The Cheat Sheet: Drinks and Drives

[00:00:00] Content Warning. This episode contains discussion of murder and violence, including the murder of children.

[00:00:08] Hello everybody. Thank you so much for tuning into this week's episode of The Cheat Sheet, a space for us to discuss updates and new cases that perhaps we don't have enough information on to do a full episode about.

[00:00:22] So today we're going to be covering three cases that we've covered a lot on this show, that of course is the case of the Long Island serial killer, namely suspect Rex Huerman who is heading towards trial in that case.

[00:00:35] We're going to cover the case of Brian Coburger who is accused of killing four University of Idaho students and we're going to talk about the Delphi murders, a.k.a. the case against Richard Allen.

[00:00:45] One important caveat, one very important caveat. We are recording this episode on Wednesday, January 17th. Tomorrow on- Tomorrow for us. For us. Tomorrow for us on Thursday, January 18th. There's going to be a big Indiana Supreme Court hearing in the case.

[00:01:05] And I'm sure all you loyal listeners have already listened to our discussion of that which we released yesterday for you. Tomorrow for us. What is time? Time is a flat circle as they say, as the true detectives say.

[00:01:20] So in other words, we're not going to talk about any details of what happened. Because we don't know it because it hasn't happened yet for us. So this is also one of those opportunities where our listeners know more than we do. Don't you think that's usually the case?

[00:01:40] Good point. But I would say that just keep that in mind when you're listening. We're not going to get to everything, but we're just going to get some case updates.

[00:01:47] And this will be a good opportunity to kind of check in on some of these major cases that we've been following. See what's going on. My name is Ania Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenley. I'm an attorney. And this is the murder sheet.

[00:02:01] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the murder sheet. And this is the cheat sheet. Drinks and drives. So where do you want to begin, Ania? Let's start in Long Island.

[00:03:01] So in the case of Long Island serial killer, of course, architect Rex Huerman has been accused of murdering so far. Melissa Bartelamy, Megan Waterman and Amber Costello.

[00:03:14] And now a new victim has been added to that list officially. He has been charged with the murder of Maureen Brainerd Barnes. I know you've been following this case pretty closely, not only since the arrest, but well before the arrest.

[00:03:28] Do you find the addition of this charge to be like a shock? No, this is this is something I think a lot of people have been following the case have expected for some time.

[00:03:37] The law enforcement investigators who put together the probable cause of a David against Huerman seemed so confident that this case was connected that they even mentioned her name in that PCA.

[00:03:48] Noting we think he did this. We don't have the evidence at this point. So we're not including it, but we were pretty confident he did this. So what evidence did they finally get since the arrest that enabled them to press forward and make these charges?

[00:04:02] Well, one thing that's been very important in this case is DNA and forensic evidence like hairs and whatnot. Each of these four victims, the Gilgo Beach Four as they're called, were bound with either tape or belts.

[00:04:16] And so in the case of Maureen Brainerd Barnes, female hair was found in the belt buckle of the belt used to tie her legs. And that has been linked to either Huerman's former wife, Asa Ellarep or their daughter, Victoria.

[00:04:35] So should we unpack that for a moment? Does that suggest to investigators that one of those two women was actually present at the crime scene?

[00:04:44] I don't believe it does. And certainly no charges have been filed against other members of his family, given that that's the case and given the posture from law enforcement,

[00:04:54] which does not seem to be aggressive toward the family members or getting them or alluding to other people being involved. I think that that should be interpreted as when you live, when you cohabitate, when you live together, you know, you shed your hair, you shed your skin cells.

[00:05:10] There's opportunities for DNA transfer between people who are living in the same home. If you have a roll of tape in your house, perhaps it picks up your wife's hair or your daughter's hair. I think that's truly what we're looking at here.

[00:05:25] I don't think it's fair to assume anything more than that. Other forms of DNA, perhaps you could say would be more problematic like if their blood was at the scene. How did that get there? You know, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[00:05:40] I mean, except in maybe certain contexts. But let's just, you know, for the sake of argument, if their blood is on the ground at the scene that would indicate somebody was there and bleeding.

[00:05:47] But your hair can be mobile. It could be picked up on other things and transported. So I feel like that's not not pointing the finger at them. It certainly points the finger at somebody who's living in their household though.

[00:05:59] Well, I'd like to go back and sort of repeat what I asked before then. How did they get whatever DNA evidence or whatever was they needed that enabled them to feel comfortable about finally these latest charges?

[00:06:11] So the press reports that we read indicated that investigators said they followed Victoria. She was going, just going, commuting I suppose on the Long Island Railroad. And again, this is Hearman's daughter? Hearman's daughter.

[00:06:24] She throws away a energy drink can and they see her throw it away then they go in and pick it up so they get her DNA that way. So they were surveilling her. And I think one thing.

[00:06:42] And so again, it's linking it's linking these crimes to this household to this family, not to the necessarily the household members aside from Hearman, but it's another thing that's adding up against him at this point. Yeah.

[00:06:57] So this DNA stuff is interesting because if you're just throwing away trash, you're basically saying this is no longer my property and so investigators can take it but you are potentially providing crucial evidence in crime investigations.

[00:07:15] And so I suppose if a person wanted to be really safe, what could they do with their trash? Just burn it all. Burn it all? I think you'd eventually slip up. Yeah. You know. I think you'd definitely eventually slip up. It's really interesting though.

[00:07:29] And I mean, like, yeah, she can't cry privacy because you know, you're discarding trash. That's not the same thing as, you know, something more intrusive. Yes.

[00:07:38] Once I once I put something in a trash receptacle and it leaves my control, I can't really say I have any property rights in it.

[00:07:48] You know, if I put something in a trash can in my kitchen, that's different from putting something in a trash can at the subway station.

[00:07:56] A lot of the stuff about the DNA though, the presence of female hair in at the crime scene really does raise the question of why wasn't this solved earlier?

[00:08:04] That's a common question in true crime when you have like some a break in a case that's been ongoing for a while. People ask that in Delphi.

[00:08:10] People people have asked that in plenty of cases, but this is definitely one of them where you're like, what exactly was the hold up here?

[00:08:18] And I think Bob Kolker's article for the New York Times magazine definitely speaks to a lot of a lot of inefficiency and squabbling and nonsense behind the scenes before this current DA right here. And he took over so that may explain part of it, but.

[00:08:34] I also tend to think that after a crime is solved and you see what the crucial links of evidence are that led investigators to that solution. It's pretty easy with hindsight to say, oh, these crucial links are really obvious. They should have found it sooner.

[00:08:54] But when investigators are in the middle of it working on all this stuff, it's very difficult to separate the wheat from the shaft and figure out exactly what to do.

[00:09:03] So I guess in my final thinking, yeah, I would love every crime to be solved within hours after it happened. But ultimately, I'm just grateful that crimes do get solved. This is classic us. You're the optimist. I'm the pessimist. Yeah. Like why wasn't this done years ago?

[00:09:20] And you're like, I'm glad we're here. We're all here today. One thing that's going to be interesting is that there are other victims that are not being associated with human men. The Gilgoth four, they were all they all fit a similar profile. They all fit a similar.

[00:09:40] They went out for a possible sex work job and never came back. And they all were bound seemingly in with with ligatures and also burlap was used and they're all found in very much the same area.

[00:09:56] There are other bodies, some of whom remain unidentified in Long Island that some have attributed to the Long Island serial killer but who are not being charged here. I tend to have a personal opinion on that. Please share it. I don't think they're linked.

[00:10:13] I mean what human men well what this what the Gilgoth Beach four suffered through and went through seems so specific. A lot of these other situations are like you having dismemberment. You're having different different types of victims of different races.

[00:10:30] And I'm not saying I don't buy a lot of like absolutes about serial killers. I think you can shift your MO. I think you can shift your victim profile. I don't necessarily adhere to like, oh, they'll know somebody never changes their pattern. I think they can.

[00:10:47] But in this situation just I just wonder if those may end up being attributed to another serial killer. I hate to say that you'd rather just there to be one.

[00:10:57] Yeah, for many reasons including the fact that the very least we have charges in one particular case involving a few of the murders. It would be nice if all the families who've lost loved ones and Long Island could get answers. Yeah, maybe that's not going to happen.

[00:11:15] And or maybe some of these does could get their names back and I could be totally wrong. This is just my personal opinion. I am very much open to evidence, but until there's evidence tying human men to some of these other cases, concrete evidence.

[00:11:33] I kind of I'm going to probably assume that it's somebody else. That's just me. If you disagree, I very much see where you're coming from.

[00:11:43] And actually, in some ways wish I agreed with you because again, I would rather I would rather it be one and done and not be just a bunch of creeps running around Long Island.

[00:11:54] Before we we wrap this section up here's I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

[00:12:02] We're talking about all of the case is solved answers for the family has in fact Rex Kuehrman pled guilty or admitted no he's he's put innocent and we should all keep an open mind.

[00:12:13] Even in cases where it can seem like a really solid strong case against the defendant, I don't think I think it's OK to necessarily I think it's OK to say well that's pretty bad for him and it looks like he's guilty.

[00:12:24] But I think it's still important at the back of your mind if more information is brought forward or if the defense does a good job in picking away at information against him, then let's let's consider that let's not necessarily close our minds to the possibility that they have the wrong guy that happens wrongful convictions happen.

[00:12:41] And it's never good to get so fixated on a theory that you don't hear anything else. But as it stands, it's a bad situation for him. And certainly he is the only person who has had charges brought against him in connection with these deaths.

[00:13:01] And this isn't just like armchair sleuthing because he actually has been charged. Oh yeah. Definitely. Nothing armchair about it. So moving on, let's go to Idaho.

[00:13:17] So on January 11th, 2024, there was an update in the case against Brian Coburger that a lot of back and forth between the defense and the prosecutor about issues of discovery, namely around investigative genetic genealogy information that was used by the prosecution to tie Coburger to the crimes.

[00:13:37] Another situation where you have family members putting out trash law enforcement grabbing that and getting DNA that then in this case matched to a knife sheath at the crime scene. So that's, that's a big piece of evidence against Coburger.

[00:13:54] Naturally his defense team is going to be all over that trying to poke holes in it because when you have a big piece of evidence like that that could be convincing to a jury, you're going to want to strategically invest in getting rid of that.

[00:14:06] Or knocking it down or making it sound like it's less good than it is. Right.

[00:14:11] So back and forth, basically defense feels has felt and has argued that they're not getting everything and there's discovery issues as a result of that because they're not getting everything around the IGG materials.

[00:14:25] What the prosecution is arguing is that we're not just going to give you a whole like family tree of everybody who's like related to Coburger because that's an invasion of those people's privacy and has nothing to do with.

[00:14:36] That was used to like as a product to get information in the case but it doesn't really affect the case, you don't need that kind of a complicated argument about discovery.

[00:14:48] And the judge has made a ruling in this case but unfortunately because it's sealed, we don't really know what it means. Judge John Judge said that he was going to order the prosecution to provide the defense a portion of the IGG information.

[00:15:07] But again, it's sealed what portion that is. So did the defense just secure a massive win that's going to really open the door for them to possibly poke more holes in this? Maybe.

[00:15:19] Did they just get like a little sliver of what they asked for and you know, it's not really that much. Maybe. It's really hard to know. It's all sealed.

[00:15:28] And again, this sort of goes back to what we were talking about a few minutes earlier in the Long Island case. We're talking about the new technologies with DNA. This is a different kind of new technology. There's IGG stuff, investigative genetic genealogy.

[00:15:42] And so when you have new techniques, new methods of gathering evidence and charging people with crimes, there's always going to be questions for the courts to wrestle with to determine how do we deal with this? What is the defense entitled to?

[00:16:03] And my understanding of this, I believe we've talked about it before is that when they do this investigative genetic genealogy, they're essentially looking at a bunch of people's names and running their DNA to figure out familiar connections.

[00:16:20] And so in theory, it's possible that when they did this sort of massive investigation and research before they narrowed it down to a handful of names, a lot of people's names may have popped up that have perhaps a relation to Brian Corbera. Maybe they even know about it.

[00:16:41] I mean, in theory, my name could have popped up. Your name could have been popped up. And so the question is, is the defense entitled to all of that raw material?

[00:16:51] Reading between the lines, the judge notes that it's going to be sealed in order to protect the privacy, including information about individuals on the family tree.

[00:17:00] So it seems like the defense may have gotten some of that, but the judge expects that there'd be privacy maintained for those people. So it's unclear, it's unclear. But reading between the lines, the fact that he said that indicates that they may have gotten some of that.

[00:17:14] So do you suppose that the reason they want all of this information? Let's say I said theoretically my name might appear on there. My name doesn't appear on there. I'm not related to Brian Colbert. But let's say in theory, I'm adopted.

[00:17:28] So maybe I am related and don't know it. And my name shows up. Does the defense want my name and the names of other people who might share some DNA is a way to potentially point at alternate suspects? My guess is yeah. But I might be wrong.

[00:17:46] Why else would you want that? What else, what else good would it do? But if they can say this random fourth cousin of Brian Cobur is a real creep and he doesn't have an alibi for that day. That, you know, that sounds good to some people.

[00:18:00] So basically the risk is that on one side of it, the risk is that people who have no connection to this case but who happen to be distant relations of Brian Colberger may now get embroiled in this case and perhaps accused of murder. Have their lives wrecked?

[00:18:27] Because of it, on the other end of it, you have the possibility that the defense will be denied relevant information about potential alternate suspects. So these really are difficult questions to wrestle with. Yep. It's very complicated.

[00:18:46] I'll be curious to see what the defense does with what they got and if the defense feels like this was enough. Is this what they asked for? Is this essentially a win for them or do they feel like they're being hampered because the judge didn't give them enough?

[00:18:57] In addition to that, the defense has also asked the judge to make public the defense's arguments that he should dismiss the case against their client.

[00:19:08] So that's a way around the gag order where they can say to the public, here is why we think this case should be dismissed. So that's why I think they would ask for that to be unsealed and made public. That makes sense.

[00:19:25] And when you have a gag order like this, you can't just make statements to the press. You got to speak to them through the courts if you want to speak to them at all.

[00:19:33] And of course, the defense has been pretty hostile to the media at least as far as cameras in the courtroom goes but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to have their narrative out there. That can help matters. So move on to Delphi now, back to Indiana.

[00:19:48] Back to Indiana. Back home again in Indiana. So we, as we mentioned our recording this on January 17th, the hearing has not happened yet. For us. We don't imagine that there'll be like some sort of answer from the hearing immediately.

[00:20:08] It'll probably take a while for the justices to sit and think about what they heard. Yeah, but I'm reluctant to make any predictions whatsoever. I can say what a lot of our sources have said.

[00:20:20] And when I say sources, I mean individuals who are mostly attorneys and legal professionals who have nothing to do with the Delphi case or this Indiana Supreme Court case but who have enough experience and insight to kind of look at something and say,

[00:20:32] here's how I think this might go. Might go a little something like this. So mostly what we've heard is that the conservative move is to allow the defense attorneys back on. Because then you avoid any constitutional rights issues down the line as far as appeals go.

[00:20:52] Not that you would avoid them entirely but avoid them about this issue. So that kind of tends to make sense to me that you would do the most conservative thing as far as protecting the case.

[00:21:03] And I'm sure we talked about this quite a bit in yesterday's episode which of course we will record tomorrow. I know that's not the least bit confusing. It's not confusing at all. We're going back in time folks and a hop in the TARDIS.

[00:21:19] Yeah, so that makes sense to me what our sources have told us. So I don't imagine how the defense team could come back and Judge Gull could remain on. But I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[00:21:37] Now in addition to that we got one question from a Facebooker member that I thought was a really good one. Talks about constructive incompetence. So when you hear about mental incompetence that's when a defendant can't even participate in their own defense because of a mental issue.

[00:21:56] And so there's issues of like if you can't help your defense attorneys, you're mentally incompetent. You can't stand trial. And what they were saying, what can...

[00:22:06] And when we talk about helping we're not saying that a defendant has to be like filing motions or drafting briefs or doing legal research. You help by conferring with your attorneys discussing the facts of the case with your attorney,

[00:22:25] discussing different strategies with your attorney and making choices for how you want your attorney to represent you. Right. And in this case we've already gotten a sense that that's not really been working out too well for a number of reasons with the new defense attorneys,

[00:22:44] AKA Robert Scrimman and William Labrado. And there's a number of reasons for that. One seems to be that Allen, Richard Allen and his wife Kathy are reluctant to cooperate with them because they don't...

[00:22:57] They want to wait until they get confirmation that original attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie are gone. And more seriously, I believe our Facebook questioner made the case for constructive incompetence,

[00:23:13] which is because of the environment and the setup at prison leaving aside Allen's mental state just because of that environment and setup. He cannot meaningfully confer with his attorneys. And so he's being denied his rights.

[00:23:35] Labrado and Scrimman argued that in a recent filing where they're saying when we're there, we're like so separate that we can't like talk in low tones. We feel like people are too close and could be listening in.

[00:23:48] There's all these problems in terms of the setup that prevent us from really being able to successfully represent our client and confide in us.

[00:23:57] And I think what Karen's question outlines is something that's a very, very serious concern for me at least in this case because when you have something like that going on, the concern is that that so fundamentally violates Allen's rights that then later on down the road there's appeals.

[00:24:20] It's not that you don't want an issue to create an appeal because that means something went very wrong. Right? I mean like you want things to go properly the first time.

[00:24:30] And if this is a situation that is going against that then regardless of how you feel about the case, that's a bad outcome. Even if you're undecided it's a bad outcome.

[00:24:42] Yeah, I would argue if you think he's innocent is clearly a bad outcome that he is not being able to constructively confer with his attorneys.

[00:24:52] I would also argue that if you are convinced he is guilty it is not a good outcome if he's not able to constructively confer with his attorneys because it creates an issue that could potentially require that any trial be done over.

[00:25:10] And a trial, I'm not saying anything you guys don't know. Trial is enormously difficult. It's not just the financial cost to the county. It's not just Nick McLean having to put together a case or what have you. It's not just the defense attorneys having to do their job.

[00:25:34] But for the families they're going to have to go up on the stand in front of the world and discuss and detail the worst day of their lives.

[00:25:49] And they are going to go through that, perhaps get some sort of a resolution, think it's over and then have the rug pulled out from underneath them potentially and have to do it all over again.

[00:25:59] Yeah, and there's some issues that could be, you know, Kagan Klein has filed an appeal. I don't think either of us feel like that's a sure win for him.

[00:26:08] But I feel like if you are having a situation where someone can successfully argue that they weren't able to assist in their own defense because of this situation regarding incarceration, that to me sounds, I mean, I'm no lawyer.

[00:26:24] That to me sounds a lot more serious and that could potentially be a very successful appeal because it's like he didn't get a fair shot at this. His rights were violated.

[00:26:33] So that's why I think it's so interesting to unpack some of these issues because we actually heard from a lawyer source again, nothing to do with the case. This person has nothing to do with the case.

[00:26:47] They have some insights and they noted in sort of an on background conversation with us the other day.

[00:26:54] They felt that maybe there was too much being made about the driving time, like if your client is incarcerated far away, you know, you kind of got to deal with that. Typically people are being assigned public defenders in their own county.

[00:27:08] This is not a very common issue as a result. And that while it's understandably very inconvenient and annoying for the attorneys, this person felt like just make a day of it.

[00:27:17] You get paid to drive down there, figure out a good schedule, maybe stay overnight, bill it to the state and figure it out basically. They felt that is not the problem.

[00:27:30] What they felt is the problem is what we've talked about, the setup in the prison not being conducive to Alan aiding in his own defense, to being able to talk and build rapport with his attorneys.

[00:27:43] And that is to this attorney that we spoke to at least certainly more of a serious and relevant issue than the driving necessarily. Even though the driving sounds awful to me, so I can understand. I mean, like that's why we kind of sing it out.

[00:28:00] But the stuff in the jail perhaps is more relevant to like what could derail a case down the road. They also noted that they don't think, I mean, they think a situation like this more reflects how complicated this is.

[00:28:14] It's not necessarily a simple matter of snapping your fingers and moving him. It's not a conspiracy. It's more that it sounds like he had issues around maybe suicidal behavior or a suicide watch concern. And there's concerns about what local jail can handle that.

[00:28:35] Again, I imagine that's, you know, a local jail with good resources could handle that. But there is concern about the mental health resource, mental health issues. There could be a lot of good reasons for putting him in the prison system at this point.

[00:28:51] But if the fact of the matter is that that results in him not being able to help defend himself, then something's got to change in my opinion. That's just my take. What do you think, Kevin? Yeah, I agree. Something needs to be done.

[00:29:04] He's got to be able to participate in this process. The most important thing that's ever happened in his life, it will determine his fate. So he should be given every opportunity to participate with his lawyers, communicate with them.

[00:29:18] Because that is the rights that anybody charged with a crime in this country has. We've heard from people who want to know, does this happen? Are there other pre-trial detainees in prison? I know of one. I know of one directly. And that's John Wayne Lehman.

[00:29:36] He's in Miami Correctional. He is accused and charged with murdering and raping teenager 1975. It was a cold case. He was arrested pretty recently. And that's a situation where Noble County sent something to the Indiana Department of Correction saying we can't handle this guy.

[00:29:55] He has all of these medical issues and they present safety problems for our other inmates. And it's just going to be a problem. Can you take him?

[00:30:04] It was a bunch of drama between the, between I.Doc and the judge in the case and actually a one point threats of contempt charges against I.Doc officials. And eventually it all got cleared up and I.Doc took Lehman. So he's in Miami Correctional.

[00:30:21] So he is a person who is a pre-trial detainee who is currently in prison. And in that case, it's not a mental health thing. It is a physical health thing, it seems. But you do get a situation like that.

[00:30:33] Now, what our lawyer's source pointed out was that Allen's not in, not in prison for his mental health. The stated reason in the transport order that Judge Benjamin Deener signed was that Carroll County was concerned, rightfully in my opinion,

[00:30:50] that local inmates would kill him or hurt him in their prison. It's an understaffed sheriff's department. It's an, you know, it's not, it's not big. They don't have unlimited resources.

[00:31:01] It's a very charged case involving children and people who hurt children in jail and prison are the lowest of the low and frequently targets violence. People, even if you're just accused, even if you're not convicted. And the feeling was we can't protect him. There's so much public scrutiny.

[00:31:18] It'll be a really bad situation if he comes here and Deener went with that. So it's all very complicated. To digress just for a second, it's an interesting coincidence that you bring up the rural mental case because as listeners may recall,

[00:31:40] this was a case that was cold for decades. And we did an episode covering the case about a year ago and then a very short time after that there were arrests announced in the case. And people assumed we had some sort of inside information and we didn't.

[00:32:02] It was just a coincidence, nothing more than a coincidence. And that's kind of funny because speaking of coincidences, the other day on our Patreon live, the name of Susan Hendrix came up. Susan Hendrix is of course formally with headline news.

[00:32:20] She did a lot of great work for that organization. She recently did a book on the Delphi case called Down the Hill. It's really good, really an empathetic look at what the families have been through in this situation.

[00:32:34] And as we were talking about her, I was saying, oh, she's a great person and golly, I really miss her in the media. It'd be great if she came back with a podcast or something and she's come back with something.

[00:32:49] She actually has a YouTube channel now that I would encourage you all to check out. She's going to cover not just Delphi but a bunch of other cases. And if you're familiar with her work, she does great work.

[00:33:03] The name of the channel is Headline Crime and it's just starting. So I certainly recommend that all of you, if you are so inclined to follow things on YouTube, hop over there and give it a listen and subscribe. Absolutely. Yeah, Susan's great.

[00:33:20] Again, the empathy she's brought to this case has been really inspiring and just, I think, a model for good empathetic journalism when you're dealing with victims' families who are reeling from a horrible loss.

[00:33:33] And so I think she's going to do a great job with this and with the YouTube channel in general. Thank you all so much for listening to this somewhat all over the place cheat sheet in terms of at least timing and when stuff is actually happening.

[00:33:50] We really appreciate listening and check back in next week for more information on these cases and other cases. Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheetatgmail.com.

[00:34:11] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com.

[00:34:39] We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:34:53] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much.

[00:35:07] We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.