← The Gist
The Gist
Amanda Knox — “You don’t have to be a psychopath to wrongly convict somebody.”
00:33:31
Knox recounts confronting prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and explores how certainty, incentive structures, and “alternate realities” turned her story into a sprawling international conspiracy. She parses the feedback loop between media and Italian...
Loading summary
Transcript21 lines
- [00:01]
Propane Advertiser
The US Electric grid is approaching a breaking point. As demand soars from data centers and home energy use, our aging infrastructure can't keep up. And the Department of Energy warns that without action, blackouts could surge 100 fold by 2030. The good news? One solution is already here. Propane. It's American made, stored on site and always ready, powering homes and businesses with cleaner, reliable energy that doesn't depend on the grid or the weather. Learn more@probane.com Foreign.
- [00:34]
Mike Pesca
It's Monday, September 29, 2025. From Peach Fish Productions, it's the gist. I'm Mike Pesca and there is a 21 point plan for peace in God's web breaking news. A 20 point plan. Apparently one of the points was that Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to the Qataris for bombing them or at least a country therein. And he did. Sorry. So sorry. Now another detail of this plan which includes allowing the Gazans to stay so getting off that ethnic cleansing idea that Donald Trump had proposed. One of the main components of this plan that is still up in the air is according to all sources, that Hamas hasn't signed on. I'd say that's pretty big. In fact, not only have they not signed on, according to the Washington Post, quote, Hamas has not yet been a copy of the regional officials said. Hope a moss has a fax machine. You're going to have to get their say so sort of how we ended World War II. The Germans at least signed on civil war. The confederates agreed. You know, that's a, that's a pretty standard provision of a peace plan. 2021 points. Usually 1 point the loser has to say, yes, we did in fact lose. There could be kind of a stalemate plan. Let's freeze these lines and you be a North Korea and I'll be a South Korea. But that's not what is going on here in the Gaza peace plan that Hamas has not signed on to or even seen. I will quote one of the provisions of the plan according to this from the Times of Israel and this is how you have to piece together what might be in the plan. Different news outlets have seen the plan, but you don't get to see the plan all in one place. But Times of Israel says that the US Establishing a dialogue with Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a quote, political horizon for, quote, peaceful coexistence. That's a part of the plan. And the Washington Post says those militants, that is Hamas, those militants who commit to peaceful coexistence would be offered amnesty. I got to Say if you commit to peaceful coexistence, you're no longer a militant, are you? Kind of cuts at your core identity. And really, can you make up one of those coexist bumper stickers in Arabic to put on a headband? I don't know. Remains to be seen. That's maybe point 18, maybe point 17. Again, we don't know. We do know that the people who've seen the plan who have a fax machine, meaning the United States, the Qataris, key Europeans, they seem hopeful. Why wouldn't they be? Most of the plan is Hamas to give up and to give up the hostages. To quote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, I hope we can make it a go. We want to free our hostages and get rid of Hamas rule. In other words, why there was a war in the first place. On the show today, I shall spiel a little more about Jim Comey taking the Andy mix to task. Andy McCabe, he was the former deputy. And Andy McCarthy, he's a conservative writer in National Review and a former DOJ official who has looked at this indictment and found it to be, let us say, lacking. But first, today and tomorrow will be a two part interview with two different people on two aspects of the same story. And the story is the story or you might say the twisted tale of Amanda Knox. There is a Hulu series of that name and it is concluding in a couple of days. And today we have Amanda Knox on the show. She has written a new book, her second called Free My Search for Meaning. And we'll talk about just that. Her personal reflections on having gone through four years of imprisonment for a crime the Italian judicial system eventually and ultimately decided that she was not responsible for. And then tomorrow we'll have the director of the Hulu series talking about the, the editorial and artistic choices in putting together that story in eight parts. But first, Amanda Knox's story in her own words. Amanda Knox, up next, life got you down or just stressed out. If not, you're not doing it correctly. But you know, you need to unwind a little bit. Maybe you might consider cornbread hemps CBD gummies. Now in my house. And I'm not going to get that much more specific, but cornbread CBDs deliver the goods. Relaxation, stress release. There's also, you know, just the sleepiness aspect of it all. They don't all cause all of these reactions, but what they do is they utilize the best part of the hemp plant for the purest and most potent CBD. And their third party lab tested in USDA Organic to ensure safety and purity. Right now, the Gist listeners can have 30% off their first order. Just go to cornbreadhemp.com thegist and use code the gist at checkout. That's cornbread.com the gist and use code.
- [06:02]
Propane Advertiser
The gist the US electric grid is approaching a breaking point as demand soars from data centers and home energy use. Our aging infrastructure can't keep up and the Department of Energy warns that without action, blackouts could surge 100 fold by 2030. The good news? One solution is already here. Propane. It's American made, stored on site and always ready, powering homes and businesses with cleaner, reliable energy that doesn't depend on the grid or the weather. Learn more@probane.com.
- [06:37]
Mike Pesca
Amanda Knox was a 20 year old student studying in Perugia, Italy in 2007 when one of her roommates was murdered. The killer, a burglar named Rudy Guada, left DNA all over the crime scene, a fact no one disputes. Yet the local prosecutor and in Italy, the prosecutor is different than it is in the United States. They oversee the entire investigation. They don't just take it over at trial. This prosecutor had an alternative theory. He put Knox, her boyfriend of one week and Gweda in a drug fueled orgy in which Knox killed her roommate. It took years of appeals and reversals to undo that fiction. Knox spent four years in Italian prisons and jails before her release, then was essentially acquitted but reconvicted and finally exonerated, though not fully redeemed, especially in the mind of people she'll come across and meet. She's often lumped in with Lizzie Borden or Casey Anthony to people who only know the scandal part of the story. So since then she's worked to shed light on wrongful convictions and written memoirs and offered her perspective on what it means to live under the shadow of a false accusation. Now she's the executive producer and subject of a new Hulu series and has published a memoir, Free My Search for Meaning. Amanda, welcome to the gist.
- [08:07]
Amanda Knox
So excited to be here. Thanks so much, Mike.
- [08:10]
Mike Pesca
So I know you've written a book before and this book talks about that book. I did not read that book, but I know enough of your story and I'm familiar with your podcasting work. That book seems to me to be a what happened. And this book is more a well, who am I now? Is that fair?
- [08:29]
Amanda Knox
Yeah, the way that I pitched it to myself was okay, there's the what happened? And then there's the so what? So what happened. So for me, it's. It makes my story more universal where, like the waiting to be heard of it all is the story of this very traumatic thing that happened to me when I was studying abroad that I really had no say in. I just. It was a bad thing that happened. My roommate was murdered. I was falsely accused. I was put on trial, and I had to prove my innocence. And it. It was the story of what happened to me, but it didn't feel like my story per se. I just was the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time. And unraveling the aftermath of all of that, unpacking the long tail of that traumatic experience was more my story, which is what I attempted to write in free, my search for meaning. And really was also this story of how I decided to reach back out to my prosecutor, to go back to the country of Italy and to confront those. Those demons and that haunted past that had taken over my life in such a huge way.
- [09:39]
Mike Pesca
Right. And this isn't giving away the ending. In the memoir, in the Hulu series, the twisted Tale of Amanda Knox, right there in the beginning, we know that you make an effort, successful effort, successful, maybe in quotes, to reach out to the prosecutor. That's fascinating to me. There are so many aspects of what you were through that themselves make you a somewhat unique expert and could have been books on their own. You're an expert in just wrongful convictions. You're an expert in the Italian criminal justice system. You're certainly an expert in the penal system of Italy, and you're an expert in human cognition. How, when our expectations don't meet the reality of how someone is acting, what many people do to square that? So was that all fodder that you wanted to get to? How did you decide how to triage all those areas of expertise?
- [10:35]
Amanda Knox
Well, especially in the. In the series. So I'm working alongside really incredible partners like KJ Steinberg, who's the creator and showrunner. And very, very early on in the conversations, we. We agreed that. That this was going to be a story that first of all was representing things that I'm actually doing. So what. What does it take to confront that, the person who harmed you? How do we. How do we establish a sense of reality when people are living in alternate realities and completely different understandings of facts? And how do we do that in such a way that it is not just throwing people under the bus, but like having compassion for their context and their perspective? And something, for me, that has been very helpful for metabolizing this whole thing that happened to me was recognizing first and foremost that my prosecutor wasn't evil, he wasn't a psychopath. He was somebody who thought he was doing the right thing. And so then the question becomes not what happened, but how did this happen? How did this man convince himself of such a fantastic lie and how did he convince the world of that same lie in spite of all of the evidence and in spite of the fact that we know what happened to my roommate. Like even just the idea that there's any sort of doubt around how she was assaulted and murdered is, is laughable considering the copious evidence that we have now available to us from the crime scene.
- [12:03]
Mike Pesca
Your prosecutor, Mini is he drives the injustice that's visited upon you. And then he comes across as a really interesting figure and someone who doesn't apologize because it's kind of squirrely, but he essentially doesn't think he's done something wrong. Or I would say that he values his place in the system and believes in the system more than he wants to acknowledge and toss away his belief in the system to just come right out and say what happened to you was an injustice, period. There's a lot of psychiatry, psychology going on there. What you describe in the book very well, but here in the interview, describe if you will, what you think he was doing. If he was in denial, if he was trying to have some carve outs where he could still have a workable theory of his place in the system and on the earth. Given what happened to you, what was going on there. Think.
- [13:14]
Amanda Knox
Yeah, I mean, I think that for my prosecutor, this, this story wasn't just another case. Like this was a life defining case because of the moment in time that he experienced it. Like he was on, you know, under investigation for abuse of office in a previous case at the time that he was taking on my case. So there was that personal context for him. And of course the, the media explosion of this case meant that it was the most famous case that he's ever worked on. And he is thinking about himself and his legacy and of his entire life, what he's devoted himself to, which is very much his career. And I think that he is, and this is something that was, that came about my conversations with him and trying to understand him, like why is it so hard for someone in his position to admit that he was wrong? And he is coming from a very interesting psychological space case where that is informed both by his spirituality and his, and, and just his, like you said, his position, his representation of himself as a figure Representing justice. He's not just a guy, he is a prosecutor, he is a magistrate. He represents the system in a way. And so for him to admit personal fault is like it's calling, it's calling into question the very system of the Italian justice itself self. And so for him, it has both personal and political stakes for him to do something that for many of us might seem common sense and very simple. And what it le, what it develops into is a person who is very much cleaved into where on the one hand he feels compelled as a man in one direction and another way he feels compelled to defend certain positions from a sort of ideological perspective. Spiritually even, it's interesting, he's a very spiritual man that I've come to know. And there's. There are very clear guidelines in Catholic faith about what, what determines what is a sin or not. And very much intentionality is a huge part of that. And when he looks into himself and says, did I intentionally try to hurt anyone? He arrives at the conclusion, no, I never did that. I never was knowingly, you know, pursuing a case against somebody that I knew to be innocent. And I think that that's so interesting because of the way that, you know, it's difficult for us now to look back and say, well, what about all this DNA of the person who actually committed the crime? What about his history of breaking and entering? What about his, you know, history of abuse against women? What about the fact now all these years later, he's on trial again for having assaulted another young woman since getting released from prison. Like of that should be informing his understanding his of the facts of this case. And yet he is himself like does not forget how when he first arrived at that crime scene, as someone who is deeply informed by cases that involved conspiracy and cover up and corruption, he is prone to, to viewing things through that light and thinking that there's more to a case than what it seems. You know, in his own book and in his own interviews, he talks about how when he arrived at the crime scene, he immediately understood, he immediately concluded that there was more to this crime than what it seemed, that it wasn't just a straightforward break and enter, that someone who was living in the house was involved in this crime and attempting to cover it up. And that is him coming from his context of having worked on cases where he believed that there were, you know, legitimate conspiracies and cover ups happening. And if you, if you start from that conclusion, you can logically derive an insane theory from a false premise. And I think that that's the one thing where you know, to this day my prosecutor and I have difficult conversations is where I ask him, like, you don't seem to recognize the difference between a fact and an opinion. Your opinion is that there is a cover up and there's a fake break in. But that is not a fact. Like that is, that is you, your interpretation of facts, but is wrong. And he just does not seem to recognize that that is the case. And so for him, he looks at himself as someone who has looked logically at a series of facts that he has determined and doesn't seem for whatever reason to recognize that some of the things that he thinks are facts are not actually facts about this case. And that is, that is where the psychology is interesting.
- [18:14]
Mike Pesca
A couple times in this interview and in the show, it's clear that you don't want to flatten your adversaries, the people who convicted you. You want to give everyone their context. I remember watching there's another famous movie about a wrong, wrongfully convicted real life character, Reuben Hurricane Carter. And there was a film about him with Denzel Washington, I think, titled Hurricane. I think Norman Jewison directed it. But one negative review of that film said that the problem is there was a character who was concocted and this happens all the time. And it was one policeman played by Dan Hajaya who hounded Rubik Hurricane Carter and was out to get him. And the review, I thought it was a pretty good point, that this takes the system off the hook. So there was a choice. It's easy for, right? It's easy for moviegoers to identify with an antagonist or a villain. And you're dealing with an eight part miniseries. They were dealing with an hour and 45 minute movie. So there are different exigencies. Here's my question. What that reviewer wanted was to point out that the system is at fault. And as I watch this, I was wondering if you were faulting the system and maybe you were, but was the system Italian justice or is it more the system of the frailties of human beings, the system that goes much deeper than a man made, a man made system of who we suspect and who we don't suspect, more about a system of just general assumptions and who makes for, in across cultures, who makes for the villainous?
- [20:02]
Amanda Knox
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a little bit of everything. Right. Like I'm absolutely calling into questions how the Italian justice system was incentivized to, for instance, call, like try to arrest somebody as soon as humanly possible and announce case closed and how they were incentivized to once they did find the DNA, who of who actually committed this crime to pursue a case against me regardless, and not to just say, oh, oops, we, we arrested the wrong people and now we owe them compensation. Like all of that sort of all those questions are ways that the Italian justice system was incentivized to pursue a case against all reason. But then of course that was informed by the media institution which absolutely latched on to this story and there created this insane feedback loop between the Italian justice system and the international media, each sort of amping each other up and sort of entrenching this, this false narrative even further. And all of that is informed by our own, you know, meat robot human frailties of not recognizing when we are con, when we are gaslighting ourselves in, when we are motivated by egoistic incentives as opposed to holding, holding ourselves to the integrity that we need to in order to enforce this like, broad idea that we have, which is justice. And how do we arrive at truth? One of the things that I really wanted to point out in this series is that truth looks differently depending on who you are and what emotional state and mindset you are in as you are approaching it. So there are certain scenes early on in the series where you see it from multiple different perspectives. You see, like there's a certain point where the police bring me back to my house and they ask me to look through my, my kitchen to see if there are any knives missing, right? And this is a very dramatic moment for me because I'm being brought back to my house for the first time after it's been closed off as a crime scene. And it's like hitting me as I'm being asked to look through the knife drawer that my roommate was stabbed to death. And just the reality of that hits me and I have a full blown panic attack and I, you know, I'm crying, I'm losing it and I'm experiencing that from my conte. Like I'm overwhelmed by this traumatic thing that has taken over my life that I'm utterly unprepared for as a 20 year old kid in a foreign country. The prosecute, like the prosecutor and the police are in the room. However, view that from a very different lens. They can only imagine that the only reason why I'm having a panic attack is because I'm having a flashback to the crime. And this is itself a kind of confession that motivates them to have me to, to force me to confess in a later scene in the same in the, you know, in a later date in reality. So these, I think it's really important to show how human, how our assumptions that we bring in our mindsets, that we bring into a scenario alter the way that we perceive a shared reality, which is a young girl having a panic attack in a room. How. What. What does that mean? How do we interpret that? That is where our context and our mindset can completely come into conflict and alter reality in a very significant way.
- [23:38]
Mike Pesca
So my last question is this. I've heard you say that had this case taken place today, given the media environment, you think that you might have had a better chance. And I think that you were saying that citizens, the idea of the citizen sleuth or people on Reddit would have taken up your cause and tried to propel the narrative forward that you were falsely accused. You could also add on to this that there are all these podcasts where taking the side of a woman who is under the deluge of society has become more of a trend. And, you know, we're in an era where doubting the official position, and since was this was the official position of the Italian authorities, that too might have occurred. Of all those factors, what do you think? It's interesting because, you know, we usually think of the media as just inexorably declining in quality. But it's an interesting point of, of all of those, what do you think would have helped you the most? Or if there's anything else that I didn't have?
- [24:44]
Amanda Knox
Well, I think that today we have a more nuanced understanding of how wrongful convictions are possible because of, weirdly, this explosion of interest in true crime, where it's become much more mainstream. And so at the time back in 2007, again, 2008, 2009, it was very niche to be questioning authority in such a big way. And I think that especially, you know, like my. The Netflix documentary about my case was one of those early sources of true crime content that caused people to question the predominant narrative that was put out there and to examine how the relationship between the media and the criminal justice system creates this feedback loop that is probably not in the best interest of truth and justice. And so I think that while it is true, like even back, you know, in 2007, there were, you know, subreddits and, and people arguing on the Internet in a sort of sleuthy kind of way, I think that generally today there is more sophisticated understanding of how our institutions are, are. Are not perfect. And, and that we, we have. There's a little bit more transparency into that issue. And so I think that when a fantastical narrative like the one that arose in my case that was unsubstantiated by any evidence arises, I think I like to think that we're a more sophisticated audience and we would be more prone to questioning that narrative. At the same time, though, like to this day, we see people becoming really militantly opposed by alternative realities on the Internet that are very politically charged. And I think that that was something that was happening also in my case at the time where it felt like it was an international case where it depended on what nationality you were and what camp you sort of landed in. And so it was also political in nature. And I think it is just a reflection of this ongoing division that has been created in the world where we can't seem to find common ground and have a standard for which we accept one thing to be a fact versus another, that is still something that we are attempting to become sophisticated about. And it's scary and it's hard. But I do think that today we do understand and have a more nuanced understanding understanding of how people can get things wrong. And that doesn't necessarily make them mustache twirling villains. You don't have to be a psychopath to wrongly convict somebody. You just have to be human. And I think that is being more understood today.
- [27:45]
Mike Pesca
Amanda Knox is the subject of the new Hulu series the Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox. And she does some untwisting at least to explain the mindset of the main character in her new memoir, Amanda Knox, My Search for Meaning. Thank you so much.
- [28:02]
Amanda Knox
Thank you so much, Mike.
- [28:13]
Propane Advertiser
The US Electric grid is approaching a breaking point. As demand soars from data centers and home energy use, our aging infrastructure can't keep up, and the Department of Energy warns that without action, blackouts could surge 100 fold by 2030. The good news? One solution is already here. Propane. It's American made, stored on site and always ready. Powering homes and businesses with cleaner, reliable energy that doesn't depend on the grid or the weather. Learn more@probane.com 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.
- [29:10]
Amanda Knox
Experian.
- [29:15]
Mike Pesca
And now the spiel. On Friday, I went scorched earth in the Gistian pun inflected way on the indictment against Jim Comey. I tried to lay out in what might have been, I don't know for you, drool inducing detail about how former FBI Director Jim Comey could not have committed perjury against Andy McCabe, his former deputy. McCabe authorized the leak, told Comey about it afterwards. That's the short story. There's no perjury there for Jim Comey. I also assessed the logic of one argument going around at the time. Well, either Jim or Andy's lying. Let's indict them both. Even though the evidence showed it was Andy who was, if not lying, the one who authorized the leak. And then I had some fun with that. And you know, we're having fun when we're making analogies to serial killers. I said Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer on the show and the GIST list. I mentioned David Berkowitz, Son of Sam. By the way, if you were listening to the Oklahoma feed, you heard a voiceover making a Dennis Raider analogy. The gist is now using a special geocaching technology that converts all analogies to local serial killers to make the point even more piquant for your specific area. But the main point of my laying this all out was to torpedo the bad arguments, bad arguments that were trying to advance the idea that this indictment was anything other than politically motivated, that this indictment was perhaps legally permissible. Because it's not. It's not a permissible indictment. Now, got to go back to the only 318 words the indictment talks about a person three. I thought that was Andy McCabe. Maybe it's Dan Richmond. Wait, Dan Richmond, the dubstep musician known as Club Brute? No, silly, that's Richmond. I'm talking about Dan Richmond, the Columbia professor. Is he person three? I don't know, because no one else seems to fit the description. I spent a long time saying that can't be Andy McCabe. I don't think it could be Dan Richmond either because Dan Richmond doesn't fit the words in the indictment. But who else could it be? I don't know. Maybe it's a mixed up amalgam of people Donald Trump wishes had done something that was legally impermissible. Rosie o', Donnell, perhaps? Okay, so I talked about the permissibility of the indictment, how impermissible I thought it was. I use the word For a reason. I don't mean it's just unwise. I don't mean it's just a stretch. I don't mean it's just a hard case to prove. I mean, everything I know about the law says the prosecutor shouldn't have been permitted to bring it. Now, for this, I turn to Andy McCarthy, who is a writer for National Review, who is a former Justice Department official, who is an intellectually consistent source on all these matters. I don't just think so. The Republicans on the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government think so. This is when the House looked into the bad, bad prosecutions of Donald Trump. And they write about McCarthy. They say. Several legal scholars, including former Federal prosecut Andrew McCarthy, have explained how Bragg's. That's Manhattan D.A. alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump violated his due process rights. The idea being that there was this one hush money payment, $130,000, and Bragg shouldn't have stripped it into 36 individual transactions, each of which he called a felony. Okay, fine point. Good point. I take the point. McCarthy thought the Bragg prosecution was a stretch. Unwise, unhealthy for democracy. But listen to what he says about the Comey prosecution. His Friday column was headlined, the Indictment Against Comey Should Be Dismissed. Then he had a weekend to think it over. And his latest headline is, with more scrutiny, the Trump DOJ indictment of Comey gets worse. McCarthy is saying that this should be dismissed for having no factual basis, which is different than what Bragg did, which was inventing a novel legal theory, by the way. Every legal theory is novel at some point, so, you know, give him a little leeway on that. I think what McCarthy argues without explicitly saying so is whatever you thought of the prosecutions of Trump that filled him and MAGA with vengeful fervor, even if you thought that was warranted to be so mad at them. Whatever your view, this indictment's worse. Let me go beyond McCarthy here to make my own specific point. The reason that they're worse is that Bragg in the criminal case in New York, Letitia James in the civil case in New York, Fanny Willis in her lovelorn Georgia case, they all believed, as prosecutors, as the entities that brought cases against Trump, because James is not technically a prosecutor, they all believe that they could win in court, they could get a conviction or at least a verdict. The prosecutor in the Trump case has no reasonable basis to believe they could get a conviction. And by they, I mean she, Lindsey Halligan. The point is the hassle of the trial itself. And that is what we call lawfare. And you will see this borne out when they don't get a conviction. And guess what? It is impermissible for a prosecutor to bring a case unless he or she. But in this case, very specifically, she, Lindsey Halligan, believe she could get a conviction. Lindsey Halligan doesn't believe that. She has no basis to believe that. Maybe one day she'll come before the bar association trying to disbar her and she'll say, well, my basis to believe it was I'd been a prosecutor for like a week, week and a half. That won't fly. Here's the DOJ guideline on prosecutions. Quote, the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. The DOJ manual repeatedly references ideas like this. The phrase good faith appears many times, and that is not happening here. The point of this prosecution is the prosecution. Bragg's point was to get a conviction, which he did. Rightly or wrongly, he thought he could get a conviction. And guess what? He was right about that. I don't believe Lindsey Halligan thinks she could get a conviction. And if she thinks so, she has no basis to. And I say this because she won't. So this prosecution, rightly or wrongly. Wrongly, that is. That is the answer to that choice. B, Wrongly. And if you read anyone trying to compare the unfairness of the prosecutions against Trump with the fairness of the prosecutions against Comey, my friends, it is not apples to apples. And you could call the Trump apple wormy, or you could call the Trump apple mealy. You can think whatever you want about the wisdom or logic or legal basis for the Trump prosecution, but the Comey prosecution is truly poisonous, which is why we can't swallow it. And that's it for today's show. Cory Warra is the producer of the Gist. Ashley Khan is our production coordinator. Jeff Craig runs our socials. Kathleen Sykes writes the Gist list with me and Michelle Pescas, the COO of Peach Fish Productions in Peru. G. Peru. Do Peru. Thanks for listening.
- [36:32]
Libsyn Ads Narrator
Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.