True Crime Truths: Embracing Boredom and Ticking Off Families

Summary

Murder Sheet: True Crime Truths — Embracing Boredom and Ticking Off Families

Episode Date: May 6, 2026
Hosts: Áine Cain (journalist) & Kevin Greenlee (attorney)

---

Episode Overview

This episode marks the second installment of Murder Sheet’s "True Crime Truths" discussion forum—a conversational, off-the-cuff format where hosts Áine and Kevin riff on philosophical and ethical questions arising in the true crime world. Today’s two main topics are:

• The value of "embracing boredom" (i.e., favoring the most straightforward, dullest explanations in crime analysis over wild speculation).
• The ethics and complications of covering cases when victims’ families do not want media or creators involved ("ticking off families").

The show features critical self-reflection, candid opinions, and a nuanced debate around the duties of true crime content creators.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Embracing Boredom — Why the Simplest Explanation Usually Fits

(Start at 04:36)

"The Dullest Explanation is Usually True"

• Kevin introduces the principle: In analyzing true crime, the dullest possible explanation that fits the facts usually turns out to be the correct one.

  • Example: Delphi Case
  • Liberty German's phone logs showed it appeared headphones were plugged in during the night between the murder and discovery of the bodies; the dramatic theory (the killer returns) is less likely than the boring (moisture triggering the phone's sensors).
    Kevin (04:36):

  "When you look at a true crime situation, the dullest possible explanation that fits all the facts is most usually the truthful one."

• Why people reach for conspiracy & drama:

  • The public and media gravitate toward high drama for entertainment. Conspiracy theories, unlikely twists, or complex plots are often preferred because they make better stories, not because they’re more truthful.
  • True crime as entertainment can come at an ethical cost if it drowns out critical thinking.

• Other Examples:

  • JFK Assassination (08:52):
    Eyewitnesses misidentifying Oswald after the fact is much more plausible than an intricate plot with CIA/KGB doubles.
  • Jeffrey McDonald & Temujin Kensu cases (10:21, 11:01):
    The most likely perpetrator is often the one with motive, history, opportunity—not strangers or complex conspiracies.

Why True Crime Content Is "Broken"

Áine (07:19):

"Creators favor a good story over the truth every time... The audience too. That’s probably largely due to seeing true crime as entertainment."

• The sensationalist lens in media distorts expectations around real crime.

Counterpoints: Wild Stories Do Happen

• The hosts admit exceptions—Watergate, the Daybell case (13:27, 23:22), and their own "Sweet Death" miniseries, where the truth was far stranger than fiction.

Rule of Thumb

Áine (28:14):

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Be skeptical of sensationalist claims, but be open to wild stuff with the right standards."

Memorable Quote

Kevin (10:10):

"Sometimes in real life, even usually in real life, the most obvious suspect did it."

---

2. The Ethics of Covering Cases When Families Object

(29:57)

The “You Need Permission from the Family” Sentiment

• Sparked by a viral comment section under a video from Audio Chuck (makers of "Crime Junkie").
• Many commenters argued creators should never cover a case without the family’s blessing.

Áine (32:47):

"I love the energy because I love that people are actually taking victims’ families’ considerations... But I disagree with the sentiment. I think it’s a lot more complicated."

Why It’s Not So Simple

Kevin (35:15):

"Certainly the wishes of the family is something that should be taken very seriously and be an important part of the process... but it’s not a hard and fast rule."

• Difficult Cases:
  • If only surviving relatives are homophobic parents intent on suppressing their murdered child’s story? Is their veto ethical or in the public interest?
  • What about wrongful conviction advocacy, or if the family includes the perpetrator?
  • Families are rarely a monolith; different relatives want different things.

Áine (43:28):

"What do you do if... one family member says, ‘Please share the story’... and another says, ‘Don’t—a painful reminder’? How do you handle that?"

• Creators’ Duty:
  • Fundamental journalistic principle: If a case is in the public interest, families’ wishes don’t always govern coverage—but their feelings, participation, and wishes should be weighed with empathy and sensitivity.
  • Creators should work to earn trust, be transparent about intentions, and exercise thoughtfulness. There are situations where withdrawal is the right choice, out of respect, especially if the coverage would serve little purpose but to re-traumatize.

Dangers of Black-and-White “Rules”

• Rules like "always obey the family’s wishes" don’t account for nuance or the messy, painful, and sometimes contradictory realities of real cases.
• Better: maintain high ethical standards, show both sides, and encourage nuanced, evidence-based coverage rather than prohibition or unthinking deference.

Áine (50:21):

"It’s about stated standards... I don’t think you should just ignore [disagreement with families], but as far as a rule, you know... I’m just not comfortable with that hard and fast of a rule about anything."

The Role of Creators and Responsibility

Áine (47:14):

"Victims families can get stuff wrong... Becoming a mouthpiece for a family can get into dicey territory—what if they’re wrong? Even with good intentions, you can cross lines... You have to be nuanced."

• Creators should not serve as mere advocates or mouthpieces—responsibility is to fairness, truth, and compassion.

Some Practical Guidance

• Preferably involve families, seek their thoughts, and platform their memories when appropriate, but don’t let this override investigative integrity or public interest.
• If a family member is "the bad guy," or if there’s strong public benefit, creators have a duty to investigate and share responsibly.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Áine (13:38):

  "True crime is doing a disservice by being sensationalistic and going for the interesting story over the truth, oftentimes at the expense of the truth. That bothers me."

• Kevin (28:36):

  "If you think a gang of invisible cultists killed two girls in Indiana, let's see some proof.”

• Áine (44:08):

  "Which family member is more important, basically, is what you’re asking people to decide."

• Áine (57:19):

  "I want to inject a little bit more nuance... It also digs deeper and maybe addresses some more of the root issues for why true crime goes off the rails and can be so hurtful to families."

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Segment / Topic Summary | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:30 | Intro to “True Crime Truths” format, episode overview | | 04:36 | Embracing Boredom – Why the simplest explanation is often true | | 08:52 | JFK, McDonald, Kinzu cases – applying the principle | | 13:27 | When the wild explanation really is true (exceptions) | | 17:35 | When the boring answer is deeply important for families | | 23:22 | Watergate and counter-examples to the boredom rule | | 29:57 | Main Topic 2: Covering cases against family wishes | | 35:15 | When family veto is ethically complex – contrasting scenarios | | 43:28 | Not all families agree – complications & messy realities | | 47:14 | What if the family favors a misleading or harmful narrative? | | 53:35 | Critiquing problematic true crime creators & responsibility | | 57:09 | The need for empathy, nuance, and more critical conversation |

---

Conclusion

This episode of Murder Sheet offers a thoughtful, sometimes blunt, and always nuanced discussion about two persistent challenges in true crime:

• The temptation (by creators and audiences alike) to seek titillating or dramatic explanations over the mundane truth, and the damage this does to understanding and ethics.
• The obligations and complications involved in dealing with families of victims, especially in cases where wishes diverge, stories are still unfolding, or media attention risks worsening trauma.

Big takeaway:
There are no easy answers; both justice and ethical storytelling in true crime depend on skepticism, trust-building, community accountability, and a commitment to empathy as much as facts.

---

Questions or topics for future True Crime Truths?
The hosts invite listener feedback about their approach and any further conundrums worth discussing, stressing that real progress lies in open, ongoing conversation.

—

For new or veteran listeners alike, this episode delivers not sensational stories but a candid look at the interior workings and ethics of true crime media. It challenges, provokes, and, above all, encourages a more reflective consumption and creation of true crime content.

Transcript

[A]

Nemo, Gable and Doug.

[B]

There's nowhere I wouldn't go to help someone customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual. Even if it means sitting front row at a comedy show. Hey, everyone. Check out this guy and his bird. What is this, your first date? Oh, no. We help people customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual together. We're married. Me to a human, him to a bird. Yeah, the bird looks out of your league. Anyways, get a [e-mail] or with your local agent. Liberty, Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[A]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook

[B]

ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering

[A]

the products you need all in one

[B]

place, from H vac and plumbing supplies

[A]

to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-granger.

[B]

Visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger

[A]

for the ones who get it done.

[B]

I'm Anya and today we're returning to our True Crime Truths forum format to discuss some topics within true crime that we think are interesting. Content warning. This episode contains discussion of murder, including the murder of children. So this is our second ever episode of True Crime Truths. And this is kind of a format that we started where we're just sort of riffing on different topics in true crime that we find particularly interesting. And we hope that you find them interesting, too.

[A]

Do people like this format?

[B]

I don't know. They're not here. I can't ask them.

[A]

Have we gotten any response at all, either pro or con?

[B]

I think we have gotten some pro. So that was let the cons fly. No, you know, I think it. I mean, here's the thing for me when I'm. I'm immersed in true crime, so I like to think about the high picture, a high level, big picture kind of takes on this stuff.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And I like to talk about that with other people. So I think some people who are, you know, kind of also immersed in true crime, they might find this interesting or kind of, you know, even if you're. Even if you're not, it can be an interesting way to kind of think about some of these issues because we kind of see them come up again and again.

[A]

And basically, unless people tell us not to do something, we're just keep doing it.

[B]

Honestly, a lot of the times they tell us not to do something, we're going to do it anyway. Like, I mean, we certainly are guided by our audience's interests, but I think many people in our audience trust us to go in a direction that they'll find interesting and not. Not too objectionable. Sometimes people listen to all of our episodes. Sometimes people listen to certain case coverage. Sometimes people listen to a mix, you know, and whatever, wherever you're at.

[A]

I understand, and I may be wrong, but there may be people who never listen to us at all.

[B]

That's true, too. The dominant faction. All right, so shall we get into it? Basically, the way we did this one is that until a few moments ago, Kevin and I didn't know what the other one was going to talk about. So we're kind of springing these topics upon each other, and we figured that might be. Might lead to some interesting discussion. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[A]

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

[B]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[A]

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

[B]

And this is True Crime Truths Embracing Boredom and Ticking Off Families.

[A]

Well, mine got top billing there in the title, so I suppose I will start. And this is something I think I've said on the show before, which is one of my guiding principles. This isn't always true. I think it's usually true, which is when you look at a true crime situation, the dullest possible explanation that fits all the facts is most usually the truthful one. And I'll give you an example that can help explain that. In the Delphi trial, there was at one point some testimony about a phone belonging to Liberty German, which was discovered with the bodies of the murdered girls. And as you may or may not recall, the girls were murdered one afternoon and their bodies were discovered the following afternoon. And there was some testimony that we examined the data on the phone. It shows that in the middle of the night, either one or two things happened. One was that someone came up and accessed this phone, which was underneath the body of one of the girls, and plugged in some headphones and then unplugged them. Or it was equally possible that you could look at this data and conclude that there was a mistake because of moisture in the area which is known to cause this issue, where the phone thinks headphones have been plugged in. And the dullest possible explanation there is, yeah, it was just the moisture. And the most interesting explanation was, yeah, the killer, for unknown reasons, returned in the middle of a massive search for these girls to move their bodies to plug in his earbuds into their phone for nefarious purposes. And that's just not true. So it's the dullest explanation that is usually true.

[B]

I tend to agree with that. I'm curious what went into forming that opinion for you? Like, what experiences made you prefer the dullness?

[A]

I think years of consuming true crime and listening to some of the stories and claims put out there by defense attorneys or conspiracy theorists or maybe some

[B]

rogue prosecutors too, sometimes, yes.

[A]

And realizing, yes, you could believe this, or you could believe a much more simpler, less exciting interpretation of events.

[B]

Which is also why true crime in my mind is fundamentally broken. Because content creators, whether we're talking about, you know, people in new media, frankly, even productions and individuals within traditional media, favor a good story over the truth every time. If there's, if there's a. If there's a cup of truth and a cup of this is a really good story, this wild stuff, what are they going to accept? I mean, like, we all know the answer, and that's unfortunately the audience too. You know, I mean, I'm just being blunt. There's an onus on the public there too, and that's probably largely due to seeing true crime as entertainment, which is something that probably is worth its own true crime truths episode. I think people often make that a big moral issue of, like, you can't do that. I, I don't, I don't agree. I, I have complicated feelings about it, but I think when you exclusively see it as entertainment and that it has no value outside of being entertaining, of course you're gonna want the better story because it's about what's fun for you, and that's why it's important to encourage people, yes, this can be entertainment. This can be something that you find interesting and entertaining and want to sit down for, and it's a thing, and that's fine. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. I think it's when people are completely shutting off every other part of their brain, including their critical thinking capacities, in order to be entertained. That's when we get into some really dicey ethical territory.

[A]

But, yeah, I'll give you another example. We talk sometimes on this program about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and there are some eyewitnesses, reports of people who say, oh, I think I saw Lee Harvey Oswald here or here or here. At times when we know for a fact Lee Harvey Oswald was not there. And so what is the dullest possible explanation?

[B]

They're wrong.

[A]

Yes, they're wrong. They did not even know who Lee Harvey Oswald was.

[B]

So how did they know?

[A]

They saw him for months afterwards. He was not a known figure until then. They made a mistake. The more interesting explanation is, oh, obviously the kgb, the CIA were conspiring and they had arranged to have an Oswald double to go around and do all these things when we knew Oswald was elsewhere. What do you think is true? I think, again, it's pretty clear the least interesting explanation is true. I think watching mysteries and crime shows on television, whether they're fictional or documentaries, I think it creates in us an expectation that things are more interesting than they sometimes are.

[B]

Sometimes you need a twist.

[A]

Sometimes in real life, even usually in real life, there is no twist. Sometimes, sometimes in real life, even usually in real life, the most obvious suspect did it.

[B]

Yeah, let's look. I mean, Jeffrey McDonald, right. What's more interesting, a group of filthy radical hippies broke into a house on a military base, brutally murdered a woman and her two small daughters, and then kind of lightly injured the male in the household, the husband and father, who posed the greatest physical threat to their group and just kind of knocked him out and hit him with an ice pick very calculatedly and slowly so that it only kind of punctured his lung and didn't really do much other damage. Or he made that up and killed his family in a rage.

[A]

Another case we talk about is the Temujin Kinzu case. This is a case where Mr. Kinzu is known to be a violent, abusive, threatening thug who repeatedly threatened the life of a person who later ended up murdered. Is it likely that the person who made the threats and was stalking the person had a history of violence and was seen at the crime scene? Is it likely that he did it? Or is it more likely that there is some massive conspiracy involving judges and prosecutors and police officers, as Mr. Canzu posits? I suggest, again, the least interesting theory is the guy made making the threats did it.

[B]

I think, though I will say this, I think you do need to we. This is a limited sort of Greenlee theorem or whatever, because the MO. I mean, Richard Allen, who is the Perpetrator in the Delphi murders. He. His whole story is, well, I just went to the trails and walked around that day. I didn't murder anyone. So he has the boring explanation of why he was there. But when you look at all the evidence pointing that he is bridge guy, ergo he abducted Abby and Libby, ergo he murdered them, then that it's like you have to almost be applying this theory. I feel when you have two choices, and that's Oswald, double CIA versus the witnesses got it wrong.

[A]

Yeah. And I certainly acknowledge this isn't always true. But with, like, Richard Allen, it's like, okay, who did it? Was it done by a person who admits he was in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time wearing clothes identical to the clothes worn by the killer? Or was the crime indeed done by multiple members of a cult who. We don't even know if this cult even exists. And this cult has never killed anybody. And no one saw them there that day. What do you think is most likely.

[B]

Yeah, the boring versus the culture. And that's, I think, a sign of. I mean, this is just for the listeners. If you're listening to something that is wild and there's a lot of conjecture and maybe part of your mind is like, well, couldn't there be another explanation for that? Listen to that voice in your head. And I'm not saying it might just be a truly wild story. There's been wild stories. Right. The Day Bell case. Right. Famously, like they're apocalypse.

[A]

There are wild stories.

[B]

There are wild stories. There are conspiracies. There's conspiracies to commit murder. There's police corruption. That exists. All these things exist. It's more.

[A]

But they're not as common as we're led to believe.

[B]

They're nowhere near as common as you believe from consuming true crime. And that tells me that true crime is doing a disservice to the public by being sensationalistic and by going for the interesting story, oftentimes over the truth, oftentimes at the expense of the truth. And that bothers me. And so I want people to know how the sausage gets made.

[A]

And, you know, and the thing to remember is anybody who's in the business of creating, for lack of a better word, content, you have more success in that area if you make the content you create sound more interesting, more dramatic. I think if we wanted to maximize attention to our ongoing coverage of the appeal in the Delphi case, the Richard Allen case, we'd be acting like, oh, it's very dramatic. They're making all these great arguments. Who knows what might happen?

[B]

Is he getting out? And then we'd have a thumbnail of us looking shocked in front of a picture of Richard Allen's mugshot.

[A]

But I think it's important to be honest with the audience and give them an accurate picture of what is really going on, which is in the Richard Allen case, it's important to mentioned that in our informed opinions, he got a fair trial. There was nothing egregious that happened. And successful appeals are incredibly rare. We believe it's over. I think that's resulted in our Delphi episodes not getting as many downloads as they did two or three years ago, frankly.

[B]

Which good, because it's over. You know, like it doesn't matter. It's over, to quote Alan himself.

[A]

But I mean, you can still listen.

[B]

But I don't mind. I don't mind. It's good if it's over. It's good if it's attracting less crazy attention. I think people can walk away from this case feeling like justice was done. And, you know, I don't know. It doesn't bother me. I feel like that's a good thing. But we're talking about instances where something definitely happened, right, where somebody murdered two girls in Delphi. Somebody shot and killed the President of the United States. Somebody murdered a family, except for the father, randomly in North Carolina. We stay busy with the podcast. So I like my wardrobe to stay comfortable, easy and intentional. Something that I could put on that feels great while also looking super put together when we're going out to court or to an interview.

[A]

So thank goodness for our sponsor, Quint's. We both love quints. They've got high quality products that we can actually afford. They help us elevate our look without breaking the bank.

[B]

These are the kinds of premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time and incorporate into your wardrobe seamlessly. All their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen and partnering directly with ethical Factories and artisans.

[A]

100% European linen shorts and shirts to keep you cool this spring and summer. From $34 clean 100% Pima cotton tees that are super soft to the touch.

[B]

I myself love wearing Quince's 100% European linen button front dress in blue chambray stripe. It's so light and airy. We're actually going to go out and hang out with friends soon and I'm probably going to put that on. It's a Perfect going out outfit and it's just so comfortable. I wear it all the time.

[A]

Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to quince.commsheet 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 for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet the cases where I think

[B]

the boring explanation can also be very important is we hear a lot of cases that I don't even know if they're crimes when. What do I mean by that? You know, you often have. There's a contingent within true crime where they try to press in certain cases, oh look, this was, you know, everyone said it was a suicide, but was it? Everyone said this was an accidental overdose, but was it? It's often pressed by grieving family members who want someone to blame and want basically, I mean, essentially want their loved one's death to have been a murder in order to kind of direct the anger somewhere. And sometimes they're correct. There are cases where someone tries to stage something to look like an accident and a suicide and it's really a murder. And sometimes that requires some very good detective work to, to get there to prove it is actually a murder staged to look like something else. And then other times, unfortunately, maybe that good detective work didn't get done and we'll never know. Maybe there's some questions, but it's not going to be proven in court because there's just not that there was not that attentive investigation in the beginning to kind of rule that out. Th. Those are cases are very tragic in my view because it's like, man, they might be right, but we just don't know. And that's not going to be a case that ever gets anywhere because maybe the investigation wasn't concrete enough or maybe there's, you know, there wasn't an autopsy or it wasn't done properly or, you know, the body's cremated now, so we just don't know. And then there are other cases where people are just very much in denial. And I've, I've like, you know, you run into this and you're like, man, it's, it's very sad and I feel terrible for them. But like, you know, coming to terms with a tragic death is probably better than true crime feeding into what's essentially a paranoid delusion, you know. And again, that sounds harsh, but I think it's far worse to. For creators to sometimes lead people in that situation on as if, yeah, we're gonna solve it. And it's like, there's nothing to solve. You know, the boring story is that your loved one had a history of mental issues and was severely depressed and then did something horrible to themselves. And that's very sad. And, like, I want people like that to get resources to heal from that, but it's not a crime, or at least it's. It's not a homicide. Same with, you know, the accidental overdoses. You see this sometimes, and it's just. It breaks my heart for these people because it's like they're in such pain. They're so angry. They want it to go somewhere. And you look at the facts of whatever they're saying, and it's like the boring explanation is. Is very clearly right there, and they just won't believe it because my. My loved one wouldn't have done that. My loved one would never have taken those drugs. My loved one wouldn't have done that to themselves. And it's like, sometimes those overdoses can come out of nowhere. Sometimes suicide can come out of nowhere. And it's very impulsive, and it's. It's very sad.

[A]

It's very sad. It's very. My heart goes out for families in that situation. Because sometimes it is a murder.

[B]

Yeah, no, it can be.

[A]

And also, it's important to realize that if a family member or someone close to you ends their life, there is really a complicated mixture of feelings that include. Can include anger, can include guilt, you know, unmerited guilt. It's just a complicated situation.

[B]

But I think sometimes people don't want to look at the boring solution, because then it would. They want. They want to redirect that rage outward towards. This must be. This is the bad guy over here. I have a bad guy. I can hate this guy. When. When someone is murdered, the victim's family gets that. They can say, this is the guy who did it. There's accountability. I can get angry at him. I can hate him for life. I can forgive him, whatever. When it's the person inflicting that upon themselves for whatever reason, whether that's accidentally or, you know, on purpose, I think it just becomes very hard for people to accept that. And then some people end up, you know, basically building a case in their own minds that's not really super credible or, you know, kind of almost wanting it to be something else instead of learning to accept the reality. And I think, you know, that's the case where boring. And if you're like, like listening to or watching a, you know, a thing that's about like kind of a mysterious death that's being framed as this must be a murder. Because the family thinks that I would be incredibly skeptical now, again, sometimes they're going to be right. So I'm not saying when I say be skeptical, I don't say don't believe it. I'm more of saying, like, be asking yourself questions about like, does this hold water and why? And if it's holding water, great, then, then it's a family pursuing justice and doing a great job at it. And if it's not really adding up or they're kind of not saying everything that should be said or about the circumstances, then those are red flags. And I don't really blame the families in that situation, but I blame. I blame irresponsible content creators.

[A]

And again, when you, you watch content or you listen to this sort of content, just remember that it's also in the interest of the person presenting the content to make the story seem mysterious.

[B]

I have a question, Kevin. Has there been a case that's broken your rule that you can remember encountering where you're like, the boring solution was actually not true. It was the non boring solution that was the truth.

[A]

The first thing that comes to mind is this is an older case, doesn't even involve murder, but would be Watergate.

[B]

Yeah, tell me about that.

[A]

Watergate starts out with three people are caught trying to bug Democratic headquarters. I think the most boring possible answer to that is that these were people, maybe like political diehards, who had no connection to the actual presidential campaign of Richard Nixon, who was president at the time. And they were just doing this on their own.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's not what happened. It turned out to be a much more complicated, much more involved conspiracy. And there were questions about what happened in Watergate that still have not been answered to this day.

[B]

We should totally cover it.

[A]

I don't think people do people care about Watergate? Cause I have questions.

[B]

Kevin cares deeply about Watergate.

[A]

Every once in a while I get hooked on Watergate.

[B]

A normal thing to admit. I'm hooked on Watergate. You were hooked on Watergate as like a toddler.

[A]

It's an interesting thing. And as time passes, more things come out that are also interesting. There's all sorts of theories, unanswered questions. As I say, I'll just ask one question now is why? Why did they do it? You would think that over 50 years later we would know why they tried to break in and bug It.

[B]

Why?

[A]

Because. But we don't know. Because if you wanted to get information about a presidential campaign, you would not bug the national headquarters of the candidates party. You would bug the campaign headquarters.

[B]

Yeah, you would. That's a good point.

[A]

So what were they doing?

[B]

I bet you have some theories, but we, I think we should cover.

[A]

I don't think people care.

[B]

Oh my God, you're playing coy. But so, yeah, that's so. So there can be cases. Like in that case, Kevin might have stood up and said, oh come on guys, it's probably just some unrelated nonsense.

[A]

And that would have been wrong.

[B]

You've been wrong. So there's definitely cases.

[A]

Are there cases where you can think where the boring explanation didn't turn out to be true?

[B]

Hmm? Well, I mean the case we just covered, I did a mini, we did a miniseries called Sweet Death. That was a situation where this man, Harold Allen, he was a middle aged man, not, not always in the best health, very sweet guy. People loved him. And you know, he's married from, you know, to a woman named Marsha Allen. Her daughter. Her daughter. His stepdaughter Ashley Jones is living in the house. He's got all these health problems and then he dies one day. He's, he's had some sicknesses, he's been in the ER on the outside. That could look to me as like, okay, well maybe there was, you know, maybe there was some health issues and whatever. And this is really, you know, that's very sad. But like, you know, if, if someone had been like, well, I think someone murdered him, that wouldn't have been a case where I would have immediately been like, yeah, definitely. And I might have been more like, well listen, like I mean, if the autopsy didn't really see anything and he had this history of ER visits and there was, there were medical explanations given for that, then seems a little bit. The boring thing is that he just died of natural causes. And what police found when they dug into the cell phones of his wife and stepdaughter were all these heinous messages where these women think they're witches. These women are doing all these things. They're poisoning him with pong. Pong seeds that they got from like Asia, which are highly poisonous. They're trying to poison him. Foxglove. They're putting stuff in margaritas, they're putting stuff in slushies. He keeps getting sick, but he's not dying. Eventually they poison him with ethylene glycol, which is the stuff in antifreeze, which is super toxic. He Dies. And the only reason was, you know, they found this was very good detective work. And the detectives in Jackson County, Indiana, getting a hold of his, like, basically, like they kept a vial of his blood and his heart. So they were able to test that. See the ethylene glycol, they don't necessarily test for that in an autopsy because they're not expecting murder. Like, they're not going to just necessarily do that. But they still had the stuff that they were able to say, okay, it was a murder.

[A]

Yeah. And I want to make a point there that I think was Carl Sagan who said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And one thing that Watergate has in common with that case is that in both instances there was ample evidence to back up the claims that something happened here that was a lot bigger than we thought.

[B]

Okay, that's a really. Maybe that's a good way to think about it too. You know, you should be applying this lens when people are not forthcoming about. With a lot of evidence about it. And evidence is not just conjecture. And maybe this happened and ooh, maybe Israel Keys was in Indiana when Lauren Spirit is no evidence, receipts, documentation, concrete facts.

[A]

Yeah. If you think a gang of invisible cultists killed two girls in Indiana, let's see some proof.

[B]

Oh, well, one of them had weird Facebook posts. Kevin. That's not good enough, folks. So there's definitely, there's definitely. It's more. I think it's. This is probably a more helpful thing because again, True crime does have some wild cases. Right. We've seen them, we've followed them, we've watched the docu series. So this is probably best as a rule, applied to situations where there's not really, at this point, a lot of evidence that's coming out. Be skeptical of sensationalist claims, be open to wild stuff happening, but be holding that to a certain standard. And this is also something I think is important for defendants rights too. Right. If you're basically, oh, this guy's guilty of murder. And he would have had to like fly through the window and do all this like impossible stuff in order to do it, you know, and there's a better explanation or there's a. There's another explanation you have to, you have to get. You have to acquit in that situation. If there's another explanation that also makes sense and maybe is even more believable, you have to acquit. Right?

[A]

Yes. So what is your topic that you are bringing to the True Crime truth table today?

[B]

Well, my topic is courtesy of our pals at Audio Chugging some, some murder sheet lore. One, I think maybe one of the first things we did as a podcast, very, very smart, strategic minds. You and I have real tacticians. We got, we got into a spat with the, I think the largest true crime podcaster with the largest true crime audience, you know, in the world, AKA Ashley Flowers of Audio Chuck of Crime Junkie and whatnot. Because we, we, we were mad about the plagiarism, and we felt like there were certain things that she did around the Burger Chef case that we've covered a lot that we didn't like. So anyways, so we have a whole history with her. You know, I, A lot, Lots, lots there. But the, I guess I, for some reason Instagram showed me kind of like some kind of video that the Audio Chuck people did. And, and as a rule, because I just, I don't find them to be an ethical company. Like, I don't listen to Audio Chuck show. That's fine. But I, I, that's not, that's not what I'm gonna do with my time on Earth, you know what I mean? Like, I'm gonna, I'm gonna support creators where I feel like, you know, even if I disagree with them, like, do they have integrity? And I don't feel like that's the case at that company, frankly. But anyway, so Audio Chuck, I, I get this weird, you know, thing on my Instagram and, you know, they're, they're doing this thing where they have a bunch of their different hosts. You know, just tell them the camera something, and that's fine. Whatever. I'm, you know, I'm, I don't, I don't have a problem with every Audio Chuck host. I don't want to support the company, but, like, if they're doing their thing, they, they might be nice people, who knows? But I was intrigued by the description. It said, some stories are off limits. Here's what our hosts would never podcast about and why. And I was like, huh. So I got suckered into watching a few seconds about it, and they're all, you know, oh, I wouldn't want to do anything with animals. I wouldn't do anything with children. And it's like, okay, whatever. But what really got me interested and intrigued was were the comments section. Not so much what the hosts were saying, but the comments section. And this is what a sentiment. And Kevin, you tell me if you've seen this before, a common sentiment that prevailed in the comments section was the correct answer would be any case that the victim's family doesn't want me covering. So what the commenters were saying under this video were the answers that these hosts gave were essentially wrong. What they really should have said was, I'm not going to cover a case if the victim's family doesn't give me permission, doesn't let me, doesn't want me doing it. Is that something you've seen a lot in true crime?

[A]

I have.

[B]

I've seen a lot of that. And let me go. I'm going to tell you guys something. I love the energy. I love it. I love the energy because I love that people are actually taking victims, families, considerations and feelings into things and acknowledging that any decision to create any kind of media around a tragedy is sure to be a very loaded thing and a very potentially violating and upsetting thing for many people who have already suffered immense loss, especially in regards to violent crimes. So I was like, I tip my hat to this comment section. Appreciate people doing this. That being said, I disagree with the sentiment now. Well, I should say this. I think it's a lot more complicated. And, and here's, here's. I'm going to break down my thinking on this and Kevin, please feel free to chime in or tell me if you totally disagree.

[A]

I will.

[B]

Here's my feeling. I think this, this requires nuance that goes beyond the scope of simply saying yes or no. I'm a person and I think you're a bit of a person, Kevin, too. Where you and I like rules, right? We're. We're kind of, we're kind of rule people. Like, we like, oh, do this, not this, do A, not B, don't do B, do A, or never do B and do anything else, whatever. That tends to just be what I'm more comfortable with. We like the, the rigid, strict. Not all the time, but generally I think you and I do better with structure rules in terms of our personal lives, in terms of trying to be healthier, in terms of trying to get stuff done. That's just the way my mind works. It doesn't work for everyone, but for me, I like rules. So when something becomes a bit more squishy, I get uncomfortable. But I think it's important to lean into the nuance when we're talking about something like this because true crime is extremely complicated and there are many, many types of shows. And saying that in no case should a journalist or a podcaster or a media company cover a case without the explicit approval of a fam. The family members, in that case is, I think, a vast overreach that would end up Being a huge. Not serving the interest.

[A]

I think certainly the wishes of the family is something that should be taken very seriously and be an important part of the process. And there are times when family members have said, hey, we'd rather you didn't cover this. And we didn't. But yeah, it's not a hard and fast rule. Let me give you an example off the top of my head. Let's say hypothetically that a person is murdered who happens to be homosexual and the only surviving relative is the very conservative judgmental parents who feel embarrassed by the fact that their victim was gay and says, we don't want you to talk about them in their sinful lifestyle. What happened to them was the punishment of God. They don't deserve to be talked about or remembered.

[B]

Yeah, well said. The victim's family has made it very clear that they do not want you covering it. But not for a reason that I feel like I find legitimate. Yes, the, the other, the other side of this is that. Well, I mean, let me start off with. There's, there's a couple of. I think I agree with you. I think that victims families feelings should absolutely be taken into consideration and should absolutely be a part of the process. But a lot of this depends on what, what is the project or show's intention and what are they doing. So you might have a, there's different types of shows. You have shows and you have projects, like I say shows, but we're really talking about all of true crime. Books, projects, documentaries, whatever. They might take the, they might take the perspective of the police investigators. What was it like to investigate this case? They might take the perspective of a defense attorney. What was it like to defend my client in this case? They might take a journalistic approach which is trying to essentially do journalism within the form of true crime and cover maybe a couple of different angles and get down to the truth. You might have a, you might have an activist, right, saying that, okay, this is a case of police brutality, we should be doing something different here. Or this, this, this should have been penalized. You might have a person who is actually the family member themselves covering the case. You know, you might have someone who's an advocate for a family. So I, I think it can go in so many different, different directions. If you are trying to do some kind of like advocacy for victims families and the family says don't cover this, then I absolutely agree you should not cover it. Because what's the point? If you're advocating for them, you should be respecting their wishes. But if you're say a defense attorney or a more defense oriented person and you say, I think this is a wrongful conviction. I think you should be allowed to say that. I think a lot of those podcasts suck, but I think, I think you should. I think like now, I think in that case it behooves you the, the ethical thing to do would be to try to at least put the other perspective in there. And maybe if the family disagrees with what you're doing and thinks it's not a wrongful conviction, put their side in, you know, whatever that means. Whether that means getting the documents and sort of going, and here's the prosecution's case and showing your audience the full scope of opinion. I think that's the right thing to do in that situation.

[A]

Yeah. Make sure that the perspective of the family is somehow included in your wrong.

[B]

And if they won't talk to you, it's still on you to put what, you know, the, the belief is on the other side.

[A]

Because if you have actually researched the case, then you probably have some understanding of why the person got convicted. In other words, you know, the case against them. So present that case. Here's why they got convicted. The prosecutors had this, this, and this, and the jury found this or this compelling. Present that. Explain that. And that doesn't have to come from the victim's relatives coming on your show and saying you can find that on your own and you should.

[B]

And again, like, it's not. I, I'm, I think a lot of the podcasts that do this wrongful conviction stuff are, are really bad. I mean, like, I think a lot of them don't do what we just said and they are disrespectful to families. But I think we have to assess them on a case by case basis and look at what they're specifically doing versus saying we need to completely erase anything that goes against the beliefs of family members in a case. Because I don't think wrongful convictions are nearly as common as a lot of people act like they are. I don't think. You know, I mean, the degree to me is off by a lot, but they do happen and you have to be able to talk about them when there's even a possibility. And saying that no, well, the, the family thinks the guy did it, so, you know, you can't talk about it. I, I just, I'm not comfortable with that hard and fast of a rule about anything. I'm comfortable with seeing a crappy podcast come out and oh, this, this guy's innocent. No, he's not. And then calling it out. But I'm just not comfortable with just banning a certain type of expression within true crime because I just think that that goes too far and I would rather encourage people to just do a better job. First of all, you can't ban it, right? Like, I mean, freedom of speech. But what would be more helpful is encouraging creators doing that to do a better job and be less offensive to family members by, in different perspectives and not just trying to manipulate their audience into, you know, supporting. People are very likely rightfully convicted killers. What would be better would be to have, encourage them to be showing both sides of it more. And, and to me, that's better. Another example of this though would be like, you know, in cases, in certain cases, family members are the perpetrators. If you have a hypothetical where a husband, his wife goes missing and he starts kind of reaching out to creators saying, don't cover this, I don't want you covering this. I'm a grieving husband. And then, you know, months down the road, turns out he was, he was the perpetrator and police made a case for him and arrested him. And it was basically him trying to like, get the heat off. I mean, that's not a situation where I think it would be good to just do what the quote unquote, family says, right? That person is a family member. That person is close to the victim. But you know, and again, I'm not saying you should be regarding victims, families as possible suspects when you're considering this. I'm just saying that, like, I'm really just kind of attacking the black and white thinking here versus saying that we shouldn't have these discussions. I think we should have these discussions. But I think nuance is our friend here. And again, I hate this because I, I, I like, I like black and white thinking. Sometimes it's easier to be just like yes or no with this. I think you, it has to be maybe. And it has to be, as you said, there's been cases where we've reached out to people and like, what we feel we could add to that case would be talking with the victim's family. And they're like, we're not interested. And we're like, okay. And we don't feel like we're going to add much beyond platforming them. So we're not going to keep digging into it because there's not, there's not any of those questions. And it's just like we're trying to be respectful. So in certain situations we've felt like that's the best thing to do. But, you know, I can envision in other, like, you know, I could envision in other cases, you know, that wouldn't necessarily be the end all, be all. Because we feel like we have a duty to the public as well to do a journalistically responsible coverage of the case. And we're ultimately not beholden to simply a victim's family in that situation. We are beholden to be as respectful as possible to explain our intentions and to basically explain what we're doing. I think we are. I think we do owe them that. But as far as a yes or no or a straight up veto, it depends.

[A]

And also, what would you do if we talk about victim's family as if they are a single unit, which is not rarely true, A family is made up of individuals with different points of view. What do you do if a member of the victim's family says, yes, I think it's very important that you share the story of this victim. I want people to remember this victim. I want people to honor this victim. That's very, very important to me. And then another member of the family says, no, don't do. Would be too painful to us as members of the family. How do you handle that?

[B]

How do you handle that? What, like which family is. Which family member is more important, basically, is what you're asking people to decide. Another thing, another thing that kind of you can come run into is there's cases with multiple victims, multiple victims with multiple families that may all feel very differently. We've run into that burger chef. We. We talk extensively. We've talked extensively and had a lot of contact with one family, another family, some minimal contact. I think two families, kind of some minimal contact. One family we've never even heard from. You know, so do we need to get everybody's. Like, in a hypothetical where you need the permission, do you have to get everybody's. Or is one person saying, please cover this enough? You know, I mean, because what's very helpful and cathartic to one family might be something triggering and painful to another. And. And I think we have to just kind of sit with the fact that this can be messy sometimes. And because it can be messy and because you are dealing with people's tragedies, I think it's less helpful to say some rule needs to be established that no one would ever follow because it would be just kind of too confusing and all over the place. And instead preach respect towards family members. Preach, not like accusing them of the crime without anything, without any evidence. Being kind, being thoughtful, considering sometimes maybe if there's a situation where you are intruding into it as someone looking into it and you're really not adding anything and you know, you're not really going to add anything, maybe considering if it, if it's against the family's wishes, maybe at that point you do back off in some cases and being open to that and being open to critique and being open to the families coming to you and saying, this sucks, you did a bad job, you know, and thinking about it from their perspective and trying to put yourself in the position of how would I feel if this was my loved one? And how can that inform how I talk about this case? And how can I be more humane and how can I be more thoughtful and how can I be more victim centric? And how can I reach out to the family and see if they want to participate or if they don't want to participate or what they feel it would be helpful for me to put out there if I'm dealing with like a case that's ongoing or like unsolved or a missing person, you know, I think there are more helpful questions, but they require frankly more work on the part of the creators. You know what they say? Early bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO. Because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks, well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with VRBO's early booking. Deals, rides and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

Here's another point. I also think victims families can get stuff wrong. So like you might have a victim's family where they come to you and they say, I want you to report on this, but I want you to say that the ex husband did it. Because that's what I think happened. I think that's. As a creator, you can certainly maybe in certain instances, if it's ethical platform, that viewpoint, for sure, absolutely. But basically becoming a mouthpiece for a family gets into some. Can get into some dicey territory. What if they're wrong? What if they felt like the ex husband was a really bad dude, but like, maybe he's not guilty? You know, like. So if you're kind of allowing them to call the shots in terms of how you're putting things together, even I think that can cross a boundary. I think I can cross an ethical line, even if you're not intending any harm. You know, I think you have to be nuanced. I think you have to be fair. And I think, you know, most of the victims families that we've interacted with and worked with, I think have mostly been very open to our coverage, at least the ones we've heard from, you know, where they were like, yeah, this is helpful, and it's cathartic. And sometimes I feel like I'm like, oh, I don't want to reach out to these people because they've already gone through hell, and I feel like a weird vulture coming at them. And in most cases, they're like, it was very cathartic to talk with you and share about my loved one on the show because, like, that's. It's about, like, memorializing them in a way, or about, hey, this, their story mattered. But that's not a universal experience. A lot of people are just going to say, hey, you can do what you're going to do, but I don't want any part of it because it's too painful for me. Other people might say, no, don't cover it. You know, and again, you have to. I think you have to be open to that feedback, you know, whether or not you end up doing that. I think you have to at least be aware that what you're doing, you know, could get unethical. But, I mean, coming from a journalism background, it's like what I was taught was this is if it's a case that's in the public interest and the public wants to know about it, you know, the police going to you and saying, don't cover it. The mayor going to you and saying, don't cover it. The family saying, don't cover it. Unless there are some very specific reasons why, like, it would be a danger to report on it or, like, put out information that then the killer could know and then hurt people with, it's like, that's not your assignment editor. Your assignment editor is your assignment editor, and that's what you're gonna do. And that can seem a little cold, I think, to people, but I think having some distance is necessary. But I think you. I mean, for me, though, like, certainly if you're going around and being like, wow, the victims families in different cases are very important to me, and I want to respect their wishes, and you're just covering stuff anyways, then I think it's fair to be criticized for that, right? You're doing this kind of like, oh, you know, like, I love the victims Families. But, you know, if you tell me to back off, I'm not going to. Yeah, I mean, then you're not really living.

[A]

Yeah, it's important if a per. You want to make sure that you live up to your stated standards.

[B]

Exactly. It's about stated standards. If you're saying, hey, I'm looking at a case where I think there might be something more to it. I think maybe the wrong guy was accused, or I think maybe this guy is the guilty party over this guy. You know, you might get some disagreement, but I don't think you should just shrug that off. I don't think you should just ignore it. But just as far as, like, a rule, you know, I think the majority of the time, I think, I mean, from what I've seen, you know, especially in terms of some of the Innocence Grift podcasts, I really do agree with the family and I'm like, yeah, I would totally yeet this particular podcast from existence if I could, because it's totally useless and just misinforming people. But I gotta be, like, intellectually consistent. And I feel like the idea of just saying, yes, there's an easy black and white rule to follow, and that's what every podcaster should do in every circumstance is simply not accurate. And it would not be a good situation, in my opinion, because it would. It would be. You know, I, I would rather. I would rather basically people do better with a nuanced framework of looking at this, which is more difficult because again, black and white rules are much easier to follow. But I would rather people be thinking about these things in a sensitive and deeper way versus just saying it got the thumbs up, it got the thumbs down. Because as we've talked about, sometimes you get both from the same family or from different families in the same circumstance. You know, like, I also, Things change over time, right? Like, we, like, we've seen cases where it's first, people are kind of like, who are you? What are you doing? We don't. We don't know what you're doing, and we're a little bit wary of you. And then over time, they see what you're doing and they build up trust.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

And it's. And it's frankly on you to earn the family's trust, you know, and. And things can go forward from there. It's not always just like a simple snapshot of like. But I mean, you know, certainly in many, in many projects, I would say that, like, you should be. I would rather see people being work, working to earn families trust. Working to show here's good work I've done that's been respectful and this is what we're going to do when we cover your loved one's case versus just saying, like, I don't know, I just think people kind of. People kind of like in, in. In. In pursuing something. I think that's very good. They kind of drop nuance and the, the framework becomes unworkable. And I'm just trying to kind of, as much as I loved this comment section and loved people being like, you know, hey, Audio Chuck, maybe be more thoughtful to families of victims, which I'm all about, I think maybe it's just a little bit too black and white for me to be saying, well, you need permission. I just think that gets into a kind of dangerous territory too quickly. Although I will say I remember and you remember this. Do you remember that TikTok Flowers did, like immediately after the Delphi trial.

[A]

Oh. When she seemed to raise the possibility that Richard Allen might be innocent or

[B]

like framed or something like complete conspiracy hogwash based on someone who wasn't at the trial and just seemingly was like reading articles about it. Yeah. So I definitely was pretty ticked off on the family's behalf in that situation.

[A]

Yeah, I can't imagine that's the sort of thing the family enjoys seeing.

[B]

Well, it's like, you know, you have the biggest. You have one of the biggest true crime, you know, companies, corporations, right. Where they're just, you know, producing all this stuff and you're getting on your platform and you're, you know, after acting all concerned about this case for years, all the families. The families. And then you get on your friggin TikTok and put this thing out there about. Well, I don't know, maybe it was framed. And it's like, are you.

[A]

Like, you're not in. In fairness, I haven't listened to an episode of Crime Junkie since the episode they did on David Cam, which must have been a very long time ago. But my understanding, and it may be an imperfect understanding, but my understanding is that of late they have turned more towards conspiracies.

[B]

Oh, good. That's responsible. You know, but I get. They got to get those corporate dollars.

[A]

I could be wrong. Who knows?

[B]

I don't know. I've gone. So I've, I've gone through all the, like, I went from being like, these people are awful to being like, you know. Cause I'm like, they're corporate soulless suits who are only in it for money. And then I went like, here, like things Got nuanced, folks. We talked about nuance. Then I went from that to being like, you know what? There are actually worse things to be in true crime because at least they're not totally freaking nuts. Like, so I actually, my, like, view of that kind of true crime that I feel like Ashley Flowers does, I actually kind of was like, you know what? Like, yeah, is she a bit of a soulless, you know, capitalist who's kind of just running around expanding her empire? Yes. But would I rather her do that than like, I don't know, like, stalking people or like hiring investigators to fall around prosecutors or like, you know, sending death threats to people? Yes. So for me, I was like, yeah, it's very Bland. It's very McDonald's. It's very kind of like we're, we're just kind of churning out content. But it's better than a lot of what I've seen. But then like the fact that they've kind of been leaning more into conspiracy lately and certainly with the Delphi thing that they posted, I was definitely more back on the like, oh, come on, can't you at least be normal? Like, I mean, isn't that like the whole, you know, I don't know, it, it just, it ticked me off. But you know, I think I, it's nice to see that some people are starting to kind of at least ask these questions. I would rather people be saying, you need perm from the family to do a case. I'd rather them be saying that than them be saying, you know, f the families and stuff. So like, for me, it's like, I like these people. I think they're really coming from a really good place. And I, I, I just, I want to inject a little bit more nuance into the conversation because I think it would be helpful because it also digs deeper and maybe addresses some more of the root issues for why true crime goes off the rails and can be so hurtful to families. But it's, it's, it's, you know, so I mean, it's less of a criticism of their thinking and more of just trying to like, maybe build upon it a little bit. I mean, would you agree? I mean, I feel like these people are very well intentioned.

[A]

Yeah, I would agree with that.

[B]

You know, and we see so much of the opposite. We see people who are so ill intentioned and who are basically just using true crime in order to hurt other people, stalk other people, say horrible things about people they don't know without consequence. We see so much of that it's refreshing to see people who are actually concerned with how the people who are most affected by these crimes feel and what they think about these, because they're. They know it's not a neutral experience to have media made over the horrible thing that happened to one of your relatives. So I salute these people. That's what I wanted to add to the conversation. But in general, again, I'm glad to see people taking this stuff seriously, at least, because for a long time it felt like it was like we were just screaming out in the wilderness of like, hey, can we not like, torture people who've already gone through the worst thing possible maybe? Could we just not do that? And so, you know, I hope that. I hope at least somebody at Audio Chuck saw some of these comments, though. Cause it felt like a lot of them were definitely calling them out a bit as is warranted. Well, is that what we wanted? Are those the truths?

[A]

Those are the truths. The true crime truths, if you will.

[B]

Was there anything else you wanted to.

[A]

I'm done.

[B]

You're done? He's just been zoning out. He's just. This is like a dinner with us where he's just sitting there quietly, like, zoned out. I'm yammering for five hours.

[A]

It's always a delight when you yammer on those rare occasions.

[B]

Those rare occasions. I eat every hour of every day. Well, I'll be curious what your guys takes are. Do you feel like we were on the money with these? Do you feel like we were mostly on the money but missed some things? Or maybe there's some more nuances you would add to these different.

[A]

You have suggestions for true crime truths we should discuss?

[B]

Yeah. Do you think we should discuss or do you think we can hone down on some things or we got some things wrong that may be. Okay, we'll close this loop and then, you know, I. I just be curious what people think because to me it's. It's. A lot of this stuff is more complicated than it seems. And I think that can be an interesting topic of discussion within true crime as you know, with the goal of trying to make true crime as a whole a better, more empathetic, more compassionate and more truthful place.

[A]

But, yeah, true crime, truthful.

[B]

You're all about the branding now. Classic audio show got to you. All right, well, thank you all so much for listening.

[A]

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.

[B]

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.

[A]

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

[B]

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.