn't the defendant waived that by agreeing to expenses? So and then she says, I don't know how the court can enter anything without review. And then he says, so the agreement to pay is illusory. So you know, he was annoyed because I think he felt that the defense in this situation was flouting the plead agreement. They made Mass off was not saying we're not going to pay, can't, you know, but she was basically trying to, I think trigger something where there'd be a review and they'd be like, oh well, I guess he can't pay. And Hill was like, I don't see the harm in just adding this to his expenses. And then he's in debt for this and then as money comes in it goes to this, these causes. So yeah, it was interesting and it's an interesting topic because I think like we all like to think in a perfect world that no one's going to make a profit on murdering people. But we live in a very lurid and exploitative media environment even today. I mean, certainly back in the day, I think it was in some ways more overt. Nowadays things at least try to, you know, a lot of things have the sheen of being ethical or attempting to pose as being ethical. But that doesn't mean that there isn't going to be some, you know, nonsense around this.
- [35:00]
B
I'm sure there will be and I'm sure there's the possibility of again loopholes being found in order to create a profit generating way to get money to. A lot of people understandably, are very, very curious about why he did this. Let me speak hypothetically. What if a network went to a family member and gave them a huge amount of money as an advisor and in their role as advisor they secured an exclusive interview with the killer where he told his story. Then the family member would get a huge amount of money and presumably channel a big chunk of it towards the killer. Right.
- [35:46]
A
I mean, yeah, I hear you people should not support projects that do stuff like that if it bothers you, you know, and you can encourage other people not to support projects like that if it bothers you. Some people aren't gonna be bothered. Some people consume True Crime like you eat potato chips, just unthinking one after another, you know, and then other people. I think a lot of the people in our audience are thoughtful about it and they are thinking, okay, what are the implications of this? Do I feel good about this? And I think the only way to hit people hard with stuff like that is to actually just not watch it and not talk about it, or if you talk about it, talk about it critically in a way that encourages. That discourages people from watching it. Because the. The only thing these people who do these kind of projects are after are money. It's money ratings. And so no amount of criticism is necessarily going to sway them. It's. It's amount of criticism directed towards audience members that dwindles their audience share.
- [36:43]
B
And I would just say that is a hypothetical. I'm not aware of any project like that.
- [36:46]
A
Well, I mean, people are certainly concerned about this Lifetime film, but I mean, I don't think that necessarily has any indication that it's being.
- [36:53]
B
That was the cooperation of.
- [36:55]
A
Of the perpetrator in this case? No, I don't. I don't think it is. But, you know, just in general, as a thing, people like, how do we deal with this? It's turn it off. I mean, boycott. And, you know, if there's. If there's enough of that and tastes change to a substantial part within the true crime market, then some actual substantive changes will take place because people will be like, wow, this exploitative. This exploitative schlock is. Is not getting audience views. And so we need to switch it up in order to accommodate changing audience tastes.
- [37:25]
B
One thing we can definitely be sure of is one way or another, he will continue to receive funds from a variety of sources, and I think it will prove to be within his capabilities to pay for these urns.
- [37:38]
A
Yes, I certainly hope the urns get paid for. And I imagine his family will continue to throw money his way. Well, I guess. Is there anything else we wanted to talk about. About this?
- [37:51]
B
Nothing comes to mind to me, Ms. Cain.
- [37:54]
A
All righty. Well, I think that's kind of the discussion of the hearing. And always nice to see Judge Hipler's sass. I'm not gonna lie. He's fun.
- [38:03]
B
You're a fan?
- [38:03]
A
I'm a fan of his. You know, I mean, he's very. No nonsense. But he has a sense of humor. He's not just stern, he's just like a little bit like, I don't know what's going on with you guys. I think we've all had our Judge Hipler moments, right? Just like what someone ex exasperated, but maybe a little bemused.
- [38:20]
B
Yeah. Following all these trials as we do, as all of us do, it's very interesting to see the different judges and their different styles.
- [38:28]
A
He gives off a little bit of Judge Gall, you know, but Judge Gall had, Judge Gill had a sense of humor, but less of one than Judge Hitler.
- [38:36]
B
Judge Gold Force, the judge in the Richard Allen trials.
- [38:39]
A
Yep. Alrighty. Well, thank you all so much for listening. We appreciate it. And we'll continue to monitor the Idaho case, see if anything pops up. Thanks.
- [38:48]
B
Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
- [39:09]
A
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.
- [39:32]
B
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web@kevintg.com if you're looking to talk with.
- [39:44]
A
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. We've run into some pretty creepy people in our true crime journey and we've even gotten some threats as a result. Safety is often top of mind for Kevin and I.
- [40:14]
B
That's why we trust our long term sponsor, SimpliSafe. SimpliSafe is a home security system that's both innovative and proactive. They're not just about sounding the alarm when someone breaks through your front door. They seek to prevent the break in front of from even happening. We've used them for years. The reason is the peace of mind they give us every day. Right now, Murder Sheet listeners can save 50% on a SimpliSafe home security system. Just go to simplisafe.com sheet.
- [40:46]
A
SimpliSafe deploys so many technologies and techniques to keep you safe. I'm talking about AI powered cameras. Not to mention they're always looking out for you. Professional monitoring agents are on hand to intervene in real time. They'll switch on the two way audio to confront possible prowlers, start blaring sirens and spotlights to get rid of them.
- [41:05]
B
Simplisafe is great for renters and homeowners alike. You can customize your approach to home security. They've got lots of different options, but one constant is that you don't need to sign a long term contract. Between that and your 60 day money back guarantee, it's a cinch. Try out Simplisafe today.
- [41:29]
A
Right now my listeners can save 50% on a SimpliSafe home security system at simplisafe.com msheet that's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like Simplisafe.