Speaker 1: Thinking Sideways is not brought to you by nailing potatoes.
Speaker 1: Instead is supported by the generous contributions of people like you,
Speaker 1: our listeners on Patreon. Visit patreon dot com slash thinking
Speaker 1: sideways to learn more Thinking Sideways. I don't know stories
Speaker 1: of things we sympthy don't know the answer too. Hey everybody,
Speaker 1: and welcome again to another episode of Thinking Sideways. I
Speaker 1: am Steve, as always joined by Joe, and once again
Speaker 1: we've got another mystery. There's a couple more left. This
Speaker 1: mystery was suggested to us by Brian on Facebook. Oh god,
Speaker 1: it was like a year ago, and weirdly enough, as
Speaker 1: I was doing all of my research, suddenly there was
Speaker 1: a resurgence and we must have got another three or
Speaker 1: four or five suggestions. I think I said I've said
Speaker 1: to someone recently. You know, sometimes we find ourselves in
Speaker 1: a situation where somebody suggested something that we're literally about
Speaker 1: to record. I'm not saying this is one of those situations.
Speaker 1: But I'm not not saying this is because sometimes we
Speaker 1: just have to say, Okay, yes, we're doing it. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you made their day anyway. Maybe probably not, probably
Speaker 1: maybe they don't care, maybe not, maybe it's a mystery.
Speaker 1: What are we coming next week? That right there, that's
Speaker 1: what we're covering. I'm on it man, aw yeah, we
Speaker 1: need a short episode. Okay, Today, what we're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about is we are going to be talking about
Speaker 1: the death of writer Danny Castillo and his investigation into
Speaker 1: what he called the octopus. He's not the only one
Speaker 1: who calls it that know that the term of the
Speaker 1: octopus has been around for quite a while. He really
Speaker 1: liked the octopus. And I'm gonna warn everybody, uh to
Speaker 1: strap in. This is kind of a eighties history roller coaster.
Speaker 1: We're going to go through a whole bunch of stuff.
Speaker 1: So get your penn, get paper, take notes, because it
Speaker 1: be a quiz at the end you're gonna be glad
Speaker 1: you did it. I'm not taking notes. I have notes
Speaker 1: in front of He's already Yeah. He always says that
Speaker 1: though flight. So let's talk about Danny for a minute
Speaker 1: for a little bit here. He was a freelance writer
Speaker 1: at the time of his death, which was in he
Speaker 1: wrote for During the eighties, he wrote for a number
Speaker 1: of tabloids and and some other different magazines, and then
Speaker 1: he got on at computer age publications which reported on
Speaker 1: personal computing, which this is the eighties. Computers are awesome
Speaker 1: and cool and there's you know, I mean even today,
Speaker 1: tech writing is a big thing. Yeah, he and he
Speaker 1: worked there for a long time until he eventually he
Speaker 1: became part owner in the publication, until he's sold off
Speaker 1: his portion of the company in decided, I guess, I
Speaker 1: never I don't know why he did that, but he
Speaker 1: just he'd had enough wanted to move on, which we
Speaker 1: all do with jobs. I guess it's interesting that he
Speaker 1: wouldn't retain his ownership of it though, despite not writing
Speaker 1: for it. Yeah, it's almost like it'd be easy incomes. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the thing is, actually, I think I remember reading
Speaker 1: that the value of the company was going up, and
Speaker 1: it looks like he saw it as a bit of
Speaker 1: a cash cow. Hey i'm gonna I'm gonna take the
Speaker 1: money and run before this bubble bursts. And he sold
Speaker 1: probably six months to a year too soon. If he'd
Speaker 1: waited longer, he would have made a whole bunch. He
Speaker 1: waited longer, he would have been dead. So maybe not,
Speaker 1: Well that's true. We don't know, we don't know, Okay, Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: so he does that, and then Cassolero goes ahead and
Speaker 1: looking around on for something else to do. He's talking to. Reportedly,
Speaker 1: he talks to another friend who is also a journalist
Speaker 1: in the same field and says, hey, I want to
Speaker 1: get back into writing. I want to find a good story.
Speaker 1: And this friend suggests that he looked into the inns
Speaker 1: law case, which at the time had been going on
Speaker 1: for a decade. It's totally forgotten to history. I feel, yeah, really,
Speaker 1: I don't hear people talking about it. And then the
Speaker 1: way that people talk about a lot of other stuff,
Speaker 1: which is kind of scary because it was kind of
Speaker 1: a big thing several decades that we're not for a
Speaker 1: long time. And frankly, I gotta tell you, it's hard
Speaker 1: to understand. It's really hard to get a handle on
Speaker 1: the case. It is a muddy, muddy mess. And we're
Speaker 1: going to go into, at least to a certain degree,
Speaker 1: the case. But I do want to stick just kind
Speaker 1: of with Danny here. So he looks at it and
Speaker 1: he says, hey, this this is right up my alley,
Speaker 1: because the ins lack case is all about technology. So
Speaker 1: he goes ahead, he starts doing his investigation, and he
Speaker 1: started it not too long after he had sold his
Speaker 1: portion of the publication, so it's starts doing this work.
Speaker 1: It didn't take too long in his investigation though, for
Speaker 1: him to start seeing and I'm using air quotes when
Speaker 1: I'm saying seeing, or his sources to start telling him
Speaker 1: about a lot of crazy connections to the in's law case.
Speaker 1: They were really it seems coincidental. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: I mean, you two know this, but it seems coincidental,
Speaker 1: and then it just kind of grows in spider webs. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's one of those situations right where if
Speaker 1: if there was one coincidence, you'd say, oh, that's just
Speaker 1: a coincidence, but when there's ten coincidences, you start to think, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's a lot of coincidences to just be coincidence. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just right. I mean that was my sense was
Speaker 1: that it was just kind of if it had just
Speaker 1: been one or two things, it would have been nothing,
Speaker 1: but not one or two things similar name, the same
Speaker 1: name pops up in this and other air is you
Speaker 1: know that kind of thing? Yeah? Yeah, And and what
Speaker 1: the coincidences or the connections or whatever you want to
Speaker 1: call it, it is what he began to refer to
Speaker 1: as the octopus, which is all of these crazy connections
Speaker 1: that seem to indicate that there's some secret network that's
Speaker 1: responsible for terrible acts espionage, murders, assassinations, laundering drugs. I mean,
Speaker 1: it kind of runs the full gamut here. I almost
Speaker 1: I almost want to think of it less of a
Speaker 1: network and more of kind of a cabal, one of
Speaker 1: the ways I've always kind of seen the octopus. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can call it that. The Nights templar the Illuminati,
Speaker 1: you know, No, I mean the Illuminati would fall into
Speaker 1: the umbrella of the of the octopus. Yeah. Well, that's
Speaker 1: the weird part is that this is technically going to
Speaker 1: be a conspiracy theory, and there are tons of things
Speaker 1: that whenever you read about one conspiracy theory, you're going
Speaker 1: to find a whole bunch of things linked to it.
Speaker 1: And it's amazing how they all tend to have commonalities
Speaker 1: that all run through common stories, which is, yeah, we
Speaker 1: probably don't need to go to FIR to this, but
Speaker 1: it's always interesting to me. I'm going to do a
Speaker 1: little bit of it anyway. It's always interesting to me,
Speaker 1: you know, when you it's it's similar to when you
Speaker 1: look at ancient history, and you see all of the
Speaker 1: depictions of things that look a lot like flying somethings
Speaker 1: in like prehistoric times, right, and it's kind of like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: if one one group of people would come up with
Speaker 1: that on their own, okay, But when you start seeing
Speaker 1: it in a lot, you kind of think, well, something
Speaker 1: must have been you know, maybe it was meteors or whatever.
Speaker 1: But same with this to me, where it's kind of like, well,
Speaker 1: there's all these theories of this thing in different iterations,
Speaker 1: so like ancient aliens. Yeah, I mean that's why I know,
Speaker 1: that's where well with that, yeah, But with this, you know,
Speaker 1: there's so many shadowy organizations that almost you kind of think,
Speaker 1: can this many people be crazy? Yes, this many crazy?
Speaker 1: But again I don't know, and we're going to keep
Speaker 1: talking about that. I'm pretty yeah. I think that that
Speaker 1: our brains are kind of hardwired to find patterns and things.
Speaker 1: That's the way are the human mind works, and so
Speaker 1: we're naturally we're constantly constructing things like this. But I
Speaker 1: have a question for you guys, and that is this. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got the octopus, and then we have this other
Speaker 1: shadowy conspiracy called the Illuminati, what happens when they when
Speaker 1: they collide? Squid squid? Is that what it is that's
Speaker 1: kind of curious about it? Do they have a shadow
Speaker 1: war or they just like to get together in a
Speaker 1: little room it's hydra. Yeah, they make some other ce
Speaker 1: creature or do they drop treaties between them between each other?
Speaker 1: What do they do? I don't know, No, I mean
Speaker 1: that that's kind of what I was alluding to, is that, like,
Speaker 1: there can't be all of the ones that are theorized,
Speaker 1: but it's it's certainly possible that there's one of them
Speaker 1: as Yeah, pretty sure. Alright, let's let's let's get back
Speaker 1: to the story here. We've done enough about the balls
Speaker 1: and crazy conspiracy theories for the moment. Anyway, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: say we're going there that we we are going to
Speaker 1: kind of go there today. So we're gonna move forward.
Speaker 1: So Danny began his work in we're going to jump
Speaker 1: forward in time. We're gonna jump forward to the eighth
Speaker 1: of August. Castelero goes to Martinsburg, West Virginia. He's going
Speaker 1: to go there to meet several sources. He meets one
Speaker 1: of them, for sure, but he it appears that he
Speaker 1: was going to go to meet more than one. But
Speaker 1: while he's at his hotel, he bumps into this guy
Speaker 1: who he's never met before, by the name of Mike Looney.
Speaker 1: They meet in the hallway, they start to chat, and
Speaker 1: then later on they meet in the hotel bar that night,
Speaker 1: and I bring up Looney because he's talked about a
Speaker 1: number of times to validate Danny's state of mind, because
Speaker 1: when they were in the bar, he was very chatty,
Speaker 1: and he told him all about his research and all
Speaker 1: this stuff that he was going to do, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like I got the impression that they talked over
Speaker 1: drinks for several hours. So he didn't display any kind
Speaker 1: of abnormal behavior. He just seemed like a guy who
Speaker 1: was really excited about what he was doing. It's interesting
Speaker 1: some people bring up they bring up Looney because in
Speaker 1: this kind of shadowy way, right that he just happens.
Speaker 1: They just happened to meet, even though it was a
Speaker 1: coincidence that both of their rooms were right next to
Speaker 1: each other. But I guess I hadn't, you know, it
Speaker 1: makes more sense. Of course, Yeah, they ran each other
Speaker 1: in the halls, like of course they did. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: then they went and got a drink or happened to
Speaker 1: see each other and connected. Fine. Yeah, but there are
Speaker 1: those people out there who were like the looney he
Speaker 1: just happens to meet. It's crazy. Yeah, I think it
Speaker 1: looney had murdered him. I think that he wouldn't be
Speaker 1: saying that he was cheerful, excited. Yeah. Well, let's move
Speaker 1: forward to the next day. So now we're on the
Speaker 1: ninth of August and Castolero meets a source at two
Speaker 1: o'clock that afternoon, and then from there he goes to
Speaker 1: a place called the Stone Crab in and has dinner
Speaker 1: and a couple of beers. And we know this because
Speaker 1: he left at five twelve pm, which is the time
Speaker 1: he paid with his credit card, so we've got the
Speaker 1: credit card record there. He then went to a pay
Speaker 1: phone and called his family sometime around six o'clock to
Speaker 1: say that, yeah, I went to a pay phone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he went to a pay phone and he called his
Speaker 1: family because they seem to have had a standing thing
Speaker 1: where they would do dinner together, and he was notorious
Speaker 1: for bagging out, so he was calling to say he
Speaker 1: wasn't gonna make it. Where did he live? Oh, it's
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's Virginia, McLean Virginia. Okay, so not too awful. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: so it's reasonable that he could have been trying to
Speaker 1: get home. Yes, okay, So, like I said, it was
Speaker 1: about six o'clock that night that he made the call.
Speaker 1: He then disappears from the radar for about four hours.
Speaker 1: He shows up about ten o'clock that evening, so it's
Speaker 1: ten o'clock at night. He's seen at a convenience store,
Speaker 1: which is it's either next door it's right next door
Speaker 1: to his hotel. I think he was staying at a
Speaker 1: shared in, remember correctly. Yeah, he goes in, he wants coffee,
Speaker 1: He has to wait for the coffee to be made,
Speaker 1: gets a cup of coffee, and then he walks back
Speaker 1: to his hotel. Interesting. I'm sorry, it's just interesting to me.
Speaker 1: Most hotels in the lobby have free coffee, especially Sheridan's
Speaker 1: twenty four hours a day, So it's interesting that he
Speaker 1: felt like he had to go to the Communian store
Speaker 1: to pay for coffee instead of just walk the extra
Speaker 1: like the coffee they had. Yeah, I mean it wasn't good,
Speaker 1: but the convenient store coffee going to be that much better.
Speaker 1: Most hotels have coffee out to a certain point in
Speaker 1: the day, but I don't I mean, do they always
Speaker 1: have conn Not always? I guess that's fair. I I
Speaker 1: just always assumed they have coffee in a lot, because
Speaker 1: you know, if you get in late and whatever. I
Speaker 1: don't know what he was doing drinking coffee at ten pm, though,
Speaker 1: I don't know because it's a little weird he's going
Speaker 1: to stay up and write. I mean, it makes sense
Speaker 1: to me that if he had, especially if he had
Speaker 1: met with a source in that four hours, which is
Speaker 1: totally possible that he did, or he met a source
Speaker 1: at two o'clock, right, but that it's possible that he
Speaker 1: had another source that he managed to meet with in
Speaker 1: those four hours that he went missing. Maybe because he
Speaker 1: did that bagged out on him on the day before
Speaker 1: the eight he was supposed to meet a source who
Speaker 1: just flaked on, right, And I wouldn't necessarily come forward
Speaker 1: if I was a source that was giving information about
Speaker 1: something like this and had seen him in those four
Speaker 1: hours and then he showed up dead close after that,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't necessarily be like, oh, yeah, I was with
Speaker 1: him four hours. Probably not, but it makes sense to
Speaker 1: me that he would be going back to write that
Speaker 1: he would be inspired, or even if it was just
Speaker 1: based on the source earlier, that he would be trying
Speaker 1: to stay up and collect his thoughts and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe, I don't know. I mean, it's it's peculiar
Speaker 1: because you know, when he was at the Stone Crab
Speaker 1: in he ate dinner and he had a couple of
Speaker 1: beers I think it was bud Lights or something like
Speaker 1: that he was drinking. So he's drinking a couple of
Speaker 1: beers and then four hours later he's having some coffee. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, I can see why he's waking himself up.
Speaker 1: But do you not do that? How did I start
Speaker 1: drinking beer? I don't start drinking he was, so it
Speaker 1: wasn't like he was a young guy. Sure, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It just that makes sense to me. Okay, well, we're
Speaker 1: trying to sober up. We're going to move past that,
Speaker 1: and we're going to move to the next day, which
Speaker 1: is August ten. It's twelve thirty in the afternoon and
Speaker 1: the maid enters his hotel room and she finds Danny
Speaker 1: dead in the tub. Sorry to keep interrupting, when was
Speaker 1: he meant to check out? Do you know? I don't
Speaker 1: I'd never have seen that anywhere to either. Stupid amount
Speaker 1: of reading that and I have not seen anywhere that
Speaker 1: ever said he was expecting to check out yet yeah,
Speaker 1: I haven't either. It's maybe that he wasn't expecting to
Speaker 1: check out for another day or too hot, I don't know.
Speaker 1: But the thing is, the maid comes in, she finds
Speaker 1: him in the tub. His wrists have been slit. There's
Speaker 1: the places covered in blood, the bathroom, it's all over
Speaker 1: the walls, the tub in the water, all over the floor.
Speaker 1: There's towels soaked in blood underneath the sink, like it's
Speaker 1: not a pretty scene under the sink on the floor. Yes,
Speaker 1: so it's just like it wasn't the impression there could
Speaker 1: have been towels on the floor that the blood soaked
Speaker 1: into potentially, Yes, yes, that is absolutely a possibility. Okay,
Speaker 1: I just need to clarify that because I think that's
Speaker 1: going to come into play later. Well. And no, that's
Speaker 1: a great thing because I've never really gotten any good
Speaker 1: photos of the crime scene and the descriptions they leave
Speaker 1: a lot to be desired. Yet the descriptions you get
Speaker 1: of this crime scene aren't that great, And a lot
Speaker 1: of that is because it is not considered a prime scene.
Speaker 1: It's considered the scene of a suicide. I think there
Speaker 1: are two reasons, right, that reason, and then also there's
Speaker 1: always that reason of hoping to spare people the trauma
Speaker 1: of really detailed descriptions of how horrific a suicide it
Speaker 1: was orme. But there are definitely some things that are
Speaker 1: are pointed out that give me some question marks for sure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: now the coaster, for one thing. Well, let's that's a
Speaker 1: good thing to bring up, Joe, And let's bring up
Speaker 1: all of the stuff that's in the room. So there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a laundry. Listen, we're gonna go
Speaker 1: through here in the bathroom itself, so not in the
Speaker 1: tub with Danny, but in the bathroom, the police find
Speaker 1: a bottle of red wine that's half full. They find
Speaker 1: an ashtray sitting on the toilet and smoke. Was he
Speaker 1: a smoker? You know? Again, I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: We've never seen reference to the fact of if he
Speaker 1: was or was not a smokers. The nineties, I mean,
Speaker 1: a lot of people still smoke. So I've got a
Speaker 1: guess that if he's got an ashtray in the bathroom,
Speaker 1: with him. He's a smokers, because that's what smokers do
Speaker 1: when they get in the bath. They opened the window
Speaker 1: and you have a cigarette drunk or if you're drunk.
Speaker 1: But we don't know if there's any there were any
Speaker 1: butts in the ash tray. No, no, again, never referenced.
Speaker 1: It's the ash tray, but not the contents of said
Speaker 1: ash tree. Also in the bathroom itself is broken glass.
Speaker 1: From what I don't know. I okay, I got the
Speaker 1: bit about the broken glass. There's a guy named Ken Thomas.
Speaker 1: He wrote the book The Octopus. He went out, he
Speaker 1: picked up all of Castolero's notes, he went through it all,
Speaker 1: and he reconstructed all of his research and then he
Speaker 1: built on the theories from there and then put out
Speaker 1: a whole new book. And he didn't do it himself.
Speaker 1: There was another guy, but the addition that I had
Speaker 1: read was mainly under his name. But he's the only
Speaker 1: place that I've seen that references this other piece of
Speaker 1: broken glass. And I don't know what it is because
Speaker 1: I was rereading this today going wait, where the hell
Speaker 1: was it? Broken glass? What was it? I can't All
Speaker 1: it is is broken probably well, hotels in the bathroom
Speaker 1: they usually have a couple of glasses, and that's that's
Speaker 1: probably he said he knocked over the stupid cheaper hotel glass. Well,
Speaker 1: it's hard to tell. Yeah, it's hard to tell with
Speaker 1: that level, with a Sheridan level hotel. Nowadays it's all plastic, right,
Speaker 1: it's just the plastic cups, like solo cups or whatever.
Speaker 1: I don't know if in the nineties they had actual glasses,
Speaker 1: glasses glass, remember that in most hotels up until i'd
Speaker 1: say the last decade. Okay, okay, see, and that's good information.
Speaker 1: I was a kid, so I don't. I hate to
Speaker 1: sound like I'm like like a snob or anything like that,
Speaker 1: but I still stay in hotels occasionally even these days
Speaker 1: that have glass in there. No, I do too, Yeah, certainly,
Speaker 1: But I'm just thinking there are different levels of hotels,
Speaker 1: and nicer ones always have glass, and the kind of
Speaker 1: crappier ones very rarely do. So I just didn't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was glass, Maybe it was the broken glass
Speaker 1: from a wine glass or something. I don't know. Again,
Speaker 1: don't know. Let's continue on with what was there in
Speaker 1: the tub. So this is in the tub with the body,
Speaker 1: they find a two plastic trash bags, which I don't get.
Speaker 1: I don't understand. There's a single edge razor blade which
Speaker 1: makes sense, a can of Old Milwaukee that really doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense, why would anybody drink that? And a paper
Speaker 1: coasters Joe had mentioned a little bit ago. They also,
Speaker 1: this is another weird thing. They find a shoelace tied
Speaker 1: around his neck, which is just weird. Again, nothing the shoelace,
Speaker 1: I know that. I think I read it in The Octopus,
Speaker 1: and I swear I've seen it in a number of websites.
Speaker 1: You know, somebody's gonna yell. I'm pretty sure I remember
Speaker 1: seeing it on the wiki, but it may not be
Speaker 1: or maybe I don't know, but I know I've read
Speaker 1: it in more than one place. It could have just
Speaker 1: been a necklace. I mean, I've seen guys with necklaces
Speaker 1: that really kind of look like shoelaces. It was the
Speaker 1: we Now, the terrible thing for the investigation here is,
Speaker 1: of course, that what does what do the police do
Speaker 1: when they get there? They drained the tub by to
Speaker 1: drain the tub, I mean, they pulled the plug. Why
Speaker 1: they don't save any water, They don't strain it to
Speaker 1: try and catch anything. I don't know why other than
Speaker 1: they just went he did it himself. Why would we bother?
Speaker 1: The only thing I can I can or they're under
Speaker 1: the pair exactly. Maybe this is gonna happen this entire story.
Speaker 1: I can tell you what about the maid. This is interesting,
Speaker 1: you know, I can kind of explain away some of
Speaker 1: this stuff. I guess. I mean, it doesn't it's not
Speaker 1: consistent with what we've heard about his mood and state
Speaker 1: of mind around that time. Suicide is not absolutely right,
Speaker 1: but but in a into that, you know, I can
Speaker 1: kind of say, Okay, they found two plastic trash bags. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe he tried to suffocate himself before. Yeah, maybe he
Speaker 1: just tried to and it didn't work, so he just
Speaker 1: you know, dropped it in the tub with him. I
Speaker 1: don't know about the coaster. Maybe the coaster was on
Speaker 1: the I'm sorry, I'm just going there. Yeah, maybe it was,
Speaker 1: you know, with the beer and that he like flailed
Speaker 1: after he cut himself and actually knocked it in. It
Speaker 1: could have been the source of the broken glass. He's
Speaker 1: got a glass of something sitting on the edge of
Speaker 1: the tub on the coaster and the beer can apparently
Speaker 1: or maybe, but maybe he didn't want to drink out
Speaker 1: of can. I know people who don't drink out of cans.
Speaker 1: They don't want to drink out of can. So maybe
Speaker 1: he had it in a glass and was pouring the
Speaker 1: can into it. I don't know. I just think that
Speaker 1: was the first place my mind went to when I
Speaker 1: heard about the plastic bags, was, oh, well, he probably
Speaker 1: was trying to asphyxiate himself or somebody was trying to
Speaker 1: make it look like he as fixated himself, or somebody
Speaker 1: did asphyxiate himself him and then because risk, but that's
Speaker 1: where my mind goes with the trash bags. Well, it
Speaker 1: might have been that. You know, he planned after he
Speaker 1: slid his wrist, he planned to bag up his hands
Speaker 1: so that wouldn't it wouldn't make a huge mess. It's
Speaker 1: a tub of water. Yeah, but gonna start, you gotta
Speaker 1: start squirting blood all over the place. There was blood
Speaker 1: on the walls everywhere. Let's let's talk about that and
Speaker 1: then we'll go into some of this stuff to try
Speaker 1: and flesh it out. Not to make a terrible pun,
Speaker 1: but he had. Danny had over a dozen cuts in
Speaker 1: his wrists, so he cut both risks. The medical examiners
Speaker 1: said there were seven. This drives me crazy every time.
Speaker 1: It's not an exact count on both risks, which is infuriating,
Speaker 1: but it is seven or eight cuts on the right
Speaker 1: wrist and three or four cuts on the left. The
Speaker 1: medical examiner also said that the cuts were much deeper
Speaker 1: than you would normally see in a suicide. There was
Speaker 1: and there was no hesitation marks, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of cuts. That's a lot of that. And the examiner
Speaker 1: said he didn't know how he could have continued on
Speaker 1: through the sheer pain based on how deep the cuts were.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it was Danny right handed or
Speaker 1: left handed, I don't know, never looked that up, didn't
Speaker 1: even think to look that up. I think he was
Speaker 1: right handed. Guessing from this, but why it's eight right wrist? Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're yeah, if you're gonna if you were going
Speaker 1: to slash your wrist, you almost if you're right hand dominant,
Speaker 1: you're probably gonna cut your left wrist first. Right, He
Speaker 1: had the most cuts on the right wrist. Right, because
Speaker 1: he's he's cut himself on the left wrist. He's already
Speaker 1: starting to lose blood at this point. He's probably getting
Speaker 1: light headed, and then with his left hand, he's not
Speaker 1: as dextrous, and he's also lightheaded because he's losing blood
Speaker 1: where you're going, you know. And and also he's his
Speaker 1: left handed in all kinds of pain, so that may
Speaker 1: be cause it's a dispassed out a little bit, So
Speaker 1: that would explain. But that would seem like there would
Speaker 1: be hesitation marks there where I know that you would
Speaker 1: kind of you would be stuttering with it almost on
Speaker 1: your left when you're cutting your left wrist, yeah, or
Speaker 1: that if you're losing blood and you're kind of you know,
Speaker 1: you're you're stuttering. You're not. It's not going to be nice. Perfect,
Speaker 1: That was a weird way to refer to that. I'm sorry, Perfect,
Speaker 1: It's not going to be those clean cuts that are
Speaker 1: really really deep, especially because they didn't find any any
Speaker 1: pain killers or anything in his system, right, they weren't
Speaker 1: drugs or anything. Now, let's um, let's talk about that
Speaker 1: for a second. Okay, So we know that that afternoon
Speaker 1: he went out and when he had dinner, he had
Speaker 1: a couple of beers and then he came back. We
Speaker 1: know that he had a can of beer in the
Speaker 1: tub with him, and apparently half a bottle of wine
Speaker 1: and half a bottle of wine. When they did the autopsy,
Speaker 1: they found that in his system he didn't have alcohol.
Speaker 1: How much blood was left in his body, by the way,
Speaker 1: enough to test apparently, I can't. I don't remember. I
Speaker 1: think it wasn't a blood test that they couldn't just
Speaker 1: use a rank They did tissues him, yes and so,
Speaker 1: but presumably they would have looked at the contents of
Speaker 1: his stomach as well, I would imagine, so he would
Speaker 1: have also metabolized some of that before he died. He
Speaker 1: had at dinner. But he had some a seat amnifit
Speaker 1: in his system from some Thailand. All three that he
Speaker 1: had taken, but something like negligible, right, A normal dose? Yeah,
Speaker 1: nothing major he had. He had a antidepressant in his system,
Speaker 1: but it was such a small amount of the antidepressant
Speaker 1: that they can't They couldn't even tell what it was specifically,
Speaker 1: just oh, this is an antidepressant. We don't know which
Speaker 1: one it is because yeah, I couldn't figure it out. Okay,
Speaker 1: So no booze Thailand all. It's weird that he had
Speaker 1: no booze. I know. This was the weirdest part. On
Speaker 1: the antidepressants, anybody, anybody know what antidepressant he was taking.
Speaker 1: He had been prescribed in antidepressant several years prior, and
Speaker 1: it was a very small dose of it, and they
Speaker 1: don't know. Nobody has been able to figure out if
Speaker 1: what he had taken was from that not really sure,
Speaker 1: or if if it had been a recent I mean
Speaker 1: that stuff kind of sticks around in your system sometimes, true.
Speaker 1: Certain certain things stick around in your system. True. And
Speaker 1: again depending on what they were testing, if it were
Speaker 1: more of a tissue thing, that stuff is going to
Speaker 1: stick around on your tissues certainly more then it's gonna
Speaker 1: you know, your blood stream or anything like that. So
Speaker 1: that'd be the other question too, would be how long
Speaker 1: ago they think the dose was taken and they're still
Speaker 1: taking it daily or well? And I know that a
Speaker 1: lot of people will be hearing what we're saying and
Speaker 1: they're going to be going, well, how do you not know?
Speaker 1: What do you mean? And the problem is is there
Speaker 1: is a ton of conjecture on this point, so much
Speaker 1: has been written about it. When you dig into this
Speaker 1: case and it is all over the map. So that's
Speaker 1: why I know, I we've had this kind station before.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say it was this because there's
Speaker 1: no way and you know, additional to that, as you
Speaker 1: were saying it was ruled a suicide case closed, they
Speaker 1: the investigation was not thorough. They just kind of assumed
Speaker 1: that it was what it looked like and that was it.
Speaker 1: And so a lot of things got missed. You know,
Speaker 1: they certainly didn't dust for Prince, for instance. They didn't
Speaker 1: do a lot of the things they would do if
Speaker 1: they encountered this and thought, oh this is this is
Speaker 1: a murder. And it was ruled a suicide twice. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because the first time it was ruled and a stink
Speaker 1: was raised, and so they went ahead and the medical
Speaker 1: examiners checked the body again, somebody else did another examination
Speaker 1: and then Ken said, no, it was how long after
Speaker 1: the death was the second one. I wonder if that went,
Speaker 1: if the police and medical examiner records are still around,
Speaker 1: or if they've been thrown away by this time, well
Speaker 1: this was the suicide. I you know, I don't know
Speaker 1: what West Virginia law is for how long they have
Speaker 1: to keep those kind of records. Yeah. I guess it's
Speaker 1: just interesting to me that a medical examiner would say
Speaker 1: something like these cuts are deeper than anyone would ever
Speaker 1: expect from a suicide. There's no hesitation marks, and I
Speaker 1: don't know how he could have kept cutting himself from
Speaker 1: the pain, but he definitely just kept cutting himself. To
Speaker 1: be fair, I don't think the person that made that statement. Actually,
Speaker 1: I'm almost positive the person that made the statement of
Speaker 1: I don't know that these are way too deep and
Speaker 1: the person who judged it a suicide were not the
Speaker 1: same person. There were two separate people that made those states.
Speaker 1: And there was a note too that helped people think
Speaker 1: that it was a suicide. Right, Yes, there was so
Speaker 1: Casslero did. He did leave a note, and it was
Speaker 1: a really short note, was a handwritten It was tewritten,
Speaker 1: handwritten absolutely, and it was his handwriting, his handwriting on
Speaker 1: a legal pad of his sitting. I think it was
Speaker 1: on the nightstand or on the desk, one of the two.
Speaker 1: But Penn was there. It was all, It was all him.
Speaker 1: The note read to those I love the most, Please
Speaker 1: forgive me for the worst possible thing I could have done.
Speaker 1: Most of all, I'm sorry to my son. I know
Speaker 1: deep down inside that God will let me in end
Speaker 1: of note. Yeah, that sounds like a suicide note. It
Speaker 1: really does it. It totally totally sounds like a standard
Speaker 1: suicide note. And there's more about a lot of these
Speaker 1: things that we've talked about. We're going to get into them,
Speaker 1: but I want to now, and this is gonna be
Speaker 1: a weird case because we're gonna turn away from the
Speaker 1: subject for a good little bit here and we're gonna
Speaker 1: now start running down a completely different path. So the
Speaker 1: first thing we're going to talk about is the one
Speaker 1: of the first things that got Danny's interest, which is
Speaker 1: the in law case. And you'll see it referred to
Speaker 1: as ins law or Promise, and I'll give you the
Speaker 1: spelling on that in a minute, because it's not the
Speaker 1: regular spelling of Promise was a company. Promise was their
Speaker 1: product exactly. So in his law stands for Institute for
Speaker 1: Law and Social Justice, which was a company. Devon's rolling
Speaker 1: your eyes. It's just I mean, like knowing the product
Speaker 1: they made and knowing what they may or may not
Speaker 1: have done. It's just like you, guys, that's a bad name.
Speaker 1: It was the seventies. It's a bad name, bad people.
Speaker 1: It was. Yeah, it was a company that was started
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy four by a guy named William Hamilton's.
Speaker 1: He was a former n s A employee. He also
Speaker 1: evidently contracted with the CIA for a while. When he
Speaker 1: got out of the government sector and he started his
Speaker 1: own business, he created a piece of software which called PROMISE.
Speaker 1: PROMISE stands for Prosecutors Management Information System. It's a people
Speaker 1: tracking program. Okay, here's I'm gonna I'm gonna just try
Speaker 1: and summarize this the best way I can in the
Speaker 1: simplest language, because this piece of software is kind of complex. Basically,
Speaker 1: every legal arm would use a different database and have
Speaker 1: people logged in it, and in the seventies, those things
Speaker 1: were not connected in any way, shape or form. So
Speaker 1: if the FBI wanted to look for you, they couldn't
Speaker 1: look in the local law enforcement database to call, or
Speaker 1: had to call or do or send a letter or whatever.
Speaker 1: Promise was a way to connect all of those databases,
Speaker 1: regardless of what their OS was. Apparently, I get the
Speaker 1: feeling that is because there was very simple os is.
Speaker 1: These things still worked on computers that were the size
Speaker 1: of bookcases, big bookcases. So it wasn't the it wasn't
Speaker 1: the most evolved computer. I mean, we're still talking about
Speaker 1: the late seventies computing is not amazing sing yet. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got to say, as a as a former coder,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of amazed that anybody could write a piece
Speaker 1: of software that could actually do this. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: leave it, leave it to a former an essay, let's
Speaker 1: be fair. I mean really know they however, they went
Speaker 1: about it and made that work. It is an amazing accomplishment.
Speaker 1: And then they upgraded it, right, they managed to upgrade
Speaker 1: it for they did a lot of things. So first off,
Speaker 1: what happens here is before we get to the upgrade,
Speaker 1: is you need to understand that ins Law was essentially
Speaker 1: funded because it was a not for profit company basically
Speaker 1: funded entirely by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which is
Speaker 1: a government body. It doesn't exist anymore, but that was
Speaker 1: the government body that paid them all, paid all their bills. Well,
Speaker 1: some copyright rules win in effect on the first of
Speaker 1: January eight which said that any at all software created
Speaker 1: prior to that date was in the public domain, but
Speaker 1: any software created after that was not in the public domain.
Speaker 1: But I mean you could sell it and license it,
Speaker 1: but you just couldn't take it and use it. That
Speaker 1: makes sense. That's keeping up with the times it is, well,
Speaker 1: this is and what I'm about talking here. We totally
Speaker 1: understand this today because this is how software works now,
Speaker 1: but this is not the way you saw. Nobody understood
Speaker 1: or had I shouldn't say understood, but they hadn't gone
Speaker 1: down the road yet to know what this was gonna
Speaker 1: look like in terms of selling and licensing software because
Speaker 1: it was also new, very new. Yeah, it's like it's
Speaker 1: like the debate. I would frame it like the debate
Speaker 1: with three D printing. Right now, you can go and
Speaker 1: download the three D printing matrix for like almost anything,
Speaker 1: and pretty soon that's going to have to start being
Speaker 1: regulated because you can't. You wouldn't download a car, you guys, right,
Speaker 1: It's going to be kind of hard to regulate that though, certainly,
Speaker 1: but there will be there will certain there will be
Speaker 1: more of a process probably for that. And I want
Speaker 1: the Feds to know that I have not red printed
Speaker 1: any kins car or cars, a computer or two, but
Speaker 1: nothing else, nothing else. Yes, anyway, That's how I would
Speaker 1: kind of frame it is there's always that new horizon,
Speaker 1: and the laws are pretty slow to catch up to that.
Speaker 1: Usually this is when it caught up well, and you know,
Speaker 1: of course, the US government, liking Promise, wants to continue
Speaker 1: to use it, so they go ahead and they get
Speaker 1: a license for it. The license they get, though, it's
Speaker 1: a basic user license, that means that they don't have
Speaker 1: the they're not um entitled to make any changes or
Speaker 1: modification of the software, and they're also not allowed to
Speaker 1: distribute it. Again, like we talked about before, very very
Speaker 1: common stuff for US today. All right, I'm sorry, just
Speaker 1: does this side note. It's always baffling to me that
Speaker 1: the US government doesn't just develop our own stuff, like
Speaker 1: they have a lot of programmers. Why don't you just
Speaker 1: like make your own software instead of buying stuff from
Speaker 1: some maybe kind of shady third party. You know, I
Speaker 1: think they've found that it's much more efficient to go
Speaker 1: to the market and get those things yourself. It really
Speaker 1: I don't know about Well, yeah, you just don't like Promise.
Speaker 1: I just don't. I really just don't promise, Okay. I
Speaker 1: tend to think that the capabilities of Promise maybe perhaps
Speaker 1: have been exaggerated just a little bit. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's actually the case. I think that it was the
Speaker 1: first of its kind and it was revolutionary, and that's
Speaker 1: what the big deal was. It probably wasn't that great,
Speaker 1: but it was the first which made it amazing. I
Speaker 1: really think that's what gave it its toe hold and
Speaker 1: what started this whole thing that we're about to go
Speaker 1: into here, because what you folks at home need to
Speaker 1: know is that in one the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
Speaker 1: uh they were, they were dissolved. It went away, it
Speaker 1: was no more. At which point in his law realized
Speaker 1: that they needed to make money, so they went from
Speaker 1: a nonprofit to a for profit model, and at the
Speaker 1: same time they upgraded promise to enhanced promise. Great naming thing.
Speaker 1: But the thing that they did is again these are
Speaker 1: really old computers. They went from sixteen bit to thirty
Speaker 1: two bit in their in their software and it was
Speaker 1: a great leap forward. Again, US government, this is awesome.
Speaker 1: We wanted, we're totally going to make a contract with you,
Speaker 1: which they do. They make a contract that is worth
Speaker 1: nine point six million dollars in money, and they're going
Speaker 1: to pay that money out over the course of three
Speaker 1: years too. In his law. Now, and this is the
Speaker 1: thing I don't quite understand is that they're not just
Speaker 1: buying the software, they're paying them to develop the software. Correct,
Speaker 1: they were doing. There's a lot of things. There was
Speaker 1: maintenance things. There's a lot of stuff in the contract
Speaker 1: that it's minutia that I don't want to go into
Speaker 1: because again, in law case, what we're I mean, we
Speaker 1: still got a lot to go through and this thing
Speaker 1: took twenty years almost to settle out there. But when
Speaker 1: they signed this contract, the overview is like, not only
Speaker 1: are we getting the software, but also you will continue
Speaker 1: to develop it and you will provide support for it
Speaker 1: over the span of years. Right, Just to be clear,
Speaker 1: it's not like when you go buy the Adobe Suite
Speaker 1: and they're like, this is what you get. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: there's a phone that we won't answer, or you can
Speaker 1: click on the chat button. But by the way, all
Speaker 1: the representatives are busy because there are no representatives. Yes
Speaker 1: that okay, we all use Adobe Suite apparently, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it gets me about when you click on
Speaker 1: the they say no representative, so busy is I know
Speaker 1: those representatives are bots for Christ's sakes. Yeah, So anyway,
Speaker 1: I just thought that was probably worth mentioning that it
Speaker 1: wasn't just like buying the software, you're also getting the development.
Speaker 1: It's a service package. As well. Absolutely, And this what
Speaker 1: happens from here is there's a lot of contention around it.
Speaker 1: Like I said, it's a huge case, twenty years in
Speaker 1: the making, but I'm going to give you kind of
Speaker 1: the version. Yeah, yeah, that's exactly where I'm headed. The
Speaker 1: Department of Justice is one of the people who are
Speaker 1: one of the groups that was using Promise and enhanced Promise,
Speaker 1: and they supposedly went ahead and made changes to the
Speaker 1: software and began to distribute it to other US agencies
Speaker 1: and quote unquote foreign allies. Of what they did when
Speaker 1: they did that is they again this is supposedly added
Speaker 1: a back door to the program that I had to
Speaker 1: say that I find those charges kind of less incredible
Speaker 1: because I would bet you anything I had already added
Speaker 1: a back door. You know, I don't I don't know that.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I can't say that if they would
Speaker 1: or would not, I don't know what the benefit would be.
Speaker 1: It's not as if the you know, the Internet was
Speaker 1: a main way of communication for accessing software, you had
Speaker 1: to go to the site. That's part I'm sure that
Speaker 1: was part of the contract. Is my terminal in Baltimore,
Speaker 1: Maryland has crashed. Send your guide to Baltimore, Maryland to
Speaker 1: fix my terminal. It's not like they were going to
Speaker 1: remotely long in it's the what was this? This all
Speaker 1: happened in? It began Okay, so the darknet was already
Speaker 1: up and running. They would have, but I don't know
Speaker 1: that they would have needed it. I mean, I really
Speaker 1: get the feeling that they wouldn't have been doing it remotely.
Speaker 1: But I you know, I don't know the technology well
Speaker 1: enough to say that with any degree of certainty. You know,
Speaker 1: it's hard. It's hard to we're back exactly when did
Speaker 1: this start happening? And when did that start happening? You
Speaker 1: know what I mean? Yeah? When? What was their internet?
Speaker 1: When was my first my first computer? When was that
Speaker 1: mid Eddies your first computer? Something like that? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think we had a computer when I was growing up,
Speaker 1: and the way that we accessed was a O l
Speaker 1: oh no, no, no, it was Netscape first, when you
Speaker 1: had to like log on only to do with certain things.
Speaker 1: We had an escape and we had all they had
Speaker 1: to the disk for because they always sent you a
Speaker 1: hundred in the mail. Yeah, but you had to have
Speaker 1: the disc and you had you could only log on
Speaker 1: to you know for many yeah, or something like that,
Speaker 1: and you know, tied up the phone line and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. But it's the back door thing is so
Speaker 1: troubling to me. It's so troubling to me, and it's
Speaker 1: you know, either with actually it's more troubling obviously if
Speaker 1: in slaught like they just had that programmed in and
Speaker 1: then it was every copy, which, to be honest, I
Speaker 1: don't think I'm so cynical at this point with technologies
Speaker 1: that it's just my sumption that of course they programmed
Speaker 1: a backdoor, and of course they did, of lest they did,
Speaker 1: But even if it was just the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: that developed it and then had the backdoor and then
Speaker 1: sold it to the quote unquote for an allies, it's
Speaker 1: so troubling and also so typical of things that we've
Speaker 1: seen come to light in the last ten years. It's
Speaker 1: just so this is like the precursor David. David, not me.
Speaker 1: Den is obviously very jaded about technology. Well, and here's
Speaker 1: the thing. If you're if you're if you're selling or
Speaker 1: giving copies to your allies, and if you've you've altered
Speaker 1: it or gotten it made that way so that you
Speaker 1: can spy on them, well, let's standard up already procedure.
Speaker 1: Have you ever heard of the ultra secret This sounds familiar,
Speaker 1: but yeah, it was all about the all that early on,
Speaker 1: I don't remember if it was before or in the
Speaker 1: early years of World War two, the Polish government actually
Speaker 1: captured some Enigma machines from the Germans. And now remember
Speaker 1: the like those were those are the things that were
Speaker 1: kind of like they look like suicide. They look like
Speaker 1: a typewriter and they had the three dials and them
Speaker 1: so you could set the set a key and everything.
Speaker 1: And they were supposedly that they would create an unbreakable
Speaker 1: cipher and then they managed to reverse the engineer those
Speaker 1: basically takes to take them apart, especially at Bletchley Park Park, England,
Speaker 1: and they had early prototypes of computers Torry and all that,
Speaker 1: and they and they were using those machines and their
Speaker 1: their their computers to break the German code. And then
Speaker 1: after the war and this is what happened that they
Speaker 1: kept that secret. The British kept that secret for many
Speaker 1: decades after the end of the war. And the reason
Speaker 1: they did it was because after the war they captured
Speaker 1: a bunch of Enagment machines from the Germans, and they
Speaker 1: gave them out to their Commonwealth allies. They gave them
Speaker 1: to the Canadians and the New Zealanders and the Australians
Speaker 1: and anybody else you could name, simply because that enabled
Speaker 1: them to read all their communic their diplomatic communications. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's that's why the Ultra secret was kept the
Speaker 1: ultra secret for so many decades. It was I don't
Speaker 1: remember when it was. I think it was clear into
Speaker 1: the seventies before they finally revealed what was happening. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is I'm just saying, this is the history that
Speaker 1: I've inherited, is like totally normal. And then you know,
Speaker 1: growing up with the whole wiki leaks, revelations and all
Speaker 1: of that stuff, you just kind of that's you just
Speaker 1: assume this is what's going on. So for me, this
Speaker 1: is this is the the genesis of that. Almost Well,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and tell everybody what happens. Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess we're kind of I think it's related and
Speaker 1: it makes total sense. And I'm glad we went there
Speaker 1: because I wasn't sure where that was going at first.
Speaker 1: But until there, But let's continue on with in law
Speaker 1: because and this is this. I know that Steave is
Speaker 1: going to come out of your ears here in a minute, Devon,
Speaker 1: because I know that you hate this. But what happens
Speaker 1: is not too long after, like within months of this
Speaker 1: contract and then getting being signed and the program going out,
Speaker 1: the govern the U. S Government begins to withhold payments
Speaker 1: to ins law. Uh, they make all kinds of claims
Speaker 1: of breach of contract and all these problems that are
Speaker 1: going on. The court case begins. This is the court
Speaker 1: case begins in the early eighties, and eventually it drags
Speaker 1: on for so long that in the law runs out
Speaker 1: of money to keep going, and so they try to
Speaker 1: file for bankruptcy. And they want to file for Chapter
Speaker 1: eleven bankruptcy, which lets them simply stand their debts off
Speaker 1: and restructure. Well, somebody has a friend at the I
Speaker 1: R S. I think it was the I R S,
Speaker 1: and they were pushing them to go into Chapter seven bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: which would have liquidated the company. So there's some hinky
Speaker 1: Shenanigan's back room weirdness going on. Long story short, eventually
Speaker 1: in the ruling comes out and the US government has
Speaker 1: to pay nothing. They win. The case takes almost twenty years,
Speaker 1: but they win the case against in his Law, and
Speaker 1: they're they're off the hook. I still don't quite understand
Speaker 1: their case against Inslaw. It's like, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: because there was like I don't get the cliff notes
Speaker 1: of it, would be the d J got a software
Speaker 1: from Inslaw, they modified it and then sent it out
Speaker 1: and then I think their modifications didn't work super great,
Speaker 1: and so they said, oh, hey, Inslaw, you sold us
Speaker 1: some faulty stuff, so we're not actually going to pay
Speaker 1: you anymore. Yeah, we're not gonna pay you. And Inslaw said, no, no,
Speaker 1: you altered it, so yeah, we're not gonna guarantee your
Speaker 1: alterations to it. And then that was the case, and
Speaker 1: of course, shockingly, the Supreme Court was like, oh yeah, no,
Speaker 1: absolutely the I don't think I think it to the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals as far as it went, sorry, okay,
Speaker 1: so we're whatever court it made it too, shockingly the
Speaker 1: US run court to win. Oh what, no, the no,
Speaker 1: of course the government didn't do anything wrong. No, of
Speaker 1: course they didn't. You they don't know you anything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well that's a good reason to not give these people
Speaker 1: too much power. Huh. Yeah, Well, if if this kind
Speaker 1: of case really gets you going like it does YouTube.
Speaker 1: You got to do it because we both were like,
Speaker 1: this is going to be a episode if I do.
Speaker 1: If you this stuff really gets you going. Though there
Speaker 1: is tons of information out there about this case. It
Speaker 1: really it's super interesting, but it's it's huge. You can't
Speaker 1: see how accurate all that information is. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: so there's more stuff, right, there's more stuff. Let's keep
Speaker 1: moving forward because we are only on step one of seven,
Speaker 1: so I supposed to invest gating besides okay, well yeah,
Speaker 1: let's let's before we get into the next link in
Speaker 1: the chain, I want to talk about one of Castleros sources,
Speaker 1: and that is a guy by the name of Michael J.
Speaker 1: Rekono Scuto, a k A. Danger Man. Can we just
Speaker 1: call him danger Man for the rest of the time. Well,
Speaker 1: it's notes, that's what he called him. We can call
Speaker 1: him danger Man from here on. It's way easier to say. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: danger Man was a whistleblower on the In's law case,
Speaker 1: and he surprisingly he is. He claimed on record that
Speaker 1: he was the one that had programmed the back door
Speaker 1: into Promise at the direction of the U. S. Government.
Speaker 1: And of course, you know Danny talks to him, and
Speaker 1: danger Man tells him a lot of things. Danger Man
Speaker 1: tells anyone who will listen to him a lot of things.
Speaker 1: He um, he says a lot of things with a
Speaker 1: high degree of certainty. And uh, yeah, he he really
Speaker 1: knows what he's talking about, Like he is confident in
Speaker 1: the things that he says and shares. That's all you
Speaker 1: have to do to fool most people. Though, Well, here's
Speaker 1: here's problem. Um is he really he really really really
Speaker 1: really got Danny going on a lot of the things
Speaker 1: that he shared with him. Evidently they spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time talking. But as Joe said, uh, danger Man
Speaker 1: is in jail. He went to jail. He was arrested
Speaker 1: eight days after coming forward as a witness in the
Speaker 1: End's law case. Uh. He was arrested for possession of methane,
Speaker 1: famine and methodone and was charged with ten different counts.
Speaker 1: Us set up. Obviously they're trying to keep him quiet.
Speaker 1: He says it was a setup. Um. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: just as a fun little bit of things that he's
Speaker 1: claimed he was he went to jail in the eighties. Okay,
Speaker 1: he's been in there for a long time. He claimed
Speaker 1: that he had knowledge that nine eleven was gonna happen,
Speaker 1: and had had his lawyers reaching out to make contact
Speaker 1: with government agencies, but they didn't listen to it. Well,
Speaker 1: he made contact before, just before eleven months ahead. He needed, uh,
Speaker 1: nine eleven, what's gonna happen? Because how I don't know that.
Speaker 1: Nobody seems to know that. We don't know how he
Speaker 1: gets his information. He just seems to have a lot
Speaker 1: of information something. Yeah, Okay, Well that's danger Man, and
Speaker 1: danger Man is going to come up a number of
Speaker 1: times in our story. So I wanted to bring him
Speaker 1: to everybody's attention. Let's uh, let's go to a completely
Speaker 1: different thing, which is the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
Speaker 1: They're a American Indians. They it's a their reservation is
Speaker 1: in California, and it's it's in your coach Coachella. Of course,
Speaker 1: it is all right, everybody's Riverside County. All you have
Speaker 1: to do is find the white girls in weird rave wear. Okay,
Speaker 1: people probably know about this tribe of Indians in this
Speaker 1: country without knowing who this tribe of Indians are. And
Speaker 1: there's a really good reason for it. The in the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, the Cabazon and there's another tribe, the Morongo.
Speaker 1: I really hope I'm saying that right. They both they
Speaker 1: were on a completely different reservation. They both had small
Speaker 1: bingo parlors on their land and the State of California
Speaker 1: came in and said, you are violating gambling laws and
Speaker 1: we are going to shut you down. And they said,
Speaker 1: screw you, this is our land. And that's exactly what
Speaker 1: they said. And they went to court and in nine seven, uh,
Speaker 1: they won against the State of California. And it wasn't
Speaker 1: too long after that that you started seeing Indian gaming
Speaker 1: casinos pop up all over the United States. This is
Speaker 1: a weird thing because to me, that seems so ubiquitous
Speaker 1: because it's been around my entire life when I was
Speaker 1: When when I was a kid, they weren't he didn't
Speaker 1: see that stuff, so weird. It's weird. It's weird where
Speaker 1: I grew up, the casino starting just as I was
Speaker 1: graduating from high school, Like there was none of them there,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, they were all over
Speaker 1: that portion's totally weird. Yeah, because when we would drive,
Speaker 1: you know, to family vacations and things like that, we
Speaker 1: would pass a bunch of them and for me, it's
Speaker 1: just always been a thing. Yeah, it's weird. I guess
Speaker 1: they didn't realize it was that recent. It has this
Speaker 1: pretty recent. Yeah. According well, according to Ken Thomas, that's
Speaker 1: the guy who wrote the Octopus. That book he read. Yeah, boy,
Speaker 1: that was a great book. According to him, the tribe
Speaker 1: was greatly influenced by outsiders, both before the case and after.
Speaker 1: And um, those outsiders kind of took control of the
Speaker 1: leaders of the tribal council. They got all the power
Speaker 1: and from from the notes that Danny Lepp, one of
Speaker 1: the people who was of interest was a guy by
Speaker 1: the name of John Nichols. And according to danger Man, Nichols,
Speaker 1: who was involved doing all this stuff on the reservation
Speaker 1: was bringing international business associates to the reservation to talk business.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing illegal business. And I'm guessing because they were
Speaker 1: on sovereign land, they were okay to talk about illegal things.
Speaker 1: The reason for that, I don't, I don't understand it.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna be very honest when it comes to
Speaker 1: the stuff that happens with this tribe on this reservation.
Speaker 1: Based on the claims by Ken Thomas, I am a
Speaker 1: little dubious because I can't back them up anywhere else.
Speaker 1: I will tell you the things that I have read,
Speaker 1: but I cannot substantiate any most stuff. And again, this stuff,
Speaker 1: I believe it wasn't this stuff stuff that danger Man
Speaker 1: ak a told him. Yes, yeah, yeah. So this again,
Speaker 1: this is the source, is driving him to some strange
Speaker 1: links that he is then either making the connection of
Speaker 1: on his own or being told very directly that there's
Speaker 1: a link. Well, they would be hard to substantiate too well.
Speaker 1: And if it's on sovereign land, I can kind of
Speaker 1: get that. I can also see when it's coming from
Speaker 1: Danger Man, it's hard to substantiate. But here's here's what's
Speaker 1: going on on the reservation according to Thomas. According to
Speaker 1: Thomas A trying, they were into Danny. According to danger Man, correct,
Speaker 1: it's a game of telephone. Okay, absolutely, Uh there were
Speaker 1: illegal dealings and I don't know exactly what those dealings were. Uh.
Speaker 1: There was arms manufacturing. There was and this is evidently true.
Speaker 1: They were selling cigarettes by mail off the reservation, so
Speaker 1: there's no taxes, and they started to sell booze by
Speaker 1: mail without taxes until they got shut down for that.
Speaker 1: I like these guys. Uh, they set up a partnership
Speaker 1: with Wackenhut Corporation. It's why I'm pretty sure it's Wackenhut. Well,
Speaker 1: the this group is known for security work with just
Speaker 1: about everybody, and they also do security at prisons, so
Speaker 1: they're so they're really upstanding gentlemen. Yeah, and it's a
Speaker 1: giant corporation that has just recently in the last five
Speaker 1: years been taken over by another corporation. And I went
Speaker 1: to their website. I was trying to do reading on them,
Speaker 1: like an image hosting site that had like some weird
Speaker 1: It is amazing how sanitize their website is like the
Speaker 1: whoever writes their stuff. It's great pr because I'm reading
Speaker 1: something here and going what that doesn't what These people
Speaker 1: don't sound like those people at all. That they might
Speaker 1: not actually beat those people. They might not, You're right,
Speaker 1: but they probably are possibly. Well. The point about the
Speaker 1: tribe that really got really got Cassolero going was a murder.
Speaker 1: There was a gentleman by the name of fred Alvarez.
Speaker 1: He and two other people were murdered. Ino Alvarez at
Speaker 1: the time was a tribal leader and again this is
Speaker 1: according to Kent Thomas, and he was killed because he
Speaker 1: wasn't supporting all of the changes that were taking place
Speaker 1: on the reservation and with the vibe based on the
Speaker 1: direction of Nichols. So he kind of tried to stand
Speaker 1: up to him and was killed for it is the
Speaker 1: line that I understand. But that was he on reservation
Speaker 1: land when he was murdered, I believe. So, yeah, because
Speaker 1: I got to say, I mean Riverside Counties in southern California,
Speaker 1: So of course he was killed. Well, um, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it did it? Uh did happen? I'm pretty sure it
Speaker 1: did happen on there. But but the point is this
Speaker 1: whole thing with the reservation can't substantiate any of it.
Speaker 1: But I'm going to tell you about it because you will.
Speaker 1: You will read about it in different places. We're going
Speaker 1: to move forward to the next step in the puzzle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm a little off the reservation on this particular. We're
Speaker 1: gonna go to the next one, which I know, if
Speaker 1: we don't control him, Joe is probably going to have
Speaker 1: a field day with and that October surprise. People may
Speaker 1: or may not have heard of the October Surprise. And
Speaker 1: let me let me give you the basics on this nine.
Speaker 1: It's seventy nine and the US embassy in Tehran is
Speaker 1: stormed by revolutionaries. Familiar, they were students, the revolutionaries. It
Speaker 1: was the Iranian revolution which began in like October eight.
Speaker 1: But then the people who ran overund the embassy were students, right,
Speaker 1: but it's more radical for the revolution. But it is
Speaker 1: part of the revolutionary day technically revolution American diplomats are
Speaker 1: taken hostage at this time and the it's November nine
Speaker 1: is the exact day. Seriously, this sounds so familiar. Well,
Speaker 1: that is probably because you're familiar with the story because
Speaker 1: of the movie Argo. Yeah, Argo something yourself, which I
Speaker 1: don't know, why is it. I always have references the
Speaker 1: Ben Affle like movie. You just like him? Yeah? Okay,
Speaker 1: you keep talking about Batman versus Superman. Okay, Well, so
Speaker 1: these people have been taken hostage, and this is where
Speaker 1: the surprise eyes portion of the story comes in because
Speaker 1: if you remember US history, you will know that was
Speaker 1: a presidential election year and Jimmy Carter was running against
Speaker 1: that silly actor Ronald Ray who is California well, in
Speaker 1: a bid to stop Carter from pulling the political version
Speaker 1: of a rabbit out of a hat. According to the
Speaker 1: conspiracy of the October surprise. What the Reagan campaign does
Speaker 1: is they get ahold of the the Iranians and they say, hey,
Speaker 1: don't release those people no matter what. And that way
Speaker 1: he can't Carter can't come out as the hero. And
Speaker 1: since the election at the end, which would be in October,
Speaker 1: which would make an October surprise, I guess I would
Speaker 1: not to yeah, go ahead on lean into it. I
Speaker 1: guess the argument there would be then that Reagan was
Speaker 1: already selected by if we're talking about it, there's like
Speaker 1: this weird octopus octopus thing, right, that the octopus had
Speaker 1: already selected that Reagan was going to be president, and
Speaker 1: there were more supported Carter so much they were willing
Speaker 1: to yes. But but it's the same thing either way.
Speaker 1: But I mean, these alleged contacts between the Reagan campaign
Speaker 1: didn't take place until I mean, they didn't start right
Speaker 1: after the hostages received We're talking like, you know, late summer,
Speaker 1: when it was when it was clear that if Carter
Speaker 1: was able to negotiate the release that he would become presidents.
Speaker 1: Here would be he would Here's the thing is that
Speaker 1: Carter probably would not have been reelected even if the
Speaker 1: hostages have been freed. If they'd been freed early on,
Speaker 1: then yeah, but the hot but this thing drug on
Speaker 1: and on, right, But I just mean that the theory
Speaker 1: is that, yeah, if if Carter had that, that's that's
Speaker 1: the basis of the October surprise. Serious that if the
Speaker 1: hostages had been freed, let's say in October then or
Speaker 1: months beforehand, yeah, well a month before something like, yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: But now he would not have been I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: because because here's the deal, Carter almost certainly wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been reelected anyway, because the thing about it is is
Speaker 1: that the hostages are free, but that doesn't make the
Speaker 1: whole The thing about it is is graded on the
Speaker 1: American people very much. That this thing went on and
Speaker 1: on and Carter was not able to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: It did. Yeah, and you know, you could argue that
Speaker 1: his hands were kind of tired. That's fair, but the
Speaker 1: you know, the hostage thing doesn't just go away if
Speaker 1: the hostages are released. The other thing is is the
Speaker 1: economy was in the crapper. The Iranian revolution had caused
Speaker 1: had caused oil production to drop worldwide, which had caused
Speaker 1: oil prices and gas prices to go up. There were shortages,
Speaker 1: there were gas lines of gas stations. In the year,
Speaker 1: the average inflation rate was thirteen point five percent. Unemployment
Speaker 1: was really high. Carter, No, not gonna win that election now.
Speaker 1: And but here's the deal. If you want to read
Speaker 1: some really good research about the October Surprise theory, read
Speaker 1: a book called Guests of the Aetola by Mark Bowden,
Speaker 1: who you may have You may have heard of one
Speaker 1: of his books, at least he wrote black Hawk Down. Yeah,
Speaker 1: great book, by the way, and Guests of the Aetola
Speaker 1: is really good too. And he wanted Iran and he
Speaker 1: interviewed tons of people, officials and a lot of the
Speaker 1: students that there were hostage shakers and everything, and he
Speaker 1: asked them about the October Surprise and they all laughed.
Speaker 1: They all just said, no, our motivation was not anything
Speaker 1: to do with the Reagan campaign. Our motivation was we
Speaker 1: really hated Carter's guts. No, and it and it's it's
Speaker 1: not it's not rational in their part, but for them,
Speaker 1: this is Bowden's words. For for those people, Carter was
Speaker 1: the personification of the Great Satan. For that reason, they
Speaker 1: hated him so much that they held out of the
Speaker 1: hostages until inauguration day when Reagan was inaugurated, they let
Speaker 1: the hostages go because it was a final insult to Carter,
Speaker 1: a final thumb in his And last of all, they
Speaker 1: really loved the idea before and after the election. They
Speaker 1: really loved the idea that they were the force that
Speaker 1: was toppling the leader of the free world, and they
Speaker 1: kind of got them. They really liked that idea. There's
Speaker 1: I think there's yeah, there's definitely something to be said
Speaker 1: for movements in general, the people who are on the ground,
Speaker 1: the boots on the ground, saying like, no, we're empowered
Speaker 1: by this thing. But if there's something that is managing
Speaker 1: to control the way that those boots on the ground
Speaker 1: are viewing whatever issue they're protesting or whatever, I think
Speaker 1: oftentimes that it's not recognized, right, So it's totally possible
Speaker 1: that in situations right you would be like, well, that's
Speaker 1: not our motivation at all. It was this thing. But
Speaker 1: it was like, well, but where did you hear that
Speaker 1: it was that thing? Look, look's I'm not look confused.
Speaker 1: So so you're saying they were confused when they thought. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that they specifically were confused. I just
Speaker 1: mean in general, those movements. It's very interesting to watch
Speaker 1: how the boots on the ground, people who are actually
Speaker 1: doing the protesting and the holding and all that stuff
Speaker 1: are influenced by You have the impression in your brain
Speaker 1: as one of those people, because I've been one of
Speaker 1: those people who say, you know, where there's it's just
Speaker 1: this is the movement and we're there that you're operating
Speaker 1: under versus the belief of the actual group. Is that
Speaker 1: where you're having I guess I'm saying all lost, It's okay,
Speaker 1: I'm saying that the people who are doing the thing,
Speaker 1: who are acting out the movement, very often are influenced
Speaker 1: by some overarching something. And right now it's really easy
Speaker 1: to kind of say, well, it's the social media movement,
Speaker 1: but there's often the really loud voices of people who
Speaker 1: are more yeah, the spokespeople almost of that movement that
Speaker 1: are that influence where that movement goes and what focus
Speaker 1: it takes. And it's always really interesting to look, even
Speaker 1: before social media, where those influences came from, and how
Speaker 1: they may not be as pristine as many people think
Speaker 1: they are. Is where did that clarify at Interestingly about
Speaker 1: the students, the government itself that eventually came out on
Speaker 1: top was Islamist and and but the students themselves are
Speaker 1: actually left wingers for the most part, they were. They
Speaker 1: were kind of socialist types and everything. And but there
Speaker 1: they were united with the Islamists and hating the Shaw
Speaker 1: and the show. Yeah, and of course united in hating Americans,
Speaker 1: even though actually they treated the hostages reasonably, not perfectly,
Speaker 1: but they better than we treat them often they Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's not like it's not like they killed anybody,
Speaker 1: you know, and and so and uh and actually let
Speaker 1: one guy go because he was sick. I'm just yeah.
Speaker 1: So my argument is phrasing it kind of in this
Speaker 1: broader conspiracy that we're talking about in the Octopus, that
Speaker 1: it would be really easy for an octopus agent to
Speaker 1: influence the movement itself. So let's let's move forward before
Speaker 1: we get too far off on this, because the point
Speaker 1: is that for the theory or the of the October Surprise,
Speaker 1: it is, of course, as we've said that you know,
Speaker 1: Reagan was involved, or the Reagan administration in some version
Speaker 1: was involved and negotiated with them to not let the
Speaker 1: hostages go until it was all done. And the proof
Speaker 1: that is approaching people who believe in this theory. Is that,
Speaker 1: as you said, when they got let go, because the
Speaker 1: hostages were let go on the twentieth of January, which
Speaker 1: is also a lecture orderation day in the United States. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's and that's and that's one thing that kind
Speaker 1: of actually shoots a hole in the whole October surprised thing,
Speaker 1: because if the Reagan campaign it approached them and just said, hey,
Speaker 1: just hang on to him, just that just after election
Speaker 1: day and then you can do whatever you want, then
Speaker 1: they probably would have let them go, because here's the deal.
Speaker 1: And then Bowden talks about this again in his book
Speaker 1: Guests of the I told in case you didn't hear
Speaker 1: it the first time he talks about this, he said,
Speaker 1: the students actually, by the time the election was approaching,
Speaker 1: they were actually getting kind of sick of being prison guards.
Speaker 1: They were not they were not that thrilled with it anymore. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: the newness was wearing off of it. And also the
Speaker 1: Iranian is really badly wanted some spare parts because they
Speaker 1: had a lot of US planes, for example, work planes
Speaker 1: and stuff, and we were obviously we're not We're not
Speaker 1: giving them those spare parts, and so they had some
Speaker 1: motivation to actually let the hostages go earlier than they did.
Speaker 1: The only possible explanation for them holding the hostages until
Speaker 1: January twenty was purest bite towards Carter. That is the
Speaker 1: only possible explanation. Let's move forward, yes, because we have
Speaker 1: another big one. Oh yeah, We're gonna move to the
Speaker 1: next thing, which is actually connected to the October surprise.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. Connected according to the theories, it's connected
Speaker 1: to the October surprise. Let me let me clarify that way. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: next thing we're talking about is the Iran contra affair.
Speaker 1: Most I really, I hope. I think most people know
Speaker 1: about this to one degree or another. I do not.
Speaker 1: That's why I know it because I grew up with
Speaker 1: that phrase, and I used that phrase. You ever want
Speaker 1: to get it as a kid in high school in
Speaker 1: the nineties, if you wanted to get in trouble, you
Speaker 1: use that phrase. Because I used to use that as
Speaker 1: my way out all the time, and I got into
Speaker 1: a lot of trouble for it. Okay, so let me
Speaker 1: should I send this I thought that I can do
Speaker 1: it pretty concisely. Yeah, yeah, okay because I remember it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you go for yeah, okay. Yeah. So the Ranians after
Speaker 1: the hostage crisis, they managed to contrive to get some
Speaker 1: more American hostages. I think they bought most of them
Speaker 1: have been kidnapped in Lebanon, I think, and they just
Speaker 1: bought them basically and had them shipped to Iran literally
Speaker 1: in boxes, and they were holding these guys. Meantime, in
Speaker 1: in South and South or Central America and Nicaragua, the
Speaker 1: Sandinistas came to power. They were a bunch of communists,
Speaker 1: and then an opposition group of rose called which we're
Speaker 1: called the Contras, which we're you know, basically freedom fighters,
Speaker 1: an insurgency against them. And so the Reagaan administration wanted
Speaker 1: to get the hostages back. And of course, even though
Speaker 1: ostensibly they had a no negotiations, no ransom policy for
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. Of course, government's usually honored those
Speaker 1: only about part of the time, you know, not all
Speaker 1: the time. And so they figured out a sneaky way.
Speaker 1: The r audience were under an arm in arms embargo,
Speaker 1: so we sold them arms and in order to and
Speaker 1: also to get our hostages back. So they got they
Speaker 1: got guns, we've got money in hostages and then the
Speaker 1: funds were diverted to the contras in Central America. So
Speaker 1: that was the whole thing. A little bit of illegality,
Speaker 1: but you know, I mean they were trying to get
Speaker 1: the hostages back and all that stuff, and so it
Speaker 1: was scandalous, you know. But and the way in what
Speaker 1: people do is they say what we talked about in
Speaker 1: October Surprise. People say that the Reagan campaign negotiated some
Speaker 1: kind of future payoff. That's what the payoff was. They're saying, well,
Speaker 1: what happened in the Around Contra affair, that was the payoff,
Speaker 1: So it proves it anymore that it actually doesn't prove
Speaker 1: it though it doesn't because we want to point out
Speaker 1: here this is this is an important point so that
Speaker 1: people don't get confused. At the time of Cassolero's death,
Speaker 1: the Iron contrafair was basically done it over with, so
Speaker 1: it's not as it's its outcome had already happened, so
Speaker 1: he knew about that. What hadn't happened was the officially
Speaker 1: you're gonna love this, don't don't freak out devon the
Speaker 1: official government investigation into the October Surprise, which officially said
Speaker 1: that there was officially no official conspiracy officially officially, but
Speaker 1: that could also be the octopus at work. I just
Speaker 1: love it when a government body comes out and says, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we didn't do anything right, because that's essentially what we're saying, right,
Speaker 1: We're saying that this government body came out and said,
Speaker 1: this government body didn't do anything wrong. Yeah, but of
Speaker 1: course there were so many. Here's a problem with the
Speaker 1: October surprises. As Joe said, the facts don't substantiated, that
Speaker 1: we're bogus. Yeah, we need to keep going. No. One
Speaker 1: last thing. Uh. The the actual October surprise theory originated
Speaker 1: with a guy named Gary Sick, who was a former
Speaker 1: adviser to Gimme Carter. Do you think perhaps this guy
Speaker 1: might have had an abstagrind but yeah, and so. But
Speaker 1: also the idea that that they were probably the Iranians
Speaker 1: were promised some sort of quid pro quo by the
Speaker 1: Reagan campaign. Well that's absurd because why would the Reagan
Speaker 1: administration bother to keep their promise. They don't need to
Speaker 1: nations break their promises all the time. Then, so their
Speaker 1: motivation obviously they wanted to get the hostages back, and
Speaker 1: they wanted to get some strengths for your cash to
Speaker 1: give to their buddies. Of contrast, that's that's more than
Speaker 1: enough motivation, right there. Shall we move to the next
Speaker 1: link in the chain here? This one's kind of boring.
Speaker 1: This one's boring. It'll be easy. Then we are going
Speaker 1: to now move on to the Bank of Credit and
Speaker 1: Commerce International. Great name, really really exciting basics. Sexy. Joe
Speaker 1: would say it's a sexy name in his Hunt for
Speaker 1: the Octopus. This is one of the things that Danny
Speaker 1: came across. B c c I was a international bank.
Speaker 1: It was found in nineteen seventy two. Within ten years,
Speaker 1: it was worth over twenty billion US had four hundred
Speaker 1: or over four hundred branches. They were in seventy seven
Speaker 1: or seventy eight countries. They were the seventh largest bank
Speaker 1: in the world. They're frigging hue. That's not that's not nothing. Well,
Speaker 1: they came under scrutiny in the eight is because there
Speaker 1: was some concerns that maybe they weren't actually properly being regulated.
Speaker 1: It's like they raised to the seventh most popular bank
Speaker 1: in the world in ten years, which is very strange.
Speaker 1: That's strange when you got all this octopus money flowing
Speaker 1: into Well, that's the thing is that the investigations into
Speaker 1: b c c I found that there was a massive
Speaker 1: money laundering and a ton of other financial crimes being
Speaker 1: committed and somehow, and it's it's described as illegally, but
Speaker 1: I didn't actually do enough reading on b c c
Speaker 1: I to know what the illegal part was, because this
Speaker 1: is financial stuff that is a little above my pay grade.
Speaker 1: But somehow they illegally gained control or controlling interest, I
Speaker 1: should say, in a major US bank. The point is
Speaker 1: they were looked at, they were investigated. On the fifth
Speaker 1: of July, regulators and law enforcement, Uh, they raided the
Speaker 1: bank's locations in seven different countries all at once and
Speaker 1: seized everything and locked him down. So this is U
Speaker 1: Danny Castilera. How far did he progress in his investigation
Speaker 1: of b c c I. The well, the lockdown b
Speaker 1: c c I happened, Well, that happened in July. Danny
Speaker 1: died in August, so it was two months before he died.
Speaker 1: Before he died in AUGUSTU August, oh, it is one month.
Speaker 1: I really can you can't, wow. But the point is
Speaker 1: he had he had been looking into them, and he
Speaker 1: was making a lot of again this is the octopus,
Speaker 1: a lot of connections to some shady things. Was he
Speaker 1: making those connections? There was kind of Scioto making those
Speaker 1: dah Man, you know, I can't I don't know how
Speaker 1: much of it came from danger Man or how much
Speaker 1: of it at least started with him. There have been
Speaker 1: allegations by unnamed source, unnamed sources who was quoted as
Speaker 1: saying that they were the go the b c c
Speaker 1: I was the go to location for people who wanted expensive,
Speaker 1: slash illegal things and for them to be connected to
Speaker 1: people who had those things. They were the conduit. And
Speaker 1: it's claimed that like Oliver North, part of the contra
Speaker 1: money money went through b c c I. Um, there
Speaker 1: are claims that Saddam Hussein used them, um, Abu Nadal
Speaker 1: used them. Like there's there's some there's some big claims
Speaker 1: to say anything. People were funneling money through them. But
Speaker 1: I I it's such a crazy, crazy case. Again, this
Speaker 1: is just like the other ones. It's way too big
Speaker 1: to go into all the details. Yeah, um yeah, so
Speaker 1: bcc I. It's kind of an interesting case in and
Speaker 1: of itself. They're all like every single facet of this
Speaker 1: is kind of an interesting case in and of itself,
Speaker 1: which it's frustrating, but in a way it's um It's
Speaker 1: funny is that the bank, at least on the outside,
Speaker 1: looks like the most boring aspect of it, because who cares.
Speaker 1: It's a bank that did some bad things and they
Speaker 1: got busted, Except that when you get look at it
Speaker 1: from the perspective of where we're investigating the octopus, it
Speaker 1: could be that they were instrumental in setting up They
Speaker 1: were instrumental in its spread, increasing the right palms for
Speaker 1: them to be able to do the things they did
Speaker 1: to then find the clients on one or both end
Speaker 1: to get the money trades. Like there's suddenly all these
Speaker 1: avenues that open up that this dirty bank could have
Speaker 1: been involved with, and it all could have been the
Speaker 1: thanks to the octopus. The octopus. But here's the here's
Speaker 1: the reason I don't believe any of that, is that
Speaker 1: the octopus could easily prevented the bank being investigated and
Speaker 1: shut down if they had that kind of power. So
Speaker 1: that's unless unless the bank had ceased to be useful
Speaker 1: in one way or the other. Either there was something
Speaker 1: wrong because like one of the two founders of the bank. Uh,
Speaker 1: he ran and then subsequently killed himself when the when
Speaker 1: everything got shut down. I get the feeling that he
Speaker 1: may have been a bit um what's the word I'm
Speaker 1: looking for, Not a loose cannon. But he was a little,
Speaker 1: a little embalanced. He was a bit of a trouble,
Speaker 1: you know, like this guy could be a problem, so
Speaker 1: we should probably do this. He was found another way
Speaker 1: to do it all. They may have found a way
Speaker 1: to do it all under the radar, so they didn't
Speaker 1: need it anymore. Like, you got to be careful in saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, with these things, because there's a whole host
Speaker 1: of ways that could have been. It's also hard as
Speaker 1: soon as you start being able to say, like, well,
Speaker 1: this public thing happened, and it was connected to this bank,
Speaker 1: and then this public thing happened it was connected to
Speaker 1: this bank. As soon as those right coincidences start coming
Speaker 1: into play, I think that any smart shadow organization is
Speaker 1: going to say, I shut it down. We can't do
Speaker 1: that anymore. I can't do that. That's true. But when
Speaker 1: they when they shut it down and seize their assets,
Speaker 1: what were their assets specifically, I don't know, but again
Speaker 1: I know that they their assets were worth billion US
Speaker 1: at some point. At some point, well there was in
Speaker 1: eight in the early eighties. He was boxes not much today,
Speaker 1: but it was real money back in those days. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the way to tell if this was
Speaker 1: actually an octopus assets. If the books have been cooked
Speaker 1: and everything has been embezzled and essentially all the assets
Speaker 1: are gone when the bank is busted and there's only
Speaker 1: maybe a hundred million bucks laft at that, well there
Speaker 1: you know it was the octopus. There's twenty million bucks
Speaker 1: sitting there ssb sized. Well, it wasn't the occupus unless
Speaker 1: unless the US government is under the purview of the octopus.
Speaker 1: They read it, could they look shady? You see the
Speaker 1: feedback loop. That really difficult. But there are there's so
Speaker 1: many other things I want to talk about right now.
Speaker 1: There are a bunch more things that are in Castlero's
Speaker 1: notes of connections that he's made. We are, not, however,
Speaker 1: going to go through them all. I'm just going to
Speaker 1: list them out for you, really fast, talking fast. We
Speaker 1: have been over an hour already, so it is we've
Speaker 1: got to kind of get close herein According to either
Speaker 1: Danny Cassolero or Ken Thomas, depending on who made that
Speaker 1: particular link. We have the Watergate scandal and Nixon's outing
Speaker 1: as something that the octopus was responsible fort or ousting.
Speaker 1: Ousting would be correct. Nixon's outing he had a picnic
Speaker 1: baskets on the lawn. It was a great day. There's
Speaker 1: another kind of outing to okay, well, we can move on.
Speaker 1: There is and I really hope I pronounced this correctly,
Speaker 1: But there's the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister go Whitlam.
Speaker 1: We have the well, potentially, according to this, maybe the
Speaker 1: revolution in Iran that outed the Shaw outed ousted. You
Speaker 1: know what, The Shaw went out, he went out for
Speaker 1: a night on the town. Joe his ousting. There is
Speaker 1: the murder of the Chilean President Salvador Allende, the assassination
Speaker 1: of US President Kennedy. There is man There's all kinds
Speaker 1: of reported shenanigans on the Papago Indian Reservation, uh anywhere,
Speaker 1: from c i A drug smuggling to golden platinum smuggling
Speaker 1: to a lot of weird stuff. But then then the
Speaker 1: list starts to get even crazier, because then we get
Speaker 1: area fifty one. We have the Human Genome Project, and
Speaker 1: we have the death of Princess Diana. I didn't know
Speaker 1: when we did that episode. Yeah, we know, we might
Speaker 1: have solved it. But this is how you know that
Speaker 1: the octopus is real, because they've actually put up a
Speaker 1: bunch of web pages and they keep grabbing these these
Speaker 1: all these accusations in tacking on lunear and lunear and
Speaker 1: lunear things, and so it's got to be the octopus.
Speaker 1: Well here's this, or it could be just random d
Speaker 1: bags on the internet. Yeah, I do. I do have
Speaker 1: to say that in any good conspiracy theory, if you've
Speaker 1: got a secret cabal, that is an operation, you have
Speaker 1: to have a bunch of people who die under mysterious circumstances,
Speaker 1: and Danny can't be the only one. And indeed there
Speaker 1: are a good number that are pointed to. Okay, let's
Speaker 1: do it. Okay. We have a journalist by the name
Speaker 1: of Anson ng. He was a reporter. He was he
Speaker 1: was shot and killed while he was in Guatemala. He
Speaker 1: was trying to track out a guy named Jimmy Hughes.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Hughes was actually connected to the Kabazon Indian Reservation.
Speaker 1: Shot in the chest, it was ruled a suicide. Sure not,
Speaker 1: probably not the first choice for suicidal people. But you
Speaker 1: know guy named Jonathan Moyle. He was an editor for
Speaker 1: Defense Helicopter World, which was a magazine. He was found
Speaker 1: hanging in a wardrobe in his hotel room with a
Speaker 1: pillow case over his head in March of Initially, the
Speaker 1: death was ruled a suicide, even though there was blood
Speaker 1: on his bed and a needle mark in his leg.
Speaker 1: Eight years later it was ruled a murder. We have
Speaker 1: Alan Standorf. His Standoffs job was to oversee security measures
Speaker 1: at vent Hill, which is described as a listening post um.
Speaker 1: It would monitor radio communications. He went home for the holidays.
Speaker 1: In one for the Christmas holiday, left his family went
Speaker 1: home and was found dead in the backseat of his
Speaker 1: car at the airport on the fourth of January two.
Speaker 1: He died from blunt force trauma to the back of
Speaker 1: his head. That was ruled a suicide, right, I believe
Speaker 1: it was ruled suicide or they just had no no leads.
Speaker 1: I feel listing our next twenty episodes, well I don't
Speaker 1: have twenty people. Thankfully we have Larry Garon. Larry was
Speaker 1: a private investigator who worked for Danger Man and was
Speaker 1: killed in seven while he was investigating the ins Law case.
Speaker 1: It's according to danger Man himself. Well, no, I believe
Speaker 1: that it is known. Because he was a p I.
Speaker 1: It was known that he was looking into the ins
Speaker 1: law case. But his death, we don't really know what
Speaker 1: the deal was. We have another guy by the name
Speaker 1: of Paul Wilcher. Wilcher was a lawyer who who died
Speaker 1: in you see it called disputed circumstances on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: He died in disputed circumstances a month after he wrote
Speaker 1: a letter to the then newly appointed U. S. Attorney
Speaker 1: General Janet Reno. He was saying that the CIA was
Speaker 1: killing people to cover up its mind control experiments and
Speaker 1: that Waco was the incident that happened in Waco, Texas
Speaker 1: was one of those events. The point here is he
Speaker 1: wrote this letter and he said Waco was a cover up.
Speaker 1: On the twenty three of June, he was found dead
Speaker 1: in his apartment. He was tied in a fetal position.
Speaker 1: Um oh. And by the way, he also he also
Speaker 1: had as a lawyer represented Danger Man, as well as
Speaker 1: another guy who was a pilot who said that he
Speaker 1: had flown George H. W. Bush to his meeting for
Speaker 1: setting up the October Surprise. Last guy on the list
Speaker 1: is Ian Spiro. Spiro possibly. I don't see any exact
Speaker 1: stuff on this, but he had worked for both the
Speaker 1: CIA and the British Intelligence and he's alleged to have
Speaker 1: worked on or with the campaign for October Surprise, and
Speaker 1: the and the Iran contra affair. Oh and the the
Speaker 1: Lebanon hostage crisis. Oh and uh. He also talked to
Speaker 1: Danger Man, so he has a lot of connections. Well.
Speaker 1: His wife, his son, and his daughters were found shot
Speaker 1: to death on the fifth of October. Four days later,
Speaker 1: he was found dead behind the wheel of his suv.
Speaker 1: He died of cyanide poison. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. No,
Speaker 1: that's obvious murder suicide. Okay, So, ladies and gentlemen, that
Speaker 1: is a the story of Danny Casilero and the octopus,
Speaker 1: and the octopus and a bunch of the pieces that
Speaker 1: are claimed to have linked the octopus to the death
Speaker 1: of Danny. I'm not quite seeing all the connections there.
Speaker 1: So we we have a we have two simple theories,
Speaker 1: and our theories are only focused on Casilero. We're not
Speaker 1: going to go into the octopus, because that I think
Speaker 1: we've done enough of We're going to just talk about
Speaker 1: the two theories, which is either a he did kill
Speaker 1: himself or be he did not, which means somebody else
Speaker 1: did right well, the first thing that people will turn
Speaker 1: to in the theory that he killed himself, that he
Speaker 1: committed suicide is that he had money problems and he
Speaker 1: wasn't doing that great financially. Like I said before, he
Speaker 1: sold his interest in the magazine pretty early and could
Speaker 1: have gotten a lot more money had he waited longer.
Speaker 1: He might have been a little depressed about that. Huh.
Speaker 1: Possibly he also had written a book which was not
Speaker 1: a seller. In other words, he was not really making
Speaker 1: any money off of that book. But then again, his
Speaker 1: family had money, so he could have probably got some
Speaker 1: help with from his family. You know. The thing about
Speaker 1: it is is he don't know how often he's gone
Speaker 1: to his family for help in the past. He might
Speaker 1: like just really not relish the idea of going back
Speaker 1: yet again. I never want to ask my family for money.
Speaker 1: There are things that you will find about him. He
Speaker 1: had they they found out in the through the medical
Speaker 1: examination the autopsy, they found out that he had multiple sclerosis.
Speaker 1: And he evidently had been given a diagnosis of that
Speaker 1: prior to it sounds like at least six months prior
Speaker 1: to his death. It also sounds like he had a
Speaker 1: very very mild case of it. But you will see
Speaker 1: that pointed to as a reason for him to have
Speaker 1: decided to end his life. It's a very minor, minor
Speaker 1: case though. But we also have things that we talked
Speaker 1: about before, which is there was nothing in his system
Speaker 1: of any significant amount in terms of drugs or alcohol,
Speaker 1: which kind of really deals a serious blow to the
Speaker 1: theory that somebody else did him because did him in
Speaker 1: because you would think that they would have easy route
Speaker 1: drugged him or got him drunk so that he was
Speaker 1: incapacitated and couldn't fight back. Yeah, because that's that's the
Speaker 1: whole thing. That there's no marks on his body, no
Speaker 1: signs of a struggle all. Of course, if they'd been
Speaker 1: a struggle, they could have straightened things up. I suppose
Speaker 1: a bit more than left. And then it's hard also,
Speaker 1: sorry with the plastic bags, if you think, you know,
Speaker 1: they kind of strangled him almost I don't know how
Speaker 1: extensive the autopsies were. And if if you were just
Speaker 1: strangled him until he passed out and then cut his
Speaker 1: wrists and then left. You know, you would think, but
Speaker 1: he would he would have struggled back. He plastic bag
Speaker 1: over the head, for example. I'll buy that. But there
Speaker 1: there's gonna be bruises, there's gonna be mark from where
Speaker 1: somebody gripped his arms and hold them down so that
Speaker 1: they can hold the bag on his head. Here's the
Speaker 1: other problem, and this is one of the things that
Speaker 1: is a major, major mark against the fact that he
Speaker 1: was killed by somebody else. And that is the investigation
Speaker 1: that was done and the into the scene in the bathroom,
Speaker 1: they pathology I think it was. I want to say
Speaker 1: it's a pathologist. This guy name I can never remember
Speaker 1: and I've had a hard time finding his stuff. But basically,
Speaker 1: they gave all this information to a crime scene investigator
Speaker 1: and said, look at the blood spray, look at where
Speaker 1: everything is. And this guy went through and he said,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, it's pretty obvious that nobody else was there
Speaker 1: because there was no void, there was no no no
Speaker 1: shadows in the blood splatter spatter, which means nobody was
Speaker 1: standing there to catch that spraying liquid. Now, the weird
Speaker 1: thing about that guy is that he worked for the octopus. No,
Speaker 1: there is there is some point in the scene. I
Speaker 1: think it's the towels on the floor that was not
Speaker 1: initially given to him and in all of the description
Speaker 1: of the scene that he got. And it's the weirdest
Speaker 1: thing is that as soon as he found out about
Speaker 1: the towels, he retracted the whole thing. I didn't have
Speaker 1: all the information. That can't be a correct I can't
Speaker 1: stand behind what I said because I can't say that
Speaker 1: it's right, because it's just it's how exactly the towels
Speaker 1: negate his his observation that there were no shadows. I
Speaker 1: don't freaking no, I don't get well, okay in fairness right,
Speaker 1: And maybe it's from a professional stance. I don't want
Speaker 1: to I don't want to make this clay and yeah,
Speaker 1: but I guess it's you know again, they're they aren't
Speaker 1: really crime scene photos. I haven't gone out to see,
Speaker 1: but it seems reasonable that there would be a place
Speaker 1: that one could stand that wouldn't create a shadow, that
Speaker 1: would just make blood free. It's not like it's a
Speaker 1: three and sixty you would have to because in the
Speaker 1: tub under the water if Yeah, because he's talking like
Speaker 1: blood spatter not just on the walls but on the
Speaker 1: floor too, right, So I would I would guess that
Speaker 1: the towels had something to do with where the blood
Speaker 1: would have reasonably flowed and how saturated the towels would
Speaker 1: have been. Really, really would be my guess, if I
Speaker 1: had to guess why he would retract that. But you know,
Speaker 1: the other hand is of maybe he just on a
Speaker 1: professional courtesy, was like, oh, I didn't actually have all
Speaker 1: the information. I'm not comfortable doing this anyway a thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, it almost I almost got the impression that
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know about you, but from the
Speaker 1: way we've described it, I'm sure a lot of people
Speaker 1: are thinking, well, he did the deed in the top,
Speaker 1: but it almost gave me the impression that he did
Speaker 1: at least the initial cuts while not in the tub,
Speaker 1: and then kind of had that if you ever done this,
Speaker 1: you start to make a mess and you have that
Speaker 1: initial panic off. I got to at least kind of
Speaker 1: stem this and clean it up, and tried to clean
Speaker 1: it up and then realize the foolishness of what he
Speaker 1: was doing, and then just went ahead and gotten the
Speaker 1: tub and hung out like he might have been out
Speaker 1: of the bath standing somewhere in the bathroom when he
Speaker 1: had did at least one or two of the number
Speaker 1: one just standard thing that you hear in conjunction with
Speaker 1: with suicides, as people instantly regretting it and trying to
Speaker 1: remedy it. Right, So maybe he was trying to apply
Speaker 1: pressure or or something. But the other thing that I
Speaker 1: keep questioning is like, realistically, how much spray are you
Speaker 1: going to get with cutting your wrists? Like how far
Speaker 1: up the wall can you reasonably expect spray to go?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I know that if you hit an
Speaker 1: heartary or you hit a vein correctly, I know that
Speaker 1: you can that that blood will flow or spray quite
Speaker 1: a disk like a juggular or something. But I just
Speaker 1: don't know if the blood flow in your wrist necessarily
Speaker 1: is like going to be spraying Like I don't I
Speaker 1: don't want to get I don't know about it. I
Speaker 1: mean I can think about like if you're clenching your
Speaker 1: fist or something. I mean, there's there's some ways that
Speaker 1: it possibly could go, but I don't know. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: But you know, as far as the suicide theory goes,
Speaker 1: I would have to say that considering all all the
Speaker 1: other murders that the octopus has been accused of, this
Speaker 1: is kind of the most undane. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: it's the most subtle. It's the only one where they
Speaker 1: really bothered to try to cover their tracks, I orre
Speaker 1: to believe those other ones. So we're looking at here,
Speaker 1: shot in the chest, shot in the chest, hung that
Speaker 1: had needle marksh in his leg. It was real murders,
Speaker 1: shot tied up in a field position. It looks the
Speaker 1: most like an actual suicide. Yeah, why did it take
Speaker 1: trouble for Danny Castle. Here's the other thing that leans
Speaker 1: towards the fact that he he probably did commit suicide
Speaker 1: for this theory. When we're in this theory, is that
Speaker 1: Mike Looney, he was in the room adjacent on one
Speaker 1: side and there was a family on in the room
Speaker 1: on the other side of him. Nobody reported any noise.
Speaker 1: There was no I mean, after the fact, when investigators
Speaker 1: came to him, nobody's like, you know, it's weird. It
Speaker 1: sounded like somebody fell out of the bathroom or something like. None,
Speaker 1: none of that. Nothing. That the family was probably like
Speaker 1: a family of octopus assassins, just mom, dad, female and
Speaker 1: then and then a dwarf assassin a little, small, small octopus. Yes,
Speaker 1: let's move on to the other side of the theory,
Speaker 1: which is that the octopus killed Danny um. Well, we
Speaker 1: talked about the money problems thing, and again it seems
Speaker 1: a little weird that his family could have helped him out.
Speaker 1: But we've talked about this. We talked about this earlier.
Speaker 1: Is that the cuts in his wrist were so deep
Speaker 1: that it doesn't seem like somebody could have continued on
Speaker 1: after one or two of them unaided. That does give
Speaker 1: people the idea that he did it himself, or that
Speaker 1: he couldn't done it himself. Excuse me, I have and
Speaker 1: I don't mean to sound like an a hole here,
Speaker 1: but I do have a problem with the note that
Speaker 1: he left. It's only five lines long, and it's kind
Speaker 1: of written in a prose style the way it's broken up,
Speaker 1: But if you read any of his writings that way,
Speaker 1: it's not the guy personally. I think he took way
Speaker 1: too many words to make a point. So I really
Speaker 1: feel like he would have written much more about why
Speaker 1: he was doing what he was doing. But of course,
Speaker 1: at the same sign, if he was actually suicidal, he
Speaker 1: was not in a normal state of mind exactly. That's
Speaker 1: very true. The other thing that is weird about his
Speaker 1: suicide note is that he makes a very direct reference
Speaker 1: to God. Casslero was Roman Catholic, but he wasn't. He
Speaker 1: wasn't really religious, wasn't a big deal in a lot
Speaker 1: in his life, and a lot of the people that
Speaker 1: knew him didn't didn't understand why he would make a
Speaker 1: reference to God in his suicide note that God is
Speaker 1: going to let him in because for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 1: operated without a care towards that. What do you do
Speaker 1: you know? If his family was particularly religious, it sounds
Speaker 1: like some of them were and some of them weren't.
Speaker 1: What about his son, He had drifted and I don't
Speaker 1: know about his son, to be honestly, again, his son,
Speaker 1: his son is one of the hardest ones to find anything. Yeah, really,
Speaker 1: I mean not that I tried to pursue that, but
Speaker 1: I never really saw a lot of them. So I
Speaker 1: think the explanation for the God thing is that obviously,
Speaker 1: if you kill yourself, you're a Catholic, and you kill yourself,
Speaker 1: you're right. And so it might have been his way
Speaker 1: of saying, hey, family, I don't worry about me. I
Speaker 1: think God's gonna let me in. Yeah, it's gonna be okay,
Speaker 1: it's gonna yeah. I think I might have been. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's it's weird. I this is another one
Speaker 1: of those that I'm just kind of I'm not But
Speaker 1: he killed himself, well, I really I agree with Joe.
Speaker 1: I sadly think that he killed himself and for reasons
Speaker 1: that I don't understand. I guess that's for me. It's
Speaker 1: the big question mark that adds that component of he
Speaker 1: was murdered is that, like, I literally cannot find a
Speaker 1: single thing that makes me think that he was suicidal.
Speaker 1: That is the problem that there's people that kill themselves
Speaker 1: all the time. We had no idea that there was
Speaker 1: anything wrong. And I understand your of thinking that he's murdered,
Speaker 1: because there is always, especially when we're dealing with a
Speaker 1: conspiracy like this, there's always that thought that they were
Speaker 1: good enough that there was a shadow and they brought
Speaker 1: a catchup bottle full of matching blood type or they
Speaker 1: sprayed it on the left. Would have been so hard
Speaker 1: to get his blood it was pouring out of him.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of there's a. I mean,
Speaker 1: we we could talk about all of that stuff. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of ways that it could go, but that
Speaker 1: is a that is a hell of a reach. Is
Speaker 1: consider that these guys were not very subtle in their
Speaker 1: other murders, right, and so we're busy like running multi
Speaker 1: national you know, laundering scheme. Right. So we're talking only
Speaker 1: about that suicide, right, We're not talking about if thought
Speaker 1: post is really or not. Well, this is a different thing, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, And I think I think
Speaker 1: Joe is probably gonna be on the same page as
Speaker 1: I am, because I know we've talked about this on
Speaker 1: this podcast before. I think that an organization of the
Speaker 1: size and complexity that it is purported to be is impossible,
Speaker 1: you can, Okay, that's that's a perfect thing to add
Speaker 1: in because people are loudmouth idiots, and while they may
Speaker 1: be able to do something, they would not all of
Speaker 1: them be a will to do it in secret. So
Speaker 1: I personally think that at least at the scale that
Speaker 1: it's said to be, the octopus isn't real. Maybe it
Speaker 1: is a very small little group that has a lot
Speaker 1: of influences that does small things, but nowhere near the
Speaker 1: scale interesting. Yeah, and also the inter relation between all
Speaker 1: these different things. It's not it is not at all
Speaker 1: clear to me. Oh you mean like Princess Die and
Speaker 1: all of that. I will point the finger right back
Speaker 1: at at Kent Thomas for that. I really think. I
Speaker 1: really think that he got near the end of his
Speaker 1: book and said, oh crap, I have a word count
Speaker 1: to meet. Let's pull something else in. Yeah, that's yeah.
Speaker 1: You obviously have an opinion on the Oh no, I
Speaker 1: just think I'm curious what it is actually at this point.
Speaker 1: I just you know, I watched my method of research
Speaker 1: on this with a lot of YouTube videos into my
Speaker 1: life right now, um, and I was watching a number
Speaker 1: of YouTube videos and there were some that were even
Speaker 1: referencing these movies. I think you watched this as well.
Speaker 1: This one movie that was made in nineteen forty six
Speaker 1: that was talking about global business powers. Eight global business
Speaker 1: powers that really run everything is still one of it, right,
Speaker 1: So I think, you know, when we run into things
Speaker 1: like this, I'm you know, I have a hard time
Speaker 1: going the full government conspiracy theory route, but I am
Speaker 1: willing to go the there are there are powers in
Speaker 1: our world that run our lives that we may not
Speaker 1: be totally aware of totally willing to go there. So
Speaker 1: that's kind of where my hesitation comes in. I'm not
Speaker 1: fully tin hat on this guy, but I'm also like,
Speaker 1: I've got tinfoil in my drawer that I'm really to
Speaker 1: pull out if need be. Well, you gotta keep some
Speaker 1: of that stuff around. But so that's that's where that
Speaker 1: kind of comes in for me, that like, I'm not
Speaker 1: willing to say that any or all of this stuff
Speaker 1: is conspiracy stuff. I'm not even willing to say the
Speaker 1: octopus is real, but I do I don't know. There
Speaker 1: might be something like it, There might be something similar
Speaker 1: to it, and it may not be as nefarious or
Speaker 1: consciously nefarious as we want to assume. But definitely there
Speaker 1: are things that run our lives that we don't know about. Well,
Speaker 1: probably I think that most I think the most likely
Speaker 1: Danny was probably being fed most of the stuff by
Speaker 1: danger man A K. A. Ricciotto. Yeah, he's amazing with
Speaker 1: the things that he said. It really is, and I
Speaker 1: think that I don't think he was murdered because if
Speaker 1: he was, if he in his research were such a
Speaker 1: threat to the octopus, then they obviously would have found
Speaker 1: his notes and gotten rid of them. They didn't do that.
Speaker 1: They didn't bother. I mean, here they go, this guy
Speaker 1: is such a danger to them that the engineer this
Speaker 1: perfect murder that looks so much like a suicide, and
Speaker 1: they don't bother to go find all of his notes
Speaker 1: and information and destroy that, destroyed that stuff. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: they didn't. Yeah, that's a good point. So I think
Speaker 1: I think it was a suicide. Yeah, it's sad that suicide. No, No,
Speaker 1: I'm not either sadly I doing all of the research
Speaker 1: that I did. It's I kind of feel like maybe
Speaker 1: he went down a track that he shouldn't have gone
Speaker 1: trapped down, and that was not a good move for
Speaker 1: him personally, I guess, not from any outside And the
Speaker 1: other thing that we're not necessarily discussing is that the
Speaker 1: possibility that he killed himself because someone from an organization said, hey,
Speaker 1: we know what you're doing, stopped doing that, or you know,
Speaker 1: threatened or whatever. And again, like, it's not I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say that that's a reasonable assumption to you know, and
Speaker 1: I will I had the very same thought process I
Speaker 1: had that he committed suicide under duress, somebody prompted him
Speaker 1: to do it, we're going to murder your family. But
Speaker 1: I got to be honest with you. If if somebody said, Steve,
Speaker 1: you have to commit suicide or we're going to kill
Speaker 1: everyone you know, I would probably do it. But you
Speaker 1: know what else I would do. I would get blitzed
Speaker 1: in the process. I would be so loaded. Yeah, well
Speaker 1: I don't know, so that I wouldn't to try and
Speaker 1: make sure I don't feel anything anything. He was not
Speaker 1: in that position at all in terms of things that
Speaker 1: he'd ingested. I guess I wasn't assuming the like, Steve,
Speaker 1: you have to kill yourself, or I'd be like, hey, Steve,
Speaker 1: we know what you're doing and if you keep doing it,
Speaker 1: you were going to kill your family. So like printer
Speaker 1: attraction for everything you've ever do you know that you
Speaker 1: would be in that kind of moral quandary of well
Speaker 1: do I I don't know. I know where you're going.
Speaker 1: So but the thing about it is is that if
Speaker 1: you're if you're in that sort of situation, if I
Speaker 1: was anyway, I would be writing a letter or two
Speaker 1: to my family last and saying, hey, don't believe my
Speaker 1: suicide note. But didn't he say that? Didn't he say?
Speaker 1: At one point if something happens to me, don't buy it.
Speaker 1: Don't believe that he did say that to his brother.
Speaker 1: He didn't say that, but I'm just saying, but I
Speaker 1: mean he might have. He might have. Actually, he might
Speaker 1: have been just joking around. Well, I mean, whether the guys.
Speaker 1: There's a million ways, and we could keep hashing out
Speaker 1: a bazillion little what ifs, but I think instead I
Speaker 1: need to do we wrap it up now. It's gone
Speaker 1: on for too long. I think I think that Danny
Speaker 1: committed suicide. Final verdict. Okay, so you are more than
Speaker 1: welcome to tell us what your theory is, both in
Speaker 1: relation to the death of Danny Castelero u oh, and
Speaker 1: you know whether danger Man is telling the truth and
Speaker 1: what the heck even if the octopus really exists, you
Speaker 1: can do that you are the octopus, give us a call.
Speaker 1: If you are the octopus, please stay away from here.
Speaker 1: He email address email addresses Thinking Sideways Podcast at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com. I tell you that because well, I'm afraid
Speaker 1: that you're going to hurt us. But they already know
Speaker 1: our email address, so we're kind of you know everything
Speaker 1: about us. They're outside the door right now. We have
Speaker 1: this episode and all episodes on our website, along with
Speaker 1: links to some of our research, which that website is
Speaker 1: Thinking Sideways podcast dot com. We're on social media, so
Speaker 1: we're on Twitter at Thinking Sideways or Thinking Sideways without
Speaker 1: the g uh. And we're also on Facebook so you
Speaker 1: can find us. You can like us and join the group. Again,
Speaker 1: don't be sending us friends requests. We want you to
Speaker 1: go to the group because that's where all the good
Speaker 1: stuff happens, as well as the regular page we are.
Speaker 1: We're on ron iTunes. I was gonna I'm trying figureut
Speaker 1: where Elsten ron iTunes, so you can listen to us
Speaker 1: on iTunes. You can download us on iTunes. If you do,
Speaker 1: please take the time to leave a moment and a rating.
Speaker 1: I checked us out the other day and we just
Speaker 1: keep moving up into the main banks of the ratings,
Speaker 1: so it is awesome to see us get that high
Speaker 1: up there. What we're doing good, okay good. By the
Speaker 1: time this episode comes out, what I've seen today will
Speaker 1: be completely different. So we're we're way up there in there.
Speaker 1: We are also going to be on just about every
Speaker 1: streaming service at this point, so whatever service should prefer
Speaker 1: to use your welcome to look for us. You're probably
Speaker 1: gonna find the feed in there. We have the subreddit,
Speaker 1: which Devin again, what is this? Okay, thank you? I
Speaker 1: never can I don't know. I still understand. Two weeks later,
Speaker 1: I still get it as going on there these days
Speaker 1: just discussions and stuff. Yeah, so there's discussions of episodes
Speaker 1: and other things. But that is in Reddit. If you're
Speaker 1: a Reddit union user or you would like to be
Speaker 1: a Reddit user, that's a good place to go. We
Speaker 1: uh we are also on Patreon. So if you and
Speaker 1: you like what we do with the podcast asked and
Speaker 1: you enjoy it and you would like to contribute, you're
Speaker 1: welcome to do that. Patrian allows you to contribute on
Speaker 1: a buy episode basis. However much is comfortable for you.
Speaker 1: It is completely voluntary and you do not have to
Speaker 1: do it if you are not in a position to
Speaker 1: do it. I know a lot of folks as we've
Speaker 1: been talking about this, have been hitting the PayPal button.
Speaker 1: You can donate whatever you want is at one time.
Speaker 1: All of it is awesome. We appreciate it all. Thank you,
Speaker 1: very appreciate people. People. There are people who have pledged
Speaker 1: in U per episode. We love you, guys Afraid the expenses,
Speaker 1: it really does. Yeah, well that is all that we've
Speaker 1: got for housekeeping, and that is all that we have
Speaker 1: on Danny Cassilero. And there's there's more out there. There's
Speaker 1: much to be said, but I don't think there's any point.
Speaker 1: Well there's no there's point, but there's a lot to
Speaker 1: be said. But I think that we're going to try
Speaker 1: and keep this as concise as we can, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and wrap this up. So thank you
Speaker 1: everybody for going through what turned out to be much
Speaker 1: longer of an episode than I expected, and we will
Speaker 1: talk to you next week. Hale hydra, hal hydra, did
Speaker 1: you say hale hydra? Hale hydra. Okay,