Dr. Tristan Engels (3:42)

And along the way, I'll be talking about things like how Dan manipulated everyone around him for his own gain, his willingness to betray the people that he he trusted most, and the inability to stop lying even when he was caught.

Vanessa Richardson (3:58)

And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? In May 2010, 26 year old Dan Wozniak was getting ready to marry his fiance, 23 year old Rachel Buffett. The two of them were getting married at the end of the month and they wanted a lavish, extravagant wedding. But there was a big problem. They couldn't afford it. Dan wasn't going to let that stop him though. For years the struggling theater actor had taken advantage of his friends by borrowing money and never paying them back. He was ready to do the same when it came to his wedding fund. But this time he was going to take extreme measures to get it, which meant betraying his best friend in the most horrific way possible.

Dr. Tristan Engels (4:54)

In episode one, I outlined how Dan's personality formed. And just to recap, he was a child of helicopter parenting. And helicopter parents hover over their child's every move, meaning all of their focus, worry and time is spent on their child. As a result, Dan was raised to believe everything revolved around him and everything will be done for him. This, in addition to personality traits and societal influence. Influence created entitlement in Dan. Helicopter parenting explains in part how Dan's personality was shaped, as do all types of childhood experiences and environments. But his parents are not to blame for this behavior. He is still in charge of his choices. And Dan has grown into someone who's purely ego driven, lacks empathy, is calloused enough to betray his best friend in the most extreme way imaginable.

Vanessa Richardson (5:48)

What does it say about a person who sees others more as tools they can use rather than people? Is there a clinical diagnosis for that?

Dr. Tristan Engels (5:56)

Yeah, actually there's a few that that could fall under. We'll start with the first. The general criteria for antisocial personality disorder is a continuing pattern of disregard for and the violation of the rights of others since the age of 15. However, for this to be diagnosed, the individual has to have evidence of conduct disorder before the age of 15. And we didn't really cover his life before high school in detail in order to confirm if there's any evidence of that. We do know though that he has been deceitful since he was a teenager and he has shown a pattern of disregard for others. Evidence of this is the sex tape that he saved for extorting his ex girlfriend, manipulating others in his immediate circle, all for financial gain, pathological lying, and now murder. He also exhibits signs of narcissistic personality disorder. He is preoccupied with material things, such as this elaborate wedding he wants to have, even though he doesn't even have the means for it. He's preoccupied with success, he's self centered and entitled, he lacks empathy, and he has interpersonally explosive behaviors. As we outlined in episode one, people with these personality disorders truly only see others as tools that they can use for their own personal gain. Overall, the diagnostic impressions lean toward one or more personality disorders. With that said, I have not personally evaluated Dan, so this is not a formal diagnosis by any means, just an educational overview.

Vanessa Richardson (7:28)

Dan's chilling plan went into action on May 21, 2010. That night, one of his acquaintances, 23 year old Julie Kibuishi, got a text from dan's best friend, 26 year old Sam. Her Julie and Sam were extremely close and according to the message, Sam was in a lot of distress. He asked Julie to come over to his apartment in Costa Mesa, California. But something about the messages felt off. They just didn't sound like him. Especially because one of Sam's texts mentioned that he wasn't looking for sex that night. That struck Julie as odd because they were only friends. They'd never been intimate like that. But if anything, those strange details made Julie even more willing to help Sam because she was one of the few people who knew Sam suffered from PTSD from his days in the Army. If he was in a bad place that night, it would be understandable if he wasn't himself. So without a second thought, she went to meet up with him. The next morning, Sam's dad Steve found Julie's dead body in his son's apartment and Sam was nowhere to be found. After Steve called 911, Detective Mike Cohen of the Costa Mesa PD was one of the first officers on the scene. Initially, it seemed like Julie had been killed as a result of a love triangle gone wrong. She'd been shot in the back of her head and someone had scrawled a lewd message on her sweater. Julie's pants had also been pulled down, indicating possible sexual assault. Detective Cohen asked Sam's dad if he knew anything about Julie. Steve said that she and Sam were friends, she tutored him, and he viewed her like a kid sister. But Then Cohen looked at Julie's phone and saw the text she got from Sam the night before, begging her to come over. He started to think that maybe Sam and Julie were closer than they'd let on. And when Cohen learned about Sam's PTSD and possible drug and alcohol use, he wondered if the young man had snapped. If that was true, they needed to find Sam as soon as possible. To do that, Cohen and his team spoke to some of Sam's neighbors. And one of the first people they approached was Sam's good friend, Dan Wozniak. When the officers went to the apartment Dan shared with his fiance, Rachel Buffett, Dan said Sam had been over the night before and he'd been acting strange. According to Dan, when Sam left that night, they saw him get into a car with someone they'd never seen before. Dan said he only saw the other guy at a distance, but he could tell he was wearing a black beanie. The officers didn't know what to make of this, but they were confident Sam was on the run. They started tracking his bank accounts in case he used his debit card somewhere. They also ran a background check and learned about Sam's past murder charges. And the next day, Julie Kibuishi's autopsy revealed that her killer had a taste for violence. It turned out she'd actually been shot twice in the back of the head. The first one had been fatal, which meant Julie's killer shot her again, even though they might have known she was already dead. There was something even more bewildering, though. While Julie's pants had been pulled down, there was no evidence of sexual assault. In fact, the autopsy was somehow able to show that her pants had remained on for several hours after she died, which meant that someone came back to the scene and removed them.

Dr. Tristan Engels (11:13)

Whenever someone is shot in the back of the head, my initial thought is this was an execution. There's no room for this to have occurred accidentally or involuntarily. It was intentional. But to determine a profile of the shooter, we need to consider a lot of factors. Specifically, how her pants were pulled down hours after her death, with no evidence of sexual assault. That lewd message that was scrawled across her back and how her body was found. And when we consider all of these factors, it's apparent, at least to me, that the killer is somewhat inexperienced, but also organized. And what we know about the profile of an organized killer is that they plan their crimes in advance to ensure control over the situation. They attempt to conceal evidence. They are calm and relaxed after their Kill. And they are socially competent, often living with a partner. They appear to lead a normal life. They are highly manipulative and deceptive, and they're often personality disordered.

Vanessa Richardson (12:15)

What does this say also, about the level of comfort in returning to the scene hours later and handling a dead body?

Dr. Tristan Engels (12:22)

So I think it speaks to a few things, but it's specific to this case because that's going to vary on a case by case basis. First, this is unique in that the crime scene was staged, and I think this is why they returned. It's as if after the murder, they've been contemplating the scene, recognizing the errors or coming up with additional ways to make the staged scene seem believable and then align it with a story. And secondly, it shows that they have a lot of arrogance and grandiosity. If they feel confident enough to do this without detection or with little consideration of the risk involved.

Vanessa Richardson (13:00)

Well, the situation certainly had investigators baffled. But two days later, they got closer to an answer. On May 23, 2010, the police got a hit on Sam's bank account. His debit card had been used twice. First at an ATM and then second at a pizza place right there in town. The withdrawal was for $400. Not a ton of money, but enough to help someone get out of Dodge. But when they pulled up the footage from the ATMs security camera, they didn't see Sam. It was a young man in sunglasses, a hoodie, and a black beanie just like the one Dan had described, withdrawing money from Sam's account. Officers didn't recognize the guy, and neither did Sam's parents. But authorities knew it wouldn't be hard to find him. Because when Sam's debit card was used to buy a pizza, minutes after the ATM withdrawal, it was for a delivery order. Investigators promptly went to the restaurant and got the address of where the food went. It was delivered to a home in nearby Long Beach, California. Officers rushed to the address, ready for a confrontation. But instead of a hardened criminal, they were face to face with a frightened 17 year old boy. Officers sat the young man down and started asking him questions. His name was Wesley Froelich. He had used Sam's debit card. But Wesley had no idea who Sam even was. He only had Sam's card because someone had given it to him. One of Wesley's best friends. Someone who Wesley trusted so, so completely. He'd do anything for no questions asked. That person was Dan Wozniak. And he'd used Wesley to help cover up a murder. On May 23, 2010, two days after Julie Kibuishi was murdered, investigators traced Sam hers debit card to a house in Long Beach, California. But when they arrived, all the officers found was a 17 year old boy named Wesley Fralich. Wesley admitted that Dan Wozniak had given him Sam's debit card. Wesley trusted Dan completely. They'd known each other ever since Wesley was a little kid when they met through the theater scene in Long Beach. Dan was Wesley's mentor, almost like a a big brother to him. Apparently Dan had come to Wesley a few days earlier saying his friend Sam owed someone a lot of money. Apparently Sam had asked Dan for help withdrawing the funds. But Dan told Wesley that for some reason it was too much for him to cash out on his own. He needed Wesley's help to get it and offered to throw in a little kickback for his troubles. Wesley didn't ask any questions. He agreed to help and Dan gave him a hoodie, a pair of sunglasses and a black beanie. Then Dan drove them to a nearby atm. He parked at a distance from the machine. Then he gave Wesley Sam's debit card and told him to withdraw the $400.

Dr. Tristan Engels (16:25)

Let's talk about how Wesley was so susceptible to this. Teenagers generally are susceptible to influence and manipulation because of a number of reasons. First, have underdeveloped cognitive abilities, which means their cost benefit appraisal or risk assessment, decision making and impulse control are diminished due to the fact that their brains are still developing and they're undergoing a lot of changes and have a heightened sensitivity making them more emotionally vulnerable. They also have a strong desire for peer acceptance as they're trying to find their own identity and social connections. And children are often taught to trust adults, to listen to adults, so they look up to adults. I don't think he had any reason not to trust Dan as a result of that. So when a teenager is befriended by an adult, especially one that they look up to, they're very easy targets.

Vanessa Richardson (17:19)

Is it possible that Dan enlisted Wesley specifically because he needed someone to do his dirty work for him and knew that Wesley would be easier to manipulate?

Dr. Tristan Engels (17:28)

Absolutely. I think that's exactly what went on here. And Dan has that pattern of pathological lying, of manipulating others and preying on their weaknesses, especially with his friends and family, all just to get what he wants. So there's no boundary that we have seen that Dan is not willing to cross because all that matters is him and his desires. And if it meant putting a 17 year old boy at risk to get that, he absolutely would.

Vanessa Richardson (17:57)

Wesley's Story stunned investigators partly because of what Dan had told Wesley made no sense. Why would someone need an extra set of hands to make cash withdrawals? They started to realize there had to be more to the story and that Dan was the key to unraveling it. So Detective Mike Cohen called Dan and asked him to come down to the station for some follow up questions. Only Dan said no. He told them he wasn't available because he was at his bachelor party. He and his fiance, Rachel Buffett, were supposed to get married in just a few days. Detective Cohen didn't press the issue. Instead, he asked around and found out where Dan's bachelor party was. Turned out he was right there in town. So on the evening of May 26, 2010, three days after the raid on Wesley's home, the police tracked Dan down. Dan and his friends were at a sushi restaurant in Long beach when Detective Cohen confronted him. Once Dan saw Cohen, then all the color drained from his face. Detective Cohen brought Dan back to the station where he laid out his side of the story. Dan calmly explained that Sam had looped him into a plan to steal from himself. Sam had saved up all of his combat pay, a total of $62,000. He wanted to get a couple people to dress up like robbers and withdraw all of it in small amounts. And then he'd report the money stolen so he could essentially get paid twice. Dan told detectives that he had agreed to help, but now he didn't know where Sam was. The story seemed a little far fetched to the investigators, and the more they poked at Dan's story, the more agitated he became. Eventually, Dan admitted there was something else he needed to tell them. Apparently, a week after Sam first hatched the ATM plan, he came to Dan's apartment in the early morning hours in a panic. He told Dan that he'd killed somebody. According to Dan, Sam threatened to kill Dan and his fiance Rachel if Dan didn't help him get away with it. All Dan had to do was drop Sam off somewhere so he could go on the run, terrified for his life. Dan agreed. So he said he brought Sam to a shopping mall right there in Costa Mesa. By this point, it was clear to Detective Cohen that Dan wasn't being honest with them. But they listened patiently as he delivered his monologue. Eventually, Detective Cohen cut him off and told him they needed to take a DNA sample. Once he heard that, Dan started changing his story again. This time, he admitted to being in Sam's apartment the night of the murder. Dan said he helped Sam clean up the murder scene. And gather his things. But he didn't see Julie.

Dr. Tristan Engels (20:56)

Whenever pathological liars are confronted with evidence that contradicts their lies, their immediate reaction is typically defensiveness. And we already saw that Dan initially became agitated by detectives. Then they often change the story to cover up the initial deception, Like Dan is doing here. Changing their story can be another way to emotionally manipulate someone. So, for example, let's say in his relationship with Rachel, if Rachel confronts Daniel and Dan is backed into a corner and then makes up a new lie, and that lie would make Rachel feel guilty for questioning him to begin with, then Dan has now emotionally manipulated Rachel by creating false guilt and thus escapes confrontation. And his lie has been successful. But in this case, Dan is confronted by law enforcement. So he admits to the deception and changes his story slightly. And I think he's doing this because he's hoping that that will make him appear honest and sincere, because he copped to a lie willingly, even though he did so by lying again. Only this kind of tactic doesn't work on law enforcement because they're trained to interrogate and to detect lies. Now his lies are snowballing into other lies until he will have no option but to submit. And there's other reactions that pathological liars have when they're confronted and the others are blaming other people for their lie or minimizing the impact of the lie altogether. Those are two other common reactions.

Vanessa Richardson (22:29)

Because of those lies, Dan had just dug himself into a huge hole. While there wasn't any evidence that he'd killed Julie yet, he had just admitted to being an accessory after the fact. He was arrested right then and there. In a last ditch effort, Dan then admitted that he did see Julie's body. Detective Cohen asked him what exactly he saw. Dan described the bloody room and Julie slumped on the floor with two gunshot wounds in her head. This was a crucial moment because everyone who'd seen Julie's body knew that only one gunshot wound was visible. The second gunshot wasn't revealed until the autopsy, and investigators hadn't shared that detail with the public. Until this point, the police had believed that Sam was the killer and Dan was somehow involved. But now they realized Dan had murdered Julie. And there was still one big question. Where was Sam?

Carter Roy (23:37)

It's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help. Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app, some cards are labeled no ding decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding decline cards won't hurt your credit scores if you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.

Vanessa Richardson (24:05)

Experian on the night of May 26, 2010, police arrested 26 year old Dan Wasn for being an accessory to the murder of Julie Kibuishi. But police suspected that Dan had actually killed Julie and that he might have done something to his friend Sam, her as well. That same night, the police brought Dan's fiance, 23 year old Rachel Buffett, in for questioning. They filled her in on everything Dan had said and she told them she didn't know about any of it. She and Dan had even performed in a musical in the hours before Julie was murdered. But she said nothing seemed off about him. If anything, he'd given one of the best performances of his life that night. Detectives didn't keep Rachel at the station long, but the next day they listened in on her phone calls with Dan. First, Rachel said she went to Dan's family's house to tell them he was in jail on suspicion of murder. When Dan's brother Tim heard the news, he broke down. He pulled Rachel aside and admitted that he already knew what Rachel was talking about. Because before Dan was arrested, he brought over a duffel bag full of evidence, including the gun he'd used to kill Julie. Over the phone, Rachel asked Dan if that was true and he said said yes. At that moment, Rachel seemed to realize she'd made a mistake because she reminded Dan that he was calling her from jail where all phone calls were recorded. And now she had no choice but to tell the detectives the truth. But before Rachel did anything, Dan wanted to talk to them first. He said he was going to do something radical and that she might never see him again, at least not as a free man. Later that day, around 1:00pm, detectives brought Dan back into the interrogation room. Dan immediately told them, quote, I'm crazy and I did it. I killed Julie and I killed Sam.

Dr. Tristan Engels (26:20)

I'm wondering if Dan's radical plan is to use the insanity defense. The only thing that he would have to gain by that if successful, is he would be sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. But let's talk about the insanity defense. I know we've talked about it in past episodes, but it definitely warrants a revisit here because each case is different. So there are three legal standards for insanity and it varies based on state. And in the state of California where Dan is, they use the McNaughton Rule, and that has two prongs. First, Dan's defense would need to prove that he has a mental disease or defect that meets the legal standard of insanity. Mental disease and defect are legal terms. They are not terms that we use clinically, but it is a legal term. And then second, they would need to prove that during the commission of the crime, his mental disease or defect impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions, in this case, murder. And that his mental disease or defect impaired his ability to understand that what he did was legally wrong. So here are the problems that Dan would face if he's truly seeking to use the insanity defense. And from what we learned so far, Dan does not have a mental disease or defect that would meet the legal standard, such as a psychotic disorder or severe mood disorder. And even if he had, for argument's sake, he faces challenges with the second prong of the McNaughton Rule. His behavior clearly shows that he understood what he did was legally wrong, and he demonstrates full understanding of the nature of his actions. And here's how we know this. This One, he lied to cover it up. Two, he staged the crime scene. He's enlisted unwilling participants like Wesley to throw off investigators and gain access to Dan's money. And lastly, he hid the murder weapon by giving it to his brother. That shows to me he knows this is legally wrong. Otherwise, why are you hiding it? And it also shows he has rational thought. So I'm confident that if he was to pursue an insanity defense, that he would be found criminally responsible by any evaluating forensic psychologists. Just based on these factors, what are.

Vanessa Richardson (28:33)

Some of the misconceptions people might have about insanity? Please. Do killers frequently try to use it as an excuse for their crimes?

Dr. Tristan Engels (28:40)

This is a really good question. So there are a few misconceptions about the insanity defense. First, it's not as common as people think. It's used in less than 1% of all criminal cases. The most common forensic assessment that occurs is is the request for competency to stand trial evaluations. And this is vastly different. Another misconception. Only 26% of insanity cases are successful for the defendant. And this is because there's an extremely high burden of proof. To answer your second question, do they frequently try to use it as an excuse? Yes. A lot of defendants will inquire about using this defense with their attorneys, but not all attorneys will advise going forward with one, given their case factors, or there might be more beneficial legal strategies. And of course, there's always that burden.

Vanessa Richardson (29:31)

Of proof in Dan's case, He was trying his best to come off as unhinged so he'd be able to plead insanity. And the details he shared were definitely shocking. Dan told detectives that the day he'd killed Julie, he'd invited Sam over to his apartment. And that's when he put his plan into motion. Dan told Sam he needed to move some heavy equipment at the theater where he was performing. Being the good friend he was, Sam agreed to help. When they got there, the place was empty. Dan said the stuff he needed to move was up in the attic, but it was a lie. Once they got up there, Dan pulled out his gun. He shot his best friend in the back. But the first bullet didn't kill Sam, so Dan pulled the trigger again. This time, it was fatal. Dan left Sam's body up in the attic. Then, a few hours later, he performed on the stage below. After the show, Dan used Sam's phone to text Julie and lure her to Sam's apartment. He was waiting outside the door when she arrived. They went in together, and Dan pretended to be just as confused as julie. When they saw that Sam wasn't home, they walked into Sam's bedroom, and Dan asked Julie to look for something under the bed. When she knelt down, he shot her. He told detectives it was all part of the COVID up. He'd killed Julie to frame Sam to make it look like it was some kind of love affair gone wrong. And he'd killed Julie in a jealous rage.

Dr. Tristan Engels (31:06)

Now, you see, someone who was legally insane at the time of the crime wouldn't have been able to perform on stage right after, Especially without others noticing their mental state. They likely would have intervened if he was truly exhibiting signs or symptoms of a severe mental illness at the time. The time of the crime?

Vanessa Richardson (31:26)

Absolutely. Well, there's more. The next morning, Dan went back to the theater. He climbed into the attic, where he dismembered Sam's head and hands with a knife. He told detectives that he even laughed when he did it, like he could hardly believe what he was doing. After he was done, Dan said he left Sam's extremities in a storage area in the theater. Finally, he dropped the rest of his body at a nature reserve in long Beach. Later on, investigators would find all the remains exactly where Dan said they were.

Dr. Tristan Engels (32:02)

With the exception of someone like Ted Bundy, whom we covered already. Most killers who dismember their victims do so because it makes it easier to transport and dispose of the remains. It also makes it harder to identify the remains and makes it easier for them to conceal evidence. When Dan killed Sam in the attic of the theater, he likely realized there was no way he was going to be able to remove Sam's body from the attic without any help and certainly without being seen. And I think that's why he chose to dismember him. I don't think there's anything really more to that. It also helps him, like I said, conceal the body so that police can believe that Sam is alive and on the run. And it fits his story, this elaborate story he's created. It's also very clinically significant that Dan was able to perform on stage Right after doing that with Sam's corpse just above him.

Vanessa Richardson (32:57)

It's mind boggling.

Dr. Tristan Engels (32:59)

Yeah. And he was able to do that so effortlessly, Hours after killing his, quote, best friend and while his dead body was above him. This just really illustrates how apathetic and calloused he is and how superficial he. All of his relationships are a means to an end for him, and it's as if he's lacking a conscience. But let's also talk about Julie for a second. So he shot her twice in the back of the head. Shooting someone in the back of the head, as I mentioned earlier, is very transactional, intentional, and in Dan's case, impersonal. So killing Sam and Julie wasn't personal to him. It was business. It was transactional. And shooting her in the back of the head just shows how disconnected he was from her and any emotions he had to her. And given what we also know now, he wanted to make it look like Sam had not just assaulted her, but also murdered her. So perhaps he thought shooting her twice on the head would appear more like a crime of passion Or a crime that was fueled with rage. And it's also worth noting, though, that Dan killed Julie after he killed Sam, and he told detectives that he had to shoot Sam twice before he died. So it's possible that he could have have simply repeated the same thing with Julie to reduce that margin of error. But whatever his reason, it was too easy for him. And it's because he had no attachment to her, no attachment to Sam, and he has no conscience.

Vanessa Richardson (34:29)

If Dan wanted to appear mentally ill, his own actions undermined him. Because after he killed Julie, Dan stuffed Sam's passport and clothes, the gun and the shell casing from Julie's murder into a duffel bag and gave it to his brother, which meant he was clear minded enough to try and cover his tracks. With all that in mind, authorities charged him with two counts of first degree murder. It would take A while for him to go to trial, though over six years. During that time, Dan certainly didn't seem like a man who felt bad about what he'd done. If anything, dancing, he enjoyed the attention he was getting from the case. He jumped at the chance to appear on the documentary show Lockup. Ever the performer, he talked about things like his astrological sign and enjoying long walks on the beach, almost like he was on a dating show. But to the prosecutors working the case, it was no game. They were determined to make sure Dan paid for his crimes, especially because even though he'd confessed, he pleaded not guilty when the trial kicked off in 2016. Although it doesn't seem like he tried to pursue the insanity defense after all, which made the stakes extra high. If the prosecution couldn't make a good argument, Dan could go free. Thankfully, they had plenty of evidence to back up their case. Along with Dan's confession that they corroborated by finding Sam's remains, they had the duffel bag full of evidence he'd given to his brother along with the murder weapon. It had Sam's bloody clothes, his phone, his wallet, and his checkbook. Not to mention a search history full of incriminating questions. Quick ways to kill people, how to hide a body, bitchin Honeymoon ideas. The list went on and on.

Dr. Tristan Engels (36:24)

I mean, that alone is very telling that he's looking up that and then honeymoon. Like how he can easily just switch between the two, like it's the same thing.

Vanessa Richardson (36:34)

So it was no surprise that in September 2016, Dan was found guilty on both murder counts. As punishment, he received the death sentence. However, he wasn't on death row for long. In 2019, the state of California ended the death penalty, which means Dan will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. His crimes were shocking, not just for the brutality, but for the pointlessness of it all. Nobody was forcing Dan to pay for an extravagant wedding, and certainly nobody made him kill two innocent people for it. And while he's now paying the price for what he did, Dan's victims will never get the chance to live up to their full potential, to live out their dreams of finding love or having their own fairy tale wedding. All because Dan was willing to do whatever it took to have his. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Vanessa Richardson, and this is Scams, Money and Murder. If you enjoyed this episode, you can check out more just like it by searching for killer minds. Wherever you get your podcasts, Scams, Money and Murder is a Crime House original. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on social media, Rimehouse on TikTok and Instagram. Don't forget to rate, review and follow Scams, Money and Merch, Murder and Killer Minds wherever you get your podcasts and to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crime House plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Killer Minds ad free, along with early access to each thrilling two part series and exciting bonus content. We'll be back next Thursday looking for your next Crime House listen. Don't miss Crimes of with Sabrina Diana Roga and Corinne Vien. Crimes of is a weekly series that explores a new theme each season from Crimes of the Paranormal, unsolved murders, mysterious disappearances and more. Their first season is Crimes of Infamy, the true stories behind Hollywood's most iconic horror villains. And coming up next is is Crimes of Paranormal real life cases where the line between the living and dead gets seriously blurry. Listen to Crimes of every Tuesday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you listen to podcasts.