Speaker 1: Kilda.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Thirty years ago,
Speaker 2: five members of the Bain family in Dunedin were found
Speaker 2: dead in their family home. The one surviving family member, David,
Speaker 2: was later convicted of murdering his parents and three siblings.
Speaker 2: He served thirteen years in prison before the Privy Council
Speaker 2: quashed his convictions and he was subsequently found not guilty
Speaker 2: on all charges at a retrial in two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: Despite this, for three decades, this case has joined a
Speaker 2: gallery of notorious murders that have fascinated New Zealanders across
Speaker 2: the years. Later, on the Front Page, we discuss our
Speaker 2: fixation with this and other cases with Professor of POLP Culture,
Speaker 2: doctor Lorna Piazzi. Far now but first longtime David Bain
Speaker 2: advocate Joe Karen reflects on his three decades linked to
Speaker 2: the case.
Speaker 1: I think thirty years.
Speaker 2: Since the killings at Every Street. You're a former All Black,
Speaker 2: a successful businessman but also known as a longtime David
Speaker 2: Bain advocate. What first got you interested in this case?
Speaker 3: I was reading the New Zealand Herald one morning early
Speaker 3: in January of nineteen ninety six, and there was a
Speaker 3: little article in the Herald. Was a picture of five
Speaker 3: or six people in the Octagon and the Meeden the
Speaker 3: Treshoor table selling jams and pickles to raise money, with
Speaker 3: a sign on the front which said David Dane was innocent.
Speaker 3: And the story said that one of the people was
Speaker 3: an elderly woman who was David Bain's music teacher, and
Speaker 3: the other ones were friend that is from university and
Speaker 3: drama society belonged to. And the story just grabbed me. Actually,
Speaker 3: I'd been a close follower of the Arthur Allen Thomas case.
Speaker 3: Funnily enough, I had broken my leg and was implaster
Speaker 3: sitting at home doing nothing in nineteen seventy when the
Speaker 3: crew murders happened, and that because I was stuck with
Speaker 3: here was nowhere to go for nothing to do. I
Speaker 3: sort of read and listened to everything that happened. Anyway,
Speaker 3: what struck me about this article It wasn't like his
Speaker 3: parents or family. These were people who were just friends
Speaker 3: who to go out in the street and do this.
Speaker 3: And I had a visit with my lawyer on some
Speaker 3: other business A few days later, and I said to
Speaker 3: do you know who the lawyer for the David Bain was,
Speaker 3: And he gave me his name and address or phone number,
Speaker 3: and I contacted him and put my finger in the
Speaker 3: water and there we go. Twenty years later, I still
Speaker 3: at it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've seen people say that they would never have
Speaker 2: been a retrial without your support of Bain. Would you
Speaker 2: agree with that?
Speaker 3: Oh? Well, I'd go without not being boastful, but just
Speaker 3: I think all the lawyers that I engaged over the
Speaker 3: years would say exactly the same thing. Not only would
Speaker 3: they not have been a retrial, there would David Dane
Speaker 3: would still be in prison now. When they ordered the retrial,
Speaker 3: Michael Reid, who was David Baine's QC, Michael REQC, he said, Joe,
Speaker 3: you have to come down there. We can't do this
Speaker 3: without You're the one with all the knowledge and everything else.
Speaker 3: I said, well, you know, I'm not a lawyer. You
Speaker 3: don't need the trial, and he said, no, You've got
Speaker 3: to be there. So I was there right through the
Speaker 3: whole thing, and I made over the years, I made
Speaker 3: some very very important and crucial decisions for the legal team.
Speaker 3: And I think it's fair to say that David Baine
Speaker 3: instead of being happily married now two lovely children and
Speaker 3: the gordous wife would still be writing away in the prison.
Speaker 3: And it was the will of the police and the
Speaker 3: various government officials that's what they would have liked to
Speaker 3: have happened.
Speaker 2: Well, you were kind of the face of the campaign, hey,
Speaker 2: and you really took on that role. And to say
Speaker 2: this case was divisive is an understatement. What was it
Speaker 2: like heading the campaign for so long? What kind of
Speaker 2: things did you experience?
Speaker 3: Well, it's hard for anybody who wasn't close to me
Speaker 3: over those years to understand is just how vicious the
Speaker 3: assault on me personally was. I brought a different perspective
Speaker 3: in the sense that you know, as a well known person,
Speaker 3: being a formal all black, and that made the police
Speaker 3: and the Justice department officials see me as more of
Speaker 3: a threat, I suppose to a normal person who might
Speaker 3: be fighting against an injustice. Right from the very beginning.
Speaker 3: It was amazing when my name first became public as
Speaker 3: being working for David, the number of police cars that
Speaker 3: would be driving past our house. We lived in the country,
Speaker 3: myself and a life and three children. At that stage.
Speaker 3: I separated from my life soon after one night, not
Speaker 3: long long after we'd separated, she'd been shopping in the evening.
Speaker 3: It was in the winter time, and she went to
Speaker 3: get in the car and her eyes approached her. And
Speaker 3: they were both private investigators to follow me around and
Speaker 3: try and dig up as much dirt on me as
Speaker 3: they could, and they thought that the children wife might
Speaker 3: be a great source of information for them. They sort
Speaker 3: of did all they could to persuade her to spill
Speaker 3: as much dirt on me as what she could, but
Speaker 3: she didn't. She rang me up and told me what happened. Then,
Speaker 3: of course, after I wrote the first book, which really
Speaker 3: is what started the major controversy, the police sued me
Speaker 3: for defamation. And I think that I can say fairly
Speaker 3: accurately that I'm the only person that the police have
Speaker 3: ever sued the defamation in New Zealand's history. Joe Karen,
Speaker 3: why are you doing this?
Speaker 1: He is guilty as the police can't be wrong and
Speaker 1: the government of cues can't all be wrong.
Speaker 4: Surely, I don't know how well film you are. But
Speaker 4: the jury did not hear all of the evidence. Much
Speaker 4: of the evidence they did here was wrong. The detective
Speaker 4: in fact, who sued me admitted it under oath during
Speaker 4: my trial that his evidence on a most crucial matter
Speaker 4: was wrong. The other detective be sued me under cross
Speaker 4: examination made the statement that if he'd been asked, he
Speaker 4: would have told the whole truth.
Speaker 2: You've mentioned before it had been tough, and I liked
Speaker 2: this quote. You sometimes represented as being a raving redneck
Speaker 2: who had lost the plot, and it seems like you've
Speaker 2: been on the receiving end, especially a lot of public
Speaker 2: backlash over the years. What kind of toll has that
Speaker 2: taken on you thirty years down the track.
Speaker 3: Well, I wouldn't say it's the toll lives with me now.
Speaker 3: I mean, if I look at the case now in retrospect,
Speaker 3: I have a great personal satisfaction and the feeling of triumph.
Speaker 3: But as I said before David Dane, which will probably
Speaker 3: be writing in jail instead of being happy married, it
Speaker 3: gives me a great deal of bride and satisfaction that
Speaker 3: my stick ability and all the work I did and
Speaker 3: ef it I put into it a result than that.
Speaker 2: You've said the campaign costs you millions over the years.
Speaker 2: Were you surprised going in how much it actually cost
Speaker 2: to challenge the legal system, Because first cab off. The
Speaker 2: rank was getting someone over to the Privy Council way
Speaker 2: and you donated what like twelve grand.
Speaker 3: The initial thing was with Michael Guest, David's original lawyer,
Speaker 3: and I didn't think you get to the Privy Council
Speaker 3: in London for twelve thousand dollars. I was recently well
Speaker 3: off at that time and the case he was bringing
Speaker 3: seemed to be quite powerful to me. In fact, that's
Speaker 3: when my association with the case just became public. What
Speaker 3: I discovered on that visit and soon after was that
Speaker 3: Michael Guest, David's original lawyer did a terrible job. And
Speaker 3: so one of the first major decisions I made was
Speaker 3: to sack him, and I arranged for Colin Wisner, QC
Speaker 3: and Dunedin to work with me to investigate whether or
Speaker 3: not he thought there'd been a miscarriage of justice that
Speaker 3: was challengeable through the proper channels, and that after working
Speaker 3: with me for twelve months, he agreed that there was,
Speaker 3: and we lodged the petition to the Governor General.
Speaker 2: Would you do it all again?
Speaker 3: I would definitely do it all again, and I wouldn't
Speaker 3: change I wouldn't be able to change anything because if
Speaker 3: I didn't be as feisty and determined and out spoken
Speaker 3: and voice things publicly as I did, I'd be just
Speaker 3: like the Watson case now, struggling on twenty three years later,
Speaker 3: hoping for the best and expecting the worst. So the
Speaker 3: only thing I did wrong was have a faith in
Speaker 3: the powers that be that they would take my concerns seriously.
Speaker 3: That they didn't, And so when they treated me the
Speaker 3: way they did, I treated them the same way back.
Speaker 2: Over the last fifteen years. How much of your time
Speaker 2: is still spent protecting David and I guess his new
Speaker 2: family now as well.
Speaker 3: David actually said to me after the two thousand and
Speaker 3: three decision of the Court of Appeal, and I was
Speaker 3: sitting with him in prison. I think I might have
Speaker 3: been shedding it through tears, and I was looking in
Speaker 3: the eye and saying, I just can't believe this, and
Speaker 3: they right have. I got this all wrong, David, and
Speaker 3: you've been bullshitting me all along. And David looked at
Speaker 3: me and said, Joe, you're doing tougher lag than me.
Speaker 3: He said, I am innocent, and I'll never ever admit
Speaker 3: enough fight on somehow, but you need to get on
Speaker 3: your life glowing away, And as I said, I wrote
Speaker 3: a letter of the Court of Appeal and told them
Speaker 3: that they were wrong, and I go to the Privy
Speaker 3: Council and that's what I did. But in terms of
Speaker 3: protecting David, the biggest thing was since the retrial, that
Speaker 3: is the biggest thing for me, was to get him
Speaker 3: some compensation. And so after Benny report was staring out
Speaker 3: in twenty and twelve, I then had to fight on
Speaker 3: for another four years to finally get him about a
Speaker 3: million dollars in two thy and sixteen, which gave him
Speaker 3: the opportunity of creating And he was married by then
Speaker 3: and he had one child by then, which gave him
Speaker 3: his wife at least the opportunity of creating a life
Speaker 3: for themselves and some privacy. But since that time and
Speaker 3: David and I agreed it well at his wife that
Speaker 3: it was their life and they would live at how
Speaker 3: they wished to where they wished to, and to make
Speaker 3: decisions for themselves. I offered that anytime they even needed
Speaker 3: to meet a help them, I would, but that they
Speaker 3: would basically get on with their life in their own way,
Speaker 3: which is what I've done.
Speaker 2: And they're doing well. Do they manage to kind of
Speaker 2: avoid being bothered.
Speaker 3: Well, they have done extremely well. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: another thing about all the nonsense that's been written by
Speaker 3: so many people. I must say that most of it
Speaker 3: has come out of the christ Church priest with Martin
Speaker 3: I'm leading the charge. As you know, Van Dayana wrote
Speaker 3: the story which New Zealand just went along with that
Speaker 3: naturally enough, that David Dane had sort of scarped off
Speaker 3: to Australia with his wife and that's where he was living.
Speaker 3: That was totally untrue. David never went to Australia to live.
Speaker 3: He had one short holiday there on the Gold Coast
Speaker 3: with his wife, but he never contemplated living there and
Speaker 3: never went there at all, and eventually they shifted to
Speaker 3: where they now live. His wife has a very very
Speaker 3: good job, is highly respected, and they bought a great
Speaker 3: life for themselves. They've got two children who are doing
Speaker 3: exceptionally well and as as far as they've got great support,
Speaker 3: need work in the community where they are. And whether
Speaker 3: or not what's happening now with this anniversary and the
Speaker 3: scrutiny on things will change that, I don't know, but
Speaker 3: I'm sure David will hold him.
Speaker 2: If anything does that and have you spoken to him recently?
Speaker 2: I mean just checking in with them. I guess I'm
Speaker 2: given it thirty years.
Speaker 3: We speak to each other, not every day or every
Speaker 3: week or anything, but sort of once a month or
Speaker 3: two months. We've never got old and wag on the
Speaker 3: phone and talk about how things are going, and he
Speaker 3: talks about his family and what he's doing for work
Speaker 3: and so on. And I've talked to him recently about
Speaker 3: the immedia scrutiny that's been going on, and he said, look,
Speaker 3: we're living a happy life. We've got a good support
Speaker 3: network around us, and I just wanted to sort of
Speaker 3: just keep my head down and be tap with my
Speaker 3: family and close friends. So that's what you're doing.
Speaker 5: How are you feeling?
Speaker 3: What was it like to hear that phrase not guilty
Speaker 3: repeated five times today?
Speaker 6: That was a huge release for me, to be honest,
Speaker 6: I just in some respects it took a huge weights
Speaker 6: off my shoulders. But it's also shown me that the
Speaker 6: love of all these people and this fantastic man here
Speaker 6: has got me through and it's just it's all coming
Speaker 6: at once.
Speaker 2: Do you think New Zealand needs to move on?
Speaker 3: Well? I think what needs to happen was Black Hans
Speaker 3: and Baine and thing is what it did. It had
Speaker 3: an enormous effect. I mean it turns. I mean younger
Speaker 3: people tend to listen to podcasts. I know that's changed now,
Speaker 3: lots of people do. But all of the people who
Speaker 3: were too young to follow the case and know about
Speaker 3: the case, there are only reference about the case is
Speaker 3: not only the podcast, but then New Zealand on Air
Speaker 3: granted five million dollars to Warner Brothers to do that
Speaker 3: television three part doco drama on the thing. What I
Speaker 3: think needs to happen and answer your question, somebody should
Speaker 3: put up five million dollars to have an investigation into
Speaker 3: what went wrong, who did what, when did they do
Speaker 3: it and why and get some accountability. Not for the
Speaker 3: purpose of vengeance on all the people who did do things,
Speaker 3: rather as I don't think David or me want to
Speaker 3: see any of them get locked up, even though they
Speaker 3: deserve it, but to make sure or put things in
Speaker 3: place to try to ensure that something like this never
Speaker 3: happens again.
Speaker 2: You're saying, instead of giving money to the likes of
Speaker 2: a three part docco.
Speaker 3: Series which was a pointless it was pointless a proud
Speaker 3: and not think it added nothing to the story, and
Speaker 3: in fact it wasn't even very didn't get very good ratings,
Speaker 3: but that it creates controversy and unnecessary.
Speaker 2: And I suppose retraumatizers as well. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: probably a period of David's life that he doesn't really
Speaker 2: want to reflect on too.
Speaker 3: Much exactly, but not only in I mean, I know
Speaker 3: his extended family have ditched him and taken a side
Speaker 3: of the police, but I don't think they want all
Speaker 3: the stuff regurgitated over and over and over again, because
Speaker 3: you know, as much as I think they were wrong
Speaker 3: in the way they behaved, each tended family that is
Speaker 3: in not supporting David. However, of course it was their
Speaker 3: brother and sister and nieces and nephews and cousins who
Speaker 3: also lost their lives and say they've been through a
Speaker 3: great de la trauma as well. And the regurgitating of
Speaker 3: what happened is no help to anybody. But what would
Speaker 3: be a help would be to try to ensure that
Speaker 3: these practices are well and truly in the past and
Speaker 3: put things in place to make sure they don't happen again.
Speaker 2: Is it time for New Zealand to leave David and
Speaker 2: his family alone.
Speaker 3: Well, it would be much easier for them to leave
Speaker 3: him alone if the facts of the case were properly
Speaker 3: put on the table and his innocence was acknowledged instead
Speaker 3: of trying to portray him, as we've talked about with
Speaker 3: the various podcasts and so on, as a killer living
Speaker 3: amongst us. It's pretty obvious what happened, and the only
Speaker 3: valuable thing that can be done for the case is
Speaker 3: to learn from the mistakes that were made by the police,
Speaker 3: by the Crown Law Office and Wellington, by the judges
Speaker 3: at the Court of Appeal, and by politicians. He could
Speaker 3: have all put a stop to this way back in
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety seven when I went and told them, I mean,
Speaker 3: what happened in the retrial is exactly what I told
Speaker 3: them would happen if there was a retrial and I
Speaker 3: was proven right thirteen years later. You know, I'd never
Speaker 3: had any experience in law or criminal cases, and if
Speaker 3: I could see how clearly what the case was by myself,
Speaker 3: then all these people could have seen it if it
Speaker 3: wasn't for their institutional bias which they brought to play
Speaker 3: on the case. An answer your question, yes, leave it alone.
Speaker 3: Or if you're going to touch it, at least acknowledge
Speaker 3: the shortcomings and all of the authorities. When I went
Speaker 3: to see the police, originally, it never would have been
Speaker 3: all this controversy if they'd sat down with me and
Speaker 3: discussed and worked out the way forward. I didn't want
Speaker 3: to write books about the case. I didn't want to
Speaker 3: have all this controversy and have David writing a land
Speaker 3: prison for thirty more years. But instead of that, their
Speaker 3: response was to try and destroy all the evidence. The
Speaker 3: controversy is at the feet of the authorities.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Joe, David Bain, Scott Watson, Race Mulane,
Speaker 2: Heavenly Creatures, the Crew Murders. Some cases have captured Kiwi's
Speaker 2: imagination and focus over the years more than others, So
Speaker 2: why do we care about some cases rather than others.
Speaker 2: To discuss this further, we're joined now on the front
Speaker 2: page by aut University's professor of Popular Culture, doctor Lorna
Speaker 2: Piatti Farnell.
Speaker 1: Lorna.
Speaker 2: Whether it's podcasts, articles, documentaries, TV adaptations, we all seem
Speaker 2: to love true crime, don't we. What drives that fascination?
Speaker 1: Well, the fascination with true crime likely comes from many causes,
Speaker 1: and there are probably many reasons as to white people
Speaker 1: enjoy true crime stories so much. Now. Generally speaking, I
Speaker 1: would say that the interest in true crime likely stems
Speaker 1: first of all from the curiosity the people have about
Speaker 1: these highly confronting stories. People want to know more and
Speaker 1: find out the motivations of these killers. Above all, the
Speaker 1: exploration of what we could not imagine doing, and the
Speaker 1: focus on what it's perceived as different, deviant and simply
Speaker 1: just not fitting in our society. Now, I think there
Speaker 1: is a desire to try and discover some form of
Speaker 1: blueprint over what caused the murderers to do what they did,
Speaker 1: and perhaps even to avoid it happening again in the future. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: no matter how many true crime stories we might watch,
Speaker 1: this is not simply a journey of causality and correlation
Speaker 1: that applies to every single case, so it doesn't quite
Speaker 1: work like that. But still we try and true crime
Speaker 1: stories for the fans they will know this are often
Speaker 1: very very visceral and get into very gory detail, so
Speaker 1: there's probably a certain strange foeuristic side to the fascination.
Speaker 1: And of course true crime is based generally speaking on
Speaker 1: real historical events. It actually happened. So there is also
Speaker 1: a layer of unspoken mixture of fear and excitement that
Speaker 1: goes with the experience as well the thrill of delving
Speaker 1: into the crime and all his details.
Speaker 2: Shall we say, yeah, And looking at David Baine as
Speaker 2: an example, it's been thirty years and he's gone through
Speaker 2: two trials now, but we can't seem to leave it alone.
Speaker 2: What do you think motivates people to keep talking about Bain?
Speaker 1: Now? What a case like that of Bain and several
Speaker 1: others in a similar category, there is I think, in
Speaker 1: equal parts fascination and repulsion over the fact that the
Speaker 1: perpetrators of the crime of the murders did not kill strangers,
Speaker 1: as it is often the case with a lot of
Speaker 1: true crime stories that we see, but they killed members
Speaker 1: of their family, or allegedly killed members of their family
Speaker 1: as the trial went. Now the people that they should
Speaker 1: have loved the most and cherished the most and cared about,
Speaker 1: and that truly has a certain, should we say, unimaginable
Speaker 1: quality to it. Truly is the call of the unthinkable,
Speaker 1: And of course murder is thankfully unthinkable from the majority
Speaker 1: of people. But when we encounter cases when it does
Speaker 1: happen within family circles. There is a challenge to our
Speaker 1: sense of safety, the pushing of boundaries of our comfort zone,
Speaker 1: which is likely why these particular cases get so much attention.
Speaker 1: And also we should not underestimate the idea that someone
Speaker 1: may have actually been wrongfully convicted of a crime and
Speaker 1: spent time in prison, as that is certainly something that
Speaker 1: resonates with people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we were talking about Scott Watson on the podcast
Speaker 2: the other week and one of our guests noted how
Speaker 2: the name has been Smart and Olivia Hope. The fact
Speaker 2: that that we both young, white, blonde made that case
Speaker 2: stand out more.
Speaker 1: Perhaps, you know.
Speaker 5: A couple of really attractive kids doing what a lot
Speaker 5: of kids of that age did, which is their first
Speaker 5: holidays with their friends, not their family, not to mention
Speaker 5: their surnames, Hope and Smart. You know, they were the
Speaker 5: perfect set of white middle class kids, beautiful, intelligent, their
Speaker 5: whole lives ahead of them. And I think that's what
Speaker 5: capitivated the country who because I think if it was
Speaker 5: you know, as some different people in a small town,
Speaker 5: for example, there wouldn't have been such a huge kind
Speaker 5: of interest.
Speaker 2: Does race and class play into which cases Garner our
Speaker 2: attention over others, do you think.
Speaker 1: I see? Unfortunately, if we look at all the research
Speaker 1: that has been conducted in this particular area and on
Speaker 1: this particular topic in several fields, from criminal psychology to
Speaker 1: gender and race studies to cultural and media studies, there
Speaker 1: is definitely ample evidence to suggest that unfortunately, race, gender,
Speaker 1: and class do play central parts in victim and perpetrator definition,
Speaker 1: in the creation of sympathy or lack of sympathy, and
Speaker 1: the attention that the case may actually get in the news.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of stereotyping that happens, and most
Speaker 1: often than not, this can reflect negatively on the victims
Speaker 1: or on the perpetrator. It is regrettable, and it is
Speaker 1: essential that we maintain a continuous awareness of this, especially
Speaker 1: when presented with criminal acts in both real life and
Speaker 1: fictionalized accounts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's also seventy years since the Polling Parker and
Speaker 2: Juliet Home murders in what's known as the Heavenly Creature's case.
Speaker 2: So this isn't really a modern phenomenon, is it.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm assuming you mean the news and cultural hype
Speaker 1: of a murder rather than wealth as the latter has
Speaker 1: been around. I think for as long as humans have
Speaker 1: been around. Certainly, the narrative, shall we say, constructions of
Speaker 1: a murder, the storytelling a murder, and what part do
Speaker 1: news outlets and media play in generally that is not
Speaker 1: a contemporary occurrence. Certainly from the late nineteenth entry onwards
Speaker 1: with you know, famous cases like that of Jack the Ripper,
Speaker 1: there has been a fascination with the idea of crime
Speaker 1: that has been fueled by storytelling, and this has been
Speaker 1: transported from the news or other forms of media such
Speaker 1: as film and television and more recently you know, podcasts
Speaker 1: and the like very popular with listeners. And then sensationalization
Speaker 1: of murder has really been occurring ever since news and
Speaker 1: later media audiences have been a thing. So absolutely it's
Speaker 1: not really a new phenomenon.
Speaker 2: How much does news media drive interest in these cases
Speaker 2: and should there be I guess more consideration from journalists
Speaker 2: in what cases they spotlight?
Speaker 1: I suppose yes, that is a good question. And news
Speaker 1: media have historically been central to drawing public attention to
Speaker 1: particular cases, especially in building you know, speculation and fascination
Speaker 1: around particular crimes, especially murders. Now, the serial killer phenomenon,
Speaker 1: as it's often called more than the murder themselves, and
Speaker 1: then the public attention around it has been intrinsically connected
Speaker 1: with media attention. Sometimes historical facts and popular views can merge,
Speaker 1: they can blend and merge and become one, and some
Speaker 1: ideas of facts become very cemented into people's minds and
Speaker 1: difficult to shake, whether they actually happen or not. So
Speaker 1: it is always important to maintain vigilance over what information
Speaker 1: is shared and circulated about these cases and in our
Speaker 1: contemporary era, not only in official media outlets, but also
Speaker 1: on user generated content platforms, and there are certainly quite
Speaker 1: a lot of those around, so vigilance is definitely the key.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Lona. That's it for this episode
Speaker 2: of the Front Page. You can read more about today's
Speaker 2: stories and extensive news coverage at enzed Herald dot co
Speaker 2: dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Siles
Speaker 2: with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
Speaker 2: the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 2: and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.