Pete Burkhalter (3:38)

Any individuals mentioned in this podcast are

Charles Doughty (3:41)

presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This case remains an active, ongoing investigation and all discussions are based on publicly available information, investigative updates, and legal proceedings where applicable. The goal is to seek justice, provide awareness, and encourage the public to come forward with any relevant information. This podcast does not make any allegations

Pete Burkhalter (4:04)

of guilt against the individuals discussed and

Charles Doughty (4:07)

is intended for informational purposes only. When I spoke with State Police Investigator Stephan Montgomery, we talked about what he had wanted to accomplish through this podcast. Quite simply, Stephan Montgomery told me that he wanted Roxanne's story told. He needed people to hear it.

Stephan Montgomery (4:26)

I just feel like Roxanne's life is more than a dash between two numbers on a headstone. And, you know, she was rough around the edges, but she was 16. She was a prodigy of her culture and, you know, of people around her and, you know, if the saying is true that it takes a village to raise a child, then the village failed her. And, you know, that's, that's troubling to me. But what I want to accomplish is not only telling her story, but I just want people to come forward that know what happened and, you know, get out of the mindset that I don't want to be involved or I'm afraid that something's going to happen to me. It's time to come forward. That's what I want to accomplish.

Charles Doughty (5:20)

With that in mind, we worked together to produce season one of who Killed Roxanne. Our goal was to breathe life into a long forgotten murder, or at least that's what we thought it was. We were wrong. From the first episode, calls started coming in from people who knew Roxanne Sharp, people who went to school with her, people who knew her family, and people who had heard her story growing up. And as each episode dropped, more and more People came forward.

Stephan Montgomery (5:50)

What started as a trickle of phone calls has turned into a pretty good stream of information. And I can't thank those people enough for coming forward. They've shared this podcast. I've got phone calls from people out from out of state who said, hey, I lived there during this time. This is what I remember. This is where I lived. And, you know, most of these people don't have knowledge about what happened to Roxanne, and I didn't expect that. But what they do have is the knowledge of Covington in 1982. You know, Collins Boulevard hasn't moved. The fairgrounds hasn't moved. It's changed a little. The topography, the ozone hasn't changed. But tell me where Jim's Chicken Town was. Nick's Game Room, the Choctaw Malt stand. All those businesses have long since been gone. But when you're recreating someone's steps in the days prior to their murder, it's details like that that become crucial. And the only place you're gonna get them is from the people that live there and know it.

Charles Doughty (7:09)

As the weeks passed, I became more and more confident. We were no longer just telling Roxanne's story. We were on the hunt for her killers, and you, the public, were along for the ride. Now, I don't know much more about the current investigation than what I've already told you in this podcast. I am not a state police investigator. I don't pack a gun to work. I'm not privy to the details we all want to know. I've stated this before. I am a conduit between the public and state police, trying to bring back to life a crime that was committed a long time ago.

Stephan Montgomery (7:45)

I knew when we told this story that it was going to be different from what people are used to hearing, in that her story is still being written. And, yes, we're not giving out all the information that we have. We're collecting information, and we're asking the public to come forward with what, you know, we, you know, we've had somebody give us billboard space. We've had, you know, people consult with us on a whole variety of things, and that partnership is what is going to write the next chapter.

Charles Doughty (8:21)

As we traveled through Roxanne's story, the burning question toward the end was, where do we go from here? Is what we have. Enough. We had tons of downloads. Plenty of people were listening. We were generating the interest in the case we had sought. Heck, we had people as far away as Australia listening into the podcast. But the most important Question for me was, had the right people come forward?

Stephan Montgomery (8:47)

That's a really good question and a fair one, but I don't think it's one that I can answer just because I don't know who else is out there that has information and they just haven't come forward or they won't come forward. You know, I know way more about this case than I knew five months ago, five weeks ago, even five days ago. You know, my goal is to go to work every day and answer more of the unanswered questions. And, you know, ultimately I will, I will present this to the district Attorney's office. No fluff, no hype, just the facts of this investigation. And they'll review it and, you know, based on what they say, hey, we'll either move to the next phase

Stephan Montgomery (9:48)

of

Stephan Montgomery (9:49)

this process or we'll go back to work. But I tell you what we won't do. We won't stop.

Charles Doughty (9:59)

Did you catch that? Ultimately, I will present this to the DA's office. No investigator is taking a 40 plus year cold case to a DA to consider unless there is something there. So he's not going to tell me what is there, but he is saying something is there. I asked him what was the one thing you haven't been able to answer that you can tell us about now?

Stephan Montgomery (10:25)

There's something that nags at me about the purse in the lighter. And I don't know what it is, but I know that people are creatures of habit. And my mom was a smoker. She never left home without her cigarettes, her lighter. And you know, you can equate that to today with people in their cell phones. How far do you get away from your cell phone in a day? Not far. So, you know, the question that it, you know, it opens is did the person who killed her take it as a trophy from the crime scene or did something happen somewhere else which led to her ultimate death in those woods across from the fairgrounds?

Charles Doughty (11:24)

Throughout this process, there were many times where I felt like he was holding me. And as a result, the listener at bay. I've been learning this case as fast as I could for a year now. He's been living with it for a lot longer than that. And his objective is not just who done it. He wants to build a successful case. He doesn't just want to name Roxanne's killers, he wants to convict them in a court of law. That means we are coming at this from slightly different directions. And I have worked hard to respect that. Throughout this, I've tried to clearly point out when I was speculating and this is one of those times. He has not said much about that purse or the lighter since we did the episode that featured them, but now as I listen to that clip, I'm guessing that they're part of this story. The purse and the lighter may not be finished, but I could be wrong. A long time ago for a variety of reasons we will not get into in this podcast. I dropped out of law school in the first first semester. But if the story goes forward, and if I'm going to continue to tell it, then we are all going to need some basic law schooling. I asked a friend of mine who is a successful attorney if he would help me out. We had a good conversation about Roxanne's case and what might happen legally. So here's some quick law schooling as it applies to Roxanne. Hopefully you won't drop out too.

Pete Burkhalter (12:59)

Pete Burkhalter I am a local lawyer. As a general practice here in Covington, I went to Loyola Law School, graduated there in 1995. So I've been practicing just a little more than 30 years now. Charles I have done a lot of different types of cases in law practice in different areas of the law, including some criminal work.

Charles Doughty (13:20)

Okay. Do you consider yourself plugged in on what's happening in St. Tammany politically as far as the happenings around the courthouse or I know there's some gossip, yeah,

Pete Burkhalter (13:31)

to a certain degree. You know, I try to mind my own business as much as I can. Sometimes that's easier said than done, especially in what is still a very small, closely knit group of people. The courthouse crowd and lawyers in general like to talk, and they like to talk about things that are abuzz, whether it's, you know, political moves, who's running for judge, or cases in particular, things that are kind of on their mind at that time. Sometimes it's hard to avoid those conversations simply because you're stuck in court and you're waiting for the judge or you're waiting on your pre trial to happen. And so you, you get stuck in those conversations. But I try to stay abreast of what is going on, especially in an area where I practice.

Charles Doughty (14:20)

At the beginning of this podcast, of which you told me you've listened to

Pete Burkhalter (14:23)

yeah, it's been great so far.

Charles Doughty (14:25)

I talk about how Roxanne's case was a forgotten case and I've had to correct myself because a lot of people have proven me wrong. But I don't think it was a case that was on top that Was top of mind for someone that wasn't directly impacted by the case. And so were you familiar with the case and have you heard anything about it since?

Pete Burkhalter (14:46)

No, you know, I never heard of the case before. In 82 when she died, I was living. I was 13 years old, first of all, and I was living in Opelousas where I grew up. My mom's whole family is from this area and I'm really surprised that aunts, uncles, cousins would not have that this wouldn't have been a topic of conversation, you know, at a gathering of the family. So I'm a little surprised that I had never heard of it. But something that happened, heck, when I was 13 years old, I probably would not have maintained that memory at that point. Anyway, I never heard anything about it until I listened to the podcast and actually have listened to the podcast as I drive across the bridge to my office and have done so for each episode and just got stuck with it once I listened to the first one. So.

Charles Doughty (15:38)

Good. That's what it's supposed to do.

Pete Burkhalter (15:40)

Yeah.

Charles Doughty (15:40)

Let's get into this for a second. I want you to remember, or I don't even know if you know this. I am a first semester law school dropout.

Pete Burkhalter (15:47)

Oh my God. Gosh, I didn't know that.

Charles Doughty (15:48)

Yes. So you are speaking. I need you to talk in that language. Right. I couldn't do it, but sure you could. I did not want. There you go. Is the. Maybe the proper answer. But I did want to try to make sure we do this in a way that makes it make sense for everybody whether they're lawyer or not. And so what I know right now is I know there is some kind of case out there and I know they are pushing toward bringing some kind of charges. You know they're going to be. I know there are hurdles that they have to cross based on the length of the case. It's been 40 plus years. So. So what does that look like as. As we talk about a grand jury? Because I know if anything's going to move forward, it's going to go through there in some capacity. So what does a grand jury do?

Pete Burkhalter (16:42)

Right, so a grand jury is generally convened by the charging authority. And in this particular instance, it would be the district attorney for St. Tammany Parish, which is Colin Sims. I know that his office is, has a good group of prosecutors. He's obviously a very mindful person. He's been a prosecutor for a long time. He is obligated by state law to charge capital offenses, crimes for which you can be tried and sentenced to death and or sentenced to life imprisonment. You're obligated to present those cases to the grand jury. And most people, when they think about, you know, when they hear a jury, they think about a pettit jury, which is what most people will be getting notices for. And they have to appear. And if they're chosen, they'll actually hear a single case. That's completely different than the grand jury process. Grand jury process is private. The grand jury process is, as I said, it's a single entity being the district attorney's office presenting evidence to a group of people who have been convened to hear cases for which a bill of information cannot be filed to charge that individual. And then the grand jury will determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to return a true bill, which is asking that are actually charging the individual and indicting that individual for a particular crime. So they have an option, it's either a true bill or a no true bill. If it's a no true bill, they've determined that there isn't enough evidence to charge that particular individual or individuals with a particular crime for which they're being charged or sought to be charged at that time.

Charles Doughty (18:21)

And the threshold is different in terms of what you're trying to achieve. Right, right.

Pete Burkhalter (18:26)

And so it's, remember it's one sided. It's the district attorney's office who gets the obligate or gets the opportunity to present the evidence one sided. There's not cross examination, there's not back and forth, there aren't motion, there isn't motion practice, there isn't limitations on the evidence that you can present. They get basically the soul bite at the apple. And if an indictment is handed down, then that individual, defendant, criminal defendant is then arraigned. And then the process follows a kind of a normal track, except if it's a capital case. And then it's far more involved because of the nature and the consequences of that particular charge.

Charles Doughty (19:06)

Grand jury agrees that the DA and his office has brought an appropriate case and they're ready to move forward. What happens after that.

Pete Burkhalter (19:16)

So if they return a true bill, then the person has been indicted, it'll be filed with the clerk's office, there'll be a warrant issued for that person's arrest, unless they're already in custody, which also happens in Louisiana. In Louisiana, for a felony offense, the district attorney has a certain number of days to charge that individual or the individual can be released. And once the indictment is handed down, then the normal process of criminal cases working their Way through the system begins, it's allotted to a particular division of the court. As long as that judge to whom it's allotted doesn't have any personal contact or anything that would prevent them from hearing the case, then they will have the case through verdict. And obviously the case could be tried to the judge if that was the defendant's election. But most of the time they're tried to juries. The juries obviously are made up of citizens of St Tammany parish because it happened here in Covington. And then the case would work its way through. As I said, and I've made mention of it a few times, you have motion practice, you have discovery. That's the defendant's opportunity to secure the information that the district attorney has in their possession that they may utilize at a trial to convict that person. They have all of the testing you mentioned and you had an episode on DNA. If there's DNA that is utilized or the results are going to be utilized, obviously the defendant not only gets to look at the results, but but also gets to potentially get the samples and have independent testing if they believe that the DNA results were incorrect or improper.

Charles Doughty (20:54)

What have I not asked that I should have asked you?

Pete Burkhalter (20:57)

You asked some pretty damn good questions.

Charles Doughty (21:02)

Oh. So there were a couple other things, Pete, before I let you go, that I wanted to ask you about and I really want to hear your thoughts on. You heard about the crime scenes. You know as much as I know about what happened to her.

Pete Burkhalter (21:15)

Right.

Charles Doughty (21:16)

So based on what you have heard and what we have learned through this podcast, can you imagine or think about or discuss what possibly could be the charges going forward?

Pete Burkhalter (21:27)

I think you have a couple of charges, potential charges anyway. You've got an aggravated rape because there were multiple offenders. You had a sexual assault which occurred, which will give you the basis of an aggravated rape. I believe that there was some information regarding the use of force and having a weapon from prior podcast. Obviously that is the weapon that gives you the elements of the aggravated rape. And then of course, with the homicide, you can charge second degree murder in this particular case. Those are both very serious charges.

Charles Doughty (22:03)

The I want to talk a little bit about where we are today versus 1982 in terms of technology, in terms of how crimes are prosecuted now versus how they were prosecuted then. And this appears that it will be a crime where, you know, no cell phone data.

Pete Burkhalter (22:21)

Right.

Charles Doughty (22:22)

Nobody's running around with video.

Pete Burkhalter (22:24)

Right.

Charles Doughty (22:24)

You know, our tags are being read on 190. None of that. Right. This is going to really rely. I think a good Bit on witnesses. Are we still doing that? Is that something that can happen?

Pete Burkhalter (22:35)

Yeah, I think that you have to think about. As you said, you can't go out through a red light without, you know, a camera going off or a picture being taken of your car or drive down the interstate and there's a tag reader there. Obviously, in 1982, having lived during that time, I didn't. There were no cell phone cameras. There was no GPS location to prove where you were or where you weren't by way of your cell phone. I doubt very seriously there were any cameras pinpointed on this location or surveillance cameras in that area. So you're going to rely heavily upon the physical evidence that's been obtained. The depiction of the scene from the prior podcast, where they actually described and were able to pinpoint where the location was, was, I think, is going to be very, very important for the jury. Remember, we're in a very conservative jurisdiction. You know, people come here to raise their children because it's a very safe place. I would say that the majority of people in this jurisdiction are pro prosecution, and this is a crime that is going to shock their conscience. And I think that the DA's office will utilize the information that's available to them, and that's going to be some degree of physical evidence. But then a lot of it is going to be circumstantial and a lot of it's going to be driven by witness testimony. And that's where the witnesses are so important and their involvement in the case is so important.

Charles Doughty (23:58)

All right, so some slight changes in the law. And you were trying to explain that to me a moment ago, I'm going to let you turn you loose with it.

Pete Burkhalter (24:05)

Yeah. So difference in terminology. Aggravated rape is no longer used. In this particular instance, it would be a first degree rape. That change occurred in 2015, I believe. Same elements. You have to have, obviously a sexual assault, and then you have different criteria. It could be someone who's under the age of 13, someone who's mentally or physically infirmed, or where there are multiple offenders, and then obviously the use of force, intimidation and. Or the use of a weapon. So, as we discussed, you have those elements and you certainly have the information, or at least based upon the podcast and what information has been derived in the case, you certainly have the facts necessary, I believe, to probably charge the individuals ultimately with. With first degree rape.

Charles Doughty (24:53)

Thanks to local attorney Pete Burkhalter for walking me through what might be coming. Now, I want to talk about a man Pete spoke of in that Interview the local da, Colin Sims. And before we speak about here him, I want to speak about the DA who came before him. I had heard of Colin Sims long before I met him. His boss, the man who hired him to leave his federal prosecutor's job and come to St. Tammany was a DA named Warren Montgomery. Montgomery was also a former federal prosecutor. Warren would come into my studio once a month to promote what his office was doing or pet causes he had adopted or. Or trials they had won. I would see him regularly at social events. If I had to use a single word, I would say, warren was one of the most decent people I have ever known. No doubt there was fire under the surface. There had to be for him to do that kind of job. But outwardly, pretty much all you got from Warren was a kind word and a genuine laugh. He wasn't just shaking hands while looking for the next person to meet. He would remember details and ask you about your kids, your life. Warren talked about his own family often. He loved to talk about being with his family in Wyoming, where they often went to ski.

Stephan Montgomery (26:09)

But this is the type of cancer I have. There's no known cure for it. So, you know, it hits me, knocks me down. I get up, I hit it back. It hits me again, I get up and knock it back. And we've been going back and forth like this for really almost four and a half years. And we finally got to the point where there's these new technologies and you just don't quit. You just don't quit. You keep going, you stay positive. And there's this new technology called CAR T therapy. And I went into this trial at MD Anderson over in Houston, and believe it or not, the cancer was wiped out of my lungs within four weeks. Now I still have cancer in other parts of my bodies, and I'm still undergoing some therapy, But, I mean, 90% of the people who get this cancer die within five years. And here I am four and a half years into it, and we may have a cure.

Charles Doughty (27:13)

While Warren was serving as da, he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. Warren Montgomery took over a beleaguered D. DA's office. St. Tammany has had its share of colorful corruption in public office. And the longtime DA before Montgomery received a federal prison sentence after he was found guilty on a wide array of charges. DA Walter Reed had been in office for decades. Warren Montgomery was not the frontrunner when he threw his hat in the ring for the race to replace Walter Reed. But he won a little bit of a long shot. Victory in a race where a scandal weary public appeared to go with the straightest shooter they could find. That was Warren Montgomery and Warren's chief prosecutor and assistant da. Who did Warren bring in to lead criminal prosecutions for his office? That was the current DA, Colin Sims. Warren Montgomery died November 10, 2023. Colin Sims was sworn in as DA on November 17th of that year. St. Tammany is a wonderful place to live, but there are some funding issues with parish government when it comes to public safety. I think watching Colin Sims take on the parish's financial problems says a lot about who he is. He advocated for change. Once it became apparent something had to be done, he took a leadership role in attempting to bring about that change. Once he had everyone's attention. And he wasn't afraid to take on the challenge of reworking the entire taxing structure for the good of everyone, something no one else has tried to do. This is a guy that is not at all shy about fighting for what he believes. And that definitely extends to a crime victim like Roxanne. I know that because I've seen him tackle this funding issue his office is facing right now. I know that from previous cases he has won over the course of his career. I know that from the progressive coalitions his office has joined around the area to combat trafficking or drugs or other issues. I'm not going to tell you the guy is perfect. None of us are. But he is a fighter. And for a case I mistakenly thought no one cared about, it's starting to feel like Roxanne's story is not quite done yet. Oh, yeah, and Walter Reed, the longtime DA who preceded Warren Montgomery, well, he also had a role in Roxanne's case. Remember episodes two and three when I told you how Robert, Willie and Henry Lee Lucas may have overshadowed and affected Roxanne's own murder case? In the Times picayune from Sunday, December 30, 1984, they listed the top story in St. Tammany for the year. It involved a secret trip from a jail in Texas as St. Tammany deputies snuck the killer, Henry Lee Lucas, into the parish and drove him around while he pointed out different crime scenes. By the time he was done, Lucas had tried to confess to the killing of Deputy Louis Wagner, Kenneth Lee Broyles, Ruth Ann Manguno and Roxanne Sharp. All unsolved North Shore cases that had vexed local authorities. Now, this article was written before Lucas massive nationwide deception was uncovered. It was the top story because officials said they now believed they had enough evidence to close three of those four murders, including Roxanne's. And what else was on the same page of that newspaper on the very same day, right beside the article about Lucas visiting St. Tammany in secret, there was a short story about the execution that previous Friday of Robert Willie, who at one time also confessed to being present when Deputy Wagner was shot and killed. Now, in hindsight, we know Lucas was smart enough to manufacture those confessions, and he had done it, literally, across the country. But he didn't kill Roxanne. And Willie was in jail when Roxanne died, so they didn't kill her. But it reinforces my point that these two murderers sucked the air out of everything else, including searching for Roxanne's actual killers. You know who made the decision not to try Lucas for Roxanne's crime? The new da Walter Reed, at the very beginning of his long legal reign, in essence, smelling a rat with Lucas and throwing Roxanne's case back among the unsolved, where it remains to this day. So now back to that recent call with Investigator Montgomery. I've kept in touch with him over the last few months, and I can assure you he is working on Roxanne's case. I've called him at night. He's working on it. I've tried to reach out on the weekends.

Stephan Montgomery (32:25)

I.

Charles Doughty (32:25)

He's working on it. What I have come to realize from this unique partnership with law enforcement is that the quieter he becomes, the closer we might be getting to something actually happening. Now, I know that might not be what you want to hear. It's driving me crazy, too. But like I said earlier, we aren't just telling a tragic story. We are seeking justice for someone whose story does not have an ending yet. And I had my doubts about what I would get from him at this point, but Stefan agreed to talk on the record with me about where the case stands right now. All right, so first things first. It's been a minute, so where do you. Where would you say we stand with the case?

Stephan Montgomery (33:13)

Well, you know, it's not lost on me that, you know, we're. We're almost to the full 44th year of Roxanne's death, but I can tell you that we're much further along than we were this time last year. And I think the value of doing this podcast is the new information that we have gained over the past year, and even the smallest of details have helped to either confirm or dispel things that were documented back in 1982. And the one thing we do Have, I will say, is we have the advantage of hindsight. We know stuff now that they didn't know back then, and we have the advancement of DNA technology and forensics. Beyond that, I don't want to. I don't want to say a whole lot more about it.

Charles Doughty (34:04)

Well, you and I have talked numerous times, even during the taping of the podcast, that, you know, you'd met some. Some new people, been introduced to some new voices. So I guess talk about just the witnesses in general and how important you view them as to this case.

Stephan Montgomery (34:21)

Extremely important. The people who chose to step up with, you know, credible information about this case, that they will be the success of this investigation. There's so many things from the original case file that I had kind of glossed over. Maybe didn't make sense or seem important if they time, but they've become relevant because of, you know, just stories and associations and locations that have been provided by people who lived in Covington in 1982, aside from the people who came forward with specific information regarding Roxanne Sharp and her murder.

Charles Doughty (35:01)

I talked to a local attorney and we discussed the grand jury process. Is that the next logical step? I mean, what are your thoughts there?

Stephan Montgomery (35:08)

Oh, definitely. The next step in the process is obviously to present our case to a grand jury. It's an important step, but you got to realize that that's just the beginning. I'm building a case with a trial in mind, which means that I'm striving to eliminate all reasonable doubt to the extent that that's possible. Because the only thing more important to me than holding somebody accountable for this horrendous murder is to make sure that it's the right person or people.

Charles Doughty (35:39)

All right. And then I had one other question. It's about those people we've talked about. You know, it was the end of this most recent call with Stephen Montgomery that really caught my attention, and only after the fact. It was almost a throwaway question, one you ask when you can't think of anything else. I don't know. Maybe that first call kind of woke me up to this. Maybe I'm reading way too much into it. Maybe not. See what you think. He's made a few references now about being close to the point of presenting his work to the da. Obviously, you don't do that without concrete suspects. You don't do that without a story that explains what happened to Roxanne that night, without evidence that points at those suspects. I don't know if Stephen Montgomery did it on purpose or not, but at the very end of the call, it felt like we went from hypothetical to something more absolute, from unknown assailants who committed a horrible crime to something more personal. Do you think the people who are responsible for Roxanne's death have heard this podcast?

Stephan Montgomery (37:00)

I'm pretty positive they have.

Charles Doughty (37:03)

All right, if that's correct, then what do you say to them?

Stephan Montgomery (37:08)

See you soon.

Charles Doughty (37:12)

Who Killed Roxanne Is a North Shore Media Group production. Original music by Cressley Calora Connect with the podcast online@whokilledroxanne.com if you have a tip or information for Louisiana State Police, call 985-635-3167 or email northshore coldcasea.gov what

Pete Burkhalter (37:35)

if this is as good as it gets?

Charles Doughty (37:42)

What if this is as good as gets?

Pete Burkhalter (37:48)

Dance.

Charles Doughty (38:11)

Finding great candidates to hire can be like, well, trying to find a needle in a haystack. Sure, you can post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along. Which is why you should try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you, it finds them for you. Its powerful technology identifies people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job. You get qualified candidates fast. So while other companies might deliver a lot of hay, ZipRecruiter finds you what you're looking for. The needle in the Haystack. See why 4 out of 5 employers who post a job on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. ZipRecruiter the smartest way to hire and right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free. That's right, free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip that's ZipRecruiter.com Zip ZipRecruiter.com Zip what would you do if your online store converted 36% more shoppers? You could take 36% more vacation.

Stephan Montgomery (39:15)

Another Pina Cola?

Charles Doughty (39:16)

Yes, please. Open a new retail location with 36% more square feet. Fantastic. Hire 36% more help. You're hired and you're hired. Shopify has the world's best converting checkout up to 36% better than other e commerce platforms. What you do with those extra sales is up to you. Switch to Shopify today@shopify.com setup and get a $1 trial. Shopify.com setup.