Speaker 1: Wisecrack is released weekly and brought to you absolutely free,
Speaker 1: but if you want exclusive bonuses and early access, subscribe
Speaker 1: to tenorfoot plus. Enjoy over thirty shows, including Wisecrack, and
Speaker 1: over one thousand episodes completely ad free. For more information,
Speaker 1: check out the show notes. Enjoy the episode, Hey Wisecrack.
Speaker 1: I'm extremely excited to share a conversation that I had
Speaker 1: at Denver Crime Con called When Systems Fail Culpability on Trial.
Speaker 1: The conversation is myself, producer Jamie Albright, and host of
Speaker 1: Culpable Dennis Cooper. We talk about what is a system
Speaker 1: failure and how do we, as pretty flawed humans, hold
Speaker 1: an unwieldy system to account. Honestly, it was one of
Speaker 1: my favorite conversations that we had at Crime Con. Both
Speaker 1: Jamie and Dennis are such prose and hearing their perspectives
Speaker 1: on the criminal justice system was really I open. If
Speaker 1: you're not thoroughly exhausted of me and Ed, we do
Speaker 1: hope that you'll join us for an Instagram live Q
Speaker 1: and A on Friday, November fourteenth at eight o'clock Eastern
Speaker 1: Standard time. It's going to be super informal. You can
Speaker 1: just pop on the live and ask your questions or
Speaker 1: if you want, you can submit your questions in advance
Speaker 1: to at Wisecrack podcast on IG and we'll read and
Speaker 1: answer them in real time. There will likely be a
Speaker 1: special guest appearance by Ed and my various dogs being
Speaker 1: Edie and Mando. So there you go, a real reason
Speaker 1: to join the live. Thank you so much, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk to you then.
Speaker 2: When systems fail culpability on trial.
Speaker 3: Okay, before we get too deep, Cash tell you because
Speaker 3: I to get to talk to you. Amazing last night
Speaker 3: and I cannot wait to listen to wisecrack.
Speaker 4: Seriously. I mean, I'm so moved. It was a good turnout.
Speaker 1: It was a yeah, really was Oh I'm so glad.
Speaker 2: Well we've had nothing but positive feedback here at the booth,
Speaker 2: So congratulations.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: So our panel today is when systems fail Culpability on Trial,
Speaker 2: and we're joined today by Dennis Cooper, host of Culpable,
Speaker 2: writer producer host all of that let me make sure
Speaker 2: I say that, and Jody Tovey, producer of Wisecrack, as
Speaker 2: well as the individual who found this powerful story. So
Speaker 2: both of you have new releases this month. How does
Speaker 2: it feel after working so long and so hard to
Speaker 2: share this story with the world. Will start with Jody.
Speaker 1: It feels incredible, but it also feels I'm very tired. Well,
Speaker 1: it's exhausting and very exciting, and you know, it took
Speaker 1: almost almost nine years to get this out there for people.
Speaker 1: The crime that we're talking about in wisecrack happened in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, so it feels like even an even better
Speaker 1: opper tunity to share with everybody just because we've been
Speaker 1: sitting on the story for a second. So it's great
Speaker 1: to share, yeah, danis.
Speaker 4: Yeah for me.
Speaker 3: You know, it's funny because people here asks like how
Speaker 3: long do you spend on these cases? When you look
Speaker 3: at them and always feel so extreme, saying like, you know,
Speaker 3: on average, i'd say probably two years, maybe sometimes a
Speaker 3: little less. Granted they're they're with you till the end.
Speaker 3: You know, you follow them along, they'll be a part
Speaker 3: of me forever. But I hear nine, you know years
Speaker 3: or whatever, and I think like, wow, now that, I mean,
Speaker 3: that's almost a lifetime.
Speaker 4: That's crazy.
Speaker 3: So sorry to pivot the question because I'm just curious
Speaker 3: fan boying, Now, how long did you know of that story?
Speaker 4: Is it nine?
Speaker 3: Years or is that just when are you using that
Speaker 3: as a reference of when the crime happened?
Speaker 1: I met, Yes, nine years was when the crime happened.
Speaker 1: I met ed the following year when he performed his
Speaker 1: set at the Fringe Festival. Okay, and so, and you know, honestly,
Speaker 1: it just took I knew it was the thing. I
Speaker 1: knew it was a story that needed to be shared,
Speaker 1: but because it was such an unusual story, a lot
Speaker 1: of people said no. Yeah, so there was a lot
Speaker 1: of nos before Tenderfoot came in and said yes, we're
Speaker 1: interested and kind of saw how you can take those
Speaker 1: two feelings of laughter and drama and sadness and how
Speaker 1: closely those feelings live. So yeah, yeah, it was Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a lifetime. That's not it's not inaccurate.
Speaker 4: That is wild. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So well, I'm glad that that all worked out. Yeah
Speaker 3: for me, Like I for season three, I'll just reference
Speaker 3: that I've been following it for over two years now,
Speaker 3: and it's you know, still unfolding, Like I have stuff
Speaker 3: I need to do and catch up on when I
Speaker 3: get out of here, So you know, that's just the
Speaker 3: nature of things. And then you know, I look back
Speaker 3: now I can reflect on season one that was I
Speaker 3: started following I think in twenty eighteen, so so I've.
Speaker 4: Almost reached my nine year status on that one.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm still I just did a follow up
Speaker 3: with the mother in that case just a month ago, so,
Speaker 3: you know, like I said, it's these things are a long,
Speaker 3: ongoing journey to try and find justice or resolution for
Speaker 3: these victims.
Speaker 4: But you know, we love doing it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And these are both tough cases in different ways.
Speaker 2: And so when you share the story and you're wanting
Speaker 2: to know kind of what the reaction from people will be,
Speaker 2: what's that like for you as producers?
Speaker 1: Well, you first, you've been through so many seasons.
Speaker 4: To see the reaction from listeners.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's always special. I mean, you know, and
Speaker 3: seeing reviews online or getting direct messages on social media,
Speaker 3: those types of things can be so moving. And I'm
Speaker 3: so thankful that this community is so passionate about this
Speaker 3: stuff that they care enough to do those things and
Speaker 3: care enough to tell you, hey, maybe do something different
Speaker 3: next time.
Speaker 4: Maybe you know, I didn't love this part or what ever.
Speaker 3: And we need that criticism too, Like, I never want
Speaker 3: to think that I'm got this figured out, you know, Uh,
Speaker 3: in every case and every story is different. But but yeah,
Speaker 3: I I love seeing that stuff. I'm not I'm not
Speaker 3: an overly confident person, and so to be totally honest,
Speaker 3: I love nothing more than to see that positive reaction
Speaker 3: from from audience and and probably nothing beats being at
Speaker 3: a place like this and actually getting to have one
Speaker 3: on one interactions with people and and see them light
Speaker 3: up and think like, oh.
Speaker 4: My gosh, like you're you're the host of this show.
Speaker 3: And you know, I'd be lying if I said that
Speaker 3: didn't make me feel feel really good.
Speaker 4: So I love to see that feedback.
Speaker 3: And uh, to help segue over to you, Jody, I've
Speaker 3: I've loved watching, you know, kind of vicariously at the
Speaker 3: reactions to wise Crack so far, because it's just been
Speaker 3: very resounding. And I've been in that position, you know,
Speaker 3: seeing a show climb up charts and seeing all the
Speaker 3: good feedback, and I'm just I'm just so happy for
Speaker 3: for all of you all and your your team, because
Speaker 3: I know how much work's probably gone under that.
Speaker 1: I I probably have the least experience interacting here with
Speaker 1: crime con people. I mean, I'm getting information literally live
Speaker 1: right now from the booth like, we love the show
Speaker 1: and it feels great. It feels good. I do think
Speaker 1: that's what's interesting though about this genre in general, is
Speaker 1: that they will give you notes, but they also will
Speaker 1: absolutely give you your props and say that really moved me,
Speaker 1: that was touching. And I can't say the same about
Speaker 1: other styles of podcasting or other forms of media. So
Speaker 1: I think that in crime con particularly to like put
Speaker 1: faces to the comments, I think is something super special.
Speaker 1: And I think that at least for our show, since
Speaker 1: it has a live performance element to it, where there's
Speaker 1: a stand up comedian, Ed talks about his experience. You know,
Speaker 1: it's great to watch people in the audience reacting real time,
Speaker 1: as we just said, probably off microphone, but it was.
Speaker 1: It's really rewarding to see that real time feedback. It's nice,
Speaker 1: and you know, and everybody everyone's so different too, you know.
Speaker 1: It's I looked out last night when during our Q
Speaker 1: and A and I all that, you know, people looked,
Speaker 1: some people were confused, and I think they were trying
Speaker 1: to process how they felt about it, because people were laughing,
Speaker 1: people were crying. Ed's had people run up on stage
Speaker 1: and give him a hug in the middle of the set,
Speaker 1: people have these very emotional responses to Ed's story and
Speaker 1: to Ed in general, just because he's a nice guy
Speaker 1: and really cool. But yeah, it's very rewarding. It feels
Speaker 1: really nice.
Speaker 3: Can I see one more thing on that? Just in
Speaker 3: case I don't have the chance to connect with him.
Speaker 3: I talked to him briefly last night, just because I
Speaker 3: just really wanted to give him, you know, his props
Speaker 3: and tell him how moved I was by the performance
Speaker 3: last night. But if you feel comfortable, can you speak
Speaker 3: at all on what it's felt like maybe for for
Speaker 3: Ed to see this reaction totally, He's.
Speaker 1: Very hard on himself, so if people I think that
Speaker 1: his currency is laughs, but his story is both laughs
Speaker 1: and tears, and so to be I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: he's also trying to process real time that feedback as well.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I think that he's people love him
Speaker 1: in America in general. I think that he's and he's
Speaker 1: also such a lovely, kind person as well, and so
Speaker 1: I think he's used to, like I'm he just used
Speaker 1: to fans and reception that's really positive. So I think
Speaker 1: being here and receiving that is great, And I you know,
Speaker 1: I don't want to. I don't want to speak for
Speaker 1: him too much, but I think that this show is
Speaker 1: so different, and I don't want to speak as a
Speaker 1: comedian because I'm most certainly not, but there's there's a
Speaker 1: lot of feelings going on in the show as well,
Speaker 1: and so you're not you know, when you're used to
Speaker 1: people just like bent over sobbing for laughing, and you
Speaker 1: don't see people doing that immediately. I think it can
Speaker 1: be confusing too, but I think it's because they're confused. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an emotional rollercoaster. Yeah, someone said that this morning,
Speaker 2: and I thought that's the perfect way describe it. And
Speaker 2: I love that Ed was vulnerable at the end, and
Speaker 2: I think that that's reason that Tenderfoot saw this as
Speaker 2: so powerful. It's a different way to deliver a very
Speaker 2: important story as well. And so both Wisecrack and Culpable
Speaker 2: take a look at culpability in very different ways. With Culpable,
Speaker 2: it's ongoing questions, often unanswered. With Wisecrack, there is resolution,
Speaker 2: but still questions about culpability. So I want to talk
Speaker 2: a little bit about that. What do you think when
Speaker 2: with that question or statement, just.
Speaker 3: The various forms of you knowlpability for culpable. Yeah, well
Speaker 3: that was like the cool thing with with coming up
Speaker 3: with you know that that title for the series was
Speaker 3: you know I say sometimes like it can seem like
Speaker 3: such a very direct word. A lot of people hear
Speaker 3: that and they just assume like it's more of like
Speaker 3: this finger pointing, like you know, who's to blame for this?
Speaker 3: And absolutely like in terms of finding justice and resolution
Speaker 3: a case, like someone has to be to blame. So
Speaker 3: that is an element of it, but it was also
Speaker 3: a way to you know, keep a somewhat broad series
Speaker 3: that can touch on so many different things.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: The first series was focused on, you know, was this
Speaker 3: a suicide versus a murder and exploring both of those
Speaker 3: and you know, to to give an example, a real
Speaker 3: example there that was that challenged me was you know,
Speaker 3: when when everything felt like it was leaning in the
Speaker 3: direction of homicide, I got I received these these text messages.
Speaker 4: That have been on earthed from from the victim that
Speaker 4: you know.
Speaker 3: I think the easiest way to label it would be,
Speaker 3: you know, suicidal like texts, you know, threats of you know,
Speaker 3: not being happy with life and you know, I, you know,
Speaker 3: threatening to harm myself. And this was years removed from
Speaker 3: when the crime happened, but it's still opened that door
Speaker 3: to like, you know, I didn't realize that the victim
Speaker 3: had this going on, and so that was tough. You know,
Speaker 3: it's like, wow, well we need to include this, which
Speaker 3: you know is hard because there's always that element with
Speaker 3: the family too and you know, one to protect them.
Speaker 3: But it was, it was it was relevant, and it
Speaker 3: kind of you know, moved the needle in a different
Speaker 3: direction and it needed to be part of the story.
Speaker 3: So it's looked different with with every case, but with culpability,
Speaker 3: I just wanted to have a way to look at
Speaker 3: all the different elements of that from from the justice
Speaker 3: system and how it may fail people to you know,
Speaker 3: mental health issues and how that could lead to.
Speaker 4: To some of these tragedies we come across.
Speaker 3: I mean, on case review, we've explored you know, things
Speaker 3: like as intricate as like Castle Lull and as far
Speaker 3: as like you know, crimes that happen on your front doorsteps.
Speaker 3: So you know, I want to be able to explore
Speaker 3: every single avenue because I think at the end of
Speaker 3: the day, there's so many things that can tie into
Speaker 3: to that term.
Speaker 1: There's I think that's a great way to say it,
Speaker 1: which is there's obviously lead to the you know, for
Speaker 1: all of our cases, there's it's an open and shut case, right,
Speaker 1: you know that that's what they is, that what they
Speaker 1: say on law and orders for a minute. But but
Speaker 1: there's shades of culpability and there's systems in place that
Speaker 1: don't do great service to some people. We don't set
Speaker 1: people up for success in many ways, and I think
Speaker 1: that that's something that really resonates with me about what
Speaker 1: you're saying. Particularly for the murder that we talk about
Speaker 1: Brett Rodgers in Wisecrack, there's a big question about what
Speaker 1: his mental health state was. In his mental state when
Speaker 1: he left the scene of the crime, was it a
Speaker 1: crime of passion? Was even in his right mind at
Speaker 1: that point if you ask the criminal justice system, the
Speaker 1: answer is he absolutely was. He was unable to be
Speaker 1: declared incapacitated in any way and was tried as an
Speaker 1: average person. My instincts, having now researched the case, I
Speaker 1: feel the opposite. But also in the same way. You know,
Speaker 1: in the UK we have social they have socialized medicine,
Speaker 1: which is a huge piece of this story that we unfortunately,
Speaker 1: you know, give me some more episodes, dontled. I'd love
Speaker 1: to go into it, and I'd love to me to
Speaker 1: help me, truthfully, But like, I do think that that
Speaker 1: is one of those things that made a very big
Speaker 1: impact in our story that we need to continue to
Speaker 1: explore how how certain certain organizations fail and when, and
Speaker 1: also they're not inclined to help. There's numbers they have
Speaker 1: to meet, you know, we have to get people in,
Speaker 1: we have to get people out. If we give you
Speaker 1: this diagnosis, then this is the chain reaction that we
Speaker 1: will then have to pick up for the rest of
Speaker 1: your natural life. So we're loathed to give you said diagnosis.
Speaker 1: We're to load to give you access to X, Y
Speaker 1: and Z, and so I think that's a big piece
Speaker 1: of this story that I think we still want to explore. Truthfully.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was just gonna just to add to that.
Speaker 3: Like with the season three specifically, it's been interesting because
Speaker 3: again when I did season one, I felt very surprised,
Speaker 3: sort of blindsided to realize like, oh, there's a mental
Speaker 3: health element to this, whereas with season three, I was
Speaker 3: coming from experience then was kind of excited to look
Speaker 3: at a case like Danny's where he was diagnosed bipolar,
Speaker 3: he was prescribed lithium, and these things come into the
Speaker 3: story as you listen to it, and very much informed
Speaker 3: the popular narrative around the town of what probably happened
Speaker 3: to him, that you know that he probably did this
Speaker 3: to himself in some way. It was you know, he
Speaker 3: either took his own life or he had this episode
Speaker 3: or had some.
Speaker 4: Sort of drug overdose interaction.
Speaker 3: I mean, it was crazy to me, and it moved
Speaker 3: me to want to like really find out what happened
Speaker 3: to him, because you know, it just felt like they
Speaker 3: had made this bucket there, like it had to be
Speaker 3: some one of.
Speaker 4: These things that happened to him.
Speaker 3: He was very imperfect, and his family'd be the first
Speaker 3: to tell you that, and I think that very much
Speaker 3: informed the narrative there. But interestingly enough, looking at from
Speaker 3: the the you know, the authorities perspective is to get
Speaker 3: that contrast again, like with Christian Andreacchio's case, it was
Speaker 3: forty five minutes open, closed suicide, and I was like.
Speaker 4: It doesn't seem right. You know, I don't come from
Speaker 4: that experience.
Speaker 3: You know, maybe that's maybe that's a normal time to
Speaker 3: spend an investigation.
Speaker 4: I don't think it seems like enough, so that bothered me.
Speaker 3: But with Danny's case, I mean, they investigated it despite
Speaker 3: despite feeling like, you know, it was probably some freak
Speaker 3: accidental death or even a suicide.
Speaker 4: They did work that case like it was a homicide.
Speaker 3: And that was an interesting element to dive into because
Speaker 3: I didn't expect that when we got the case files.
Speaker 3: I I genuinely expected to not see a whole lot
Speaker 3: of investigation, not see a lot of hard questions being asked,
Speaker 3: those types of things, And I was humbled when I
Speaker 3: saw otherwise and realized, like, Okay, they.
Speaker 4: Took this seriously despite the common narrative there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember when you were able to get access
Speaker 2: to the interviews and to the docs. I felt surprised
Speaker 2: by that because it seemed the case of been forgotten.
Speaker 1: And I think that's when you realize.
Speaker 2: That there's multiple things happening at the same time. So
Speaker 2: how do you balance the narrative and storytelling when you're
Speaker 2: looking at so many different pieces that might have played
Speaker 2: into what occurred.
Speaker 3: Well, it's always a challenge. I mean for me, I
Speaker 3: just lean into it as much as possible. You know,
Speaker 3: I've always I've always been attracted cases that just they
Speaker 3: challenge you, They challenge your view of things, They make
Speaker 3: you think of all these different possibilities, and so for me,
Speaker 3: I definitely don't shy away from it. If anything, I
Speaker 3: jump at those cases usually. I think that's why I
Speaker 3: was probably so moved by listening to the performance of
Speaker 3: Wisecrack last night, is because I mean, that's just so
Speaker 3: up my alley, because I got enough of a taste
Speaker 3: of it to realize, like, oh, this is one that
Speaker 3: will probably challenge me to the end of how I
Speaker 3: feel about how I feel about the victims, how I
Speaker 3: feel about the the the perpetrator in that, and these
Speaker 3: different things, Like you could tell that there's a lot
Speaker 3: more to that story that's going to come out in
Speaker 3: the podcast that I'm stoked to to to listen through.
Speaker 4: I just I've always enjoyed those types of things. I
Speaker 4: don't want to.
Speaker 3: I don't want to lead anyone to a conclusion, even
Speaker 3: though the ultimate goal is to to find the truth
Speaker 3: and get resolution. I don't want to tell a story
Speaker 3: in a way that's that's pointed or leaned in one
Speaker 3: direction that you know everyone's going to come to the
Speaker 3: same conclusion at the end. I would rather you know,
Speaker 3: give people what they need to to understand the case
Speaker 3: and the ins and outs of it, and let them
Speaker 3: come to their own conclusion as far as what they
Speaker 3: think happened to.
Speaker 4: The victim, who's culpable, uh.
Speaker 3: And and and those various you know, layers of culpability
Speaker 3: like that could that could have played into it, you know,
Speaker 3: how they feel about the characters and at the victims,
Speaker 3: those types of things. You know, I want to keep
Speaker 3: people on their toes and kind of let them come
Speaker 3: to their own conclusions.
Speaker 4: Through to the end.
Speaker 1: I feel the exact same way. I think the hardest
Speaker 1: part of telling these stories. We know what the facts
Speaker 1: are if we've done our job. We present obviously what
Speaker 1: law enforcement knows and what they're willing to share, and
Speaker 1: then you collect the interviews of the personal anecdotes from
Speaker 1: the potential victims, eyewitnesses, whatever. But outside of that, I
Speaker 1: think the trick is just making sure that you show
Speaker 1: all those various shades of interaction within the facts of
Speaker 1: the story. It's really hard, you know, it's really hard
Speaker 1: because again I don't want to you know, I worked
Speaker 1: on this one for a second, and I was the
Speaker 1: same way with the roller coaster. What is going on.
Speaker 1: I mean, truly, we have a meager six episodes, but
Speaker 1: the arc really is do I trust this person? Do
Speaker 1: I not trust this person? And then obviously the bigger question,
Speaker 1: which is why I did the bully come to Ed's
Speaker 1: house that night? What was on his mind? You know,
Speaker 1: in some way we're not asking what or who because
Speaker 1: we know what and who. It's why and how, and
Speaker 1: those questions are much more gray than they are black
Speaker 1: and white for the what and who, and so it's hard.
Speaker 1: But I also, yeah, it's challenging.
Speaker 4: I like beings. You know, people want to hear.
Speaker 1: I think people want to hear those stories. We are
Speaker 1: so far deep into the true crime genre and television,
Speaker 1: film and podcasting and storytelling books. We've got narrative nonfiction
Speaker 1: and all kinds of things. And the end of the day,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that these super fans that we're
Speaker 1: with right now, they're interested in those gray areas as
Speaker 1: much as they're interested in the black and white, and
Speaker 1: so it's it's nice that I think they the fans,
Speaker 1: have evolved with the genre and that it's something that
Speaker 1: you and I actually like to do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we prefer those kinds of things. That's a great
Speaker 4: way of putting it, for sure.
Speaker 3: You know, for me, I always I never wanted to
Speaker 3: tell it in a way that's like I've figured this out,
Speaker 3: and here's my presentation on me figuring it out.
Speaker 4: It was more supposed to be a feel.
Speaker 3: Live and in the moment, and you're learning it as
Speaker 3: I'm learning it, and come along for the ride with me.
Speaker 3: Because there's a lot of very smart people, a lot
Speaker 3: of very passionate people in this community who have helped
Speaker 3: me tremendously, you know, sending in ideas, tips, those types
Speaker 3: of things, and so you know, I always wanted to
Speaker 3: make it feel like, you know, hey, armchair detectives like you,
Speaker 3: come along for this with me. You know, you're in
Speaker 3: this with me. It's not just me telling this this
Speaker 3: journey that I was on, like, I want you to
Speaker 3: feel a part of it too. So so yeah, I've
Speaker 3: always tried to mimic that, you know, as I've done
Speaker 3: each season as culpable.
Speaker 5: I hope you're enjoying this episode live from Crime Con.
Speaker 5: Want to get aha, I'd start on Crime Con twenty
Speaker 5: twenty six in Vegas right now. You can save ten
Speaker 5: percent of your tickets with our exclusive promo code. Just
Speaker 5: head to crimecon dot com to grab your standard badge
Speaker 5: today and use promo code tenderfoot at checkout. Don't wait
Speaker 5: locking your spot now for the ultimate true crime experience,
Speaker 5: and we'll see you in Las Vegas next May. Now
Speaker 5: back to the show.
Speaker 2: So you touched on this a little bit earlier, but
Speaker 2: in wise Crag Brett was found legally competent to stand trial. Yes,
Speaker 2: did you think that would be the case when you
Speaker 2: first learned about the case and did you ever change
Speaker 2: your opinion at any point?
Speaker 1: The first thing that I saw once ed told me
Speaker 1: the name. So in the set when I first listened
Speaker 1: to it in Edinburgh, he used a different name. So
Speaker 1: I had to like hunt this person down and become
Speaker 1: a stocker myself to find out exactly what this person's
Speaker 1: name is. But that moment when you told me his
Speaker 1: name is Brett Rodgers, you go to your Google machine
Speaker 1: and the first thing you see is all the very
Speaker 1: bloody details of the crime. It does not look like
Speaker 1: a crime just on the very surface from the three
Speaker 1: ten thousand foot view that it is somebody who's of
Speaker 1: right in their right mind at that moment, and so
Speaker 1: just being very frank, that's what that was my first
Speaker 1: instinct when I looked at that. It was across three hours.
Speaker 1: It was using like household kitchen knives that would break
Speaker 1: and then he'd grab another one, and you know, lots
Speaker 1: of defensive wounds. But ultimately the victims, his victims were
Speaker 1: you know, very much under the influence. But it made
Speaker 1: it a very bloody crime as a result because their
Speaker 1: blood was so viscous. It was everywhere. So when you
Speaker 1: read the details, you're just like, this doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: a planned thing. That was a minimum the first instinct,
Speaker 1: and that's kind of and that's how I started into
Speaker 1: that process. I mean, just being honest, like you know,
Speaker 1: I we try to stay unbiased as possible, but that
Speaker 1: was my first thought. And then when you actually look
Speaker 1: at the courtroom, to the trial itself, if you just
Speaker 1: read the transcripts, didn't know any of the context, you
Speaker 1: would one hundred percent believe that this person was also
Speaker 1: of sound mind when they did this. But the more
Speaker 1: that you talk to his dad, the more that we
Speaker 1: talk to everybody who knew him, there there was some
Speaker 1: shades of illnesses that might have been undiagnosed. That's just
Speaker 1: the reality. But how much does that play into it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, yeah, you know, and that's kind of
Speaker 1: still the mystery.
Speaker 3: That's the part I'm most excited to follow along with.
Speaker 3: I think in that is the probably what will be
Speaker 3: I'm assuming an evolving journey around around Brett and your
Speaker 3: maybe your thoughts on him or why he did this,
Speaker 3: you know, like you said, because it's interesting from my
Speaker 3: perspective because more often than not, you know, when I
Speaker 3: pick a case, you know, I start with the family,
Speaker 3: and you know, for the most part, families are going
Speaker 3: to paint the victim and as good of a light
Speaker 3: as possible. You know, some are more forthcoming than others,
Speaker 3: and some don't hold back. But for the most part,
Speaker 3: you're gonna get, you know, a really good image of them.
Speaker 3: And I'm sure it's got to be a totally different
Speaker 3: animal coming from the different side like you all did
Speaker 3: and seeing this, you know, if what you said is true,
Speaker 3: as far as starting with the crime scene, it's probably
Speaker 3: got to be a challenge to see this, like to
Speaker 3: only be able to see this person is probably a
Speaker 3: monster off part, just based off this crime scene and
Speaker 3: what they did.
Speaker 4: And then you know, to slowly peel.
Speaker 3: Back the layers and we realize like, huh, you know,
Speaker 3: there's there's a lot more to his story there that probably.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess I have to imagine that'd be
Speaker 3: a challenge, because I know it is on my end,
Speaker 3: you know, always getting this this good picture of this victim.
Speaker 3: The more you dig, you realize like they're human, just
Speaker 3: like any of us. They've made mistakes along the way.
Speaker 3: You know, who knows, maybe they even have a degree
Speaker 3: of culpability. And so it's like from your angle is
Speaker 3: like total opposite to that, And that's why I'm excited
Speaker 3: to check that out. As far as the first image
Speaker 3: you got of him versus probably your thoughts and your
Speaker 3: image of him now years removed.
Speaker 1: You're our best promoter for this podcast. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no profit.
Speaker 2: One thing I will say is I think that's what
Speaker 2: I love about working at tender Front. I mean, Dennis
Speaker 2: was literally like, do I get to me ed after
Speaker 2: the show? We're like, yes, we are, We're a team here.
Speaker 2: But just the love and the support from one creator
Speaker 2: to the other, and I think that just shows you
Speaker 2: what a wonderful job you guys have done in crafting
Speaker 2: this story. And you mentioned something I want to touch
Speaker 2: on a bit. Has your personal definition of justice changed
Speaker 2: while looking into cases, peeling back the layers and exploring culpability,
Speaker 2: And that's.
Speaker 4: Actually for both of you, I think it has to
Speaker 4: an extent. I mean, at the end of the day,
Speaker 4: it's hard to.
Speaker 3: Not associate justice with resolution closure for victims in these
Speaker 3: cold cases that I look that I look in to investigate.
Speaker 4: I mean, you can't separate the two.
Speaker 3: But what I have learned over time is again there's
Speaker 3: a lot of depths to culpability. There's every case is different,
Speaker 3: every victim is different, and you realize, like getting that
Speaker 3: justice and resolution is a long shot. It's what we
Speaker 3: strive for no matter what, and we'll continue to in
Speaker 3: these cases until they are resolved.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, so.
Speaker 3: Many of these cases need attention, They need a new break,
Speaker 3: a new lead, They need people like us to tell
Speaker 3: those stories. And so for me, while it may not
Speaker 3: be getting justice by definition, I've connected with enough families
Speaker 3: now and worked enough cases to realize that for some
Speaker 3: of them, it still feels like a degree of justice
Speaker 3: just to be able to get that story out there,
Speaker 3: to be able to get a new lead, some new information,
Speaker 3: to be able to bring life back into this investigation
Speaker 3: that set their cold for many years, and so so
Speaker 3: I always can take you know, I think some bit
Speaker 3: of rest in that and knowing that just like some
Speaker 3: progress was made and that these things have been revealed,
Speaker 3: like let's learn from them. You know, maybe you shouldn't
Speaker 3: spend a little longer than forty five minutes on that investigation.
Speaker 4: Maybe you should.
Speaker 3: Have done a little more digging, you know, before ruling
Speaker 3: it a suicide.
Speaker 4: Those types of things.
Speaker 3: Again, I could list them all day, because every case
Speaker 3: is different, and the good things in them and the
Speaker 3: mishaps in them look different with every case. But ultimately,
Speaker 3: I just want there to be some takeaway at the end,
Speaker 3: at the very least of like how can we learn
Speaker 3: and grow from this as a society, as you know,
Speaker 3: law enforcement agency, as the justice system, you name it.
Speaker 1: I definitely agree with you every and yes, absolutely every different.
Speaker 1: I just think that my sense of sense of justice
Speaker 1: has not changed necessarily. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Speaker 1: There are consequences for actions, and we live in certain
Speaker 1: governments and these are these are side consequences for actions.
Speaker 1: But I think it's made me question how are we
Speaker 1: helping people? Are we even helping people is healthy? Does
Speaker 1: helping actually while might be under the guise of helping,
Speaker 1: is it actually hurting? Which is really important because I
Speaker 1: think that there's a lot of people who are part
Speaker 1: of these checks and balances, but they're not part of
Speaker 1: like the how often do we do post mortems on
Speaker 1: autopsies and post mortems right? And how all these agencies
Speaker 1: work together or against some of these people. What's really
Speaker 1: what's interesting about this particular case that happened in England
Speaker 1: for Wisecrack is that they had a separate document called
Speaker 1: the domest to Comma Side Report, and that really, I
Speaker 1: think once we were able to get access to that
Speaker 1: just blew my mind. Which is an impartial, charitable agency
Speaker 1: that does receive government funds to do evaluations on domestic
Speaker 1: violence cases and family cases in particular, and they get
Speaker 1: access to everyone and then they compile that report and
Speaker 1: then they say, here's what we did wrong, here's what
Speaker 1: we did right. Wow, it's interesting spoiler alert. They mostly
Speaker 1: say they did things right, but if you read the report,
Speaker 1: I think you might feel a little bit differently. And
Speaker 1: it's you know, and it's not intended to be critical,
Speaker 1: it's just intended to gather information and follow trends. And
Speaker 1: I just think that that's one piece that we don't
Speaker 1: have in America. And I know that there's lots of people,
Speaker 1: lots of even government agencies that are responsible for that,
Speaker 1: but not in a open published way. You google Brett
Speaker 1: Rodgers Domestic Comma side Report, you will find it. You
Speaker 1: will find one hundred families link. So if you are
Speaker 1: just a concerned citizen who's interested, everyone has access to
Speaker 1: this information, you know. And I don't feel the same way.
Speaker 1: I think over here in America it's a lot harder.
Speaker 1: It's a lot more mercurial. You need the dentists and
Speaker 1: the jodies to bother people until they're like, fine, take
Speaker 1: it right. And I agree with you.
Speaker 2: Looking at that report or the analysis of him, it
Speaker 2: almost allowed you. It allowed you to dive deeper into
Speaker 2: who he was and what he may have been experiencing,
Speaker 2: which made me again go, how was he found legally
Speaker 2: competent stand trial?
Speaker 1: He was being treated with medication that would have been
Speaker 1: treatments for schizophrenia, but never ever received the diagnosis, and
Speaker 1: that even in prison after he had been convicted and
Speaker 1: went to prison for thirty two years, he was also
Speaker 1: still receiving that treatment. They moved him around a different jails,
Speaker 1: but they put him in a prison that was specifically
Speaker 1: designed to help people who very obviously have mental health issues.
Speaker 1: So we all knew what was going on, but we
Speaker 1: never actually said it. It was never written down, it
Speaker 1: was never recorded. And I and listen, I know that
Speaker 1: that's a big stigma as well for someone to accept
Speaker 1: that I have fill in the blank issue. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, I don't know. The more that I
Speaker 1: think about these cases and the things that we're talking about,
Speaker 1: I just think that isn't it just better to be
Speaker 1: transparent and to record the metrics in the same way
Speaker 1: that we know when people turn off our podcasts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: don't you want to actually know where we stand as
Speaker 1: a society? Yeah, and what's you know, who's helping, who's not,
Speaker 1: who's intending to help but is harming. I just think
Speaker 1: that's the data is really important.
Speaker 2: Are there any risk of exploring culpability when storytelling?
Speaker 1: The first thing that comes to my mind is lawsuits.
Speaker 3: Dennis can compuse that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just obviously the highest risk. But even outside
Speaker 1: of those kinds of things, Yeah, Yeah, you don't make
Speaker 1: tons of friends doing what we do. Now, Yeah, someone's
Speaker 1: always going to be mad in some way about how
Speaker 1: their story was represented, regardless even again, like I got
Speaker 1: a woman who sent me a message on Instagram the
Speaker 1: other day who listened to the podcast, and she said,
Speaker 1: I think that Ed and Pete, who was the father
Speaker 1: of a murderer of Brett, are heroes and they're absolutely incredible.
Speaker 1: I was not expecting that feedback, but it was because
Speaker 1: and I think and I think the context that she
Speaker 1: was implying was that because they sought help, the survivor
Speaker 1: sought help and came out on the other side, and
Speaker 1: so But but again, these are all just like I'm
Speaker 1: just constantly surported by the responses in general. But yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of risks because I again, I thought
Speaker 1: it would have gone the other way. I thought it
Speaker 1: would have been finger pointing against X, Y and Z
Speaker 1: and it wasn't. So yeah, I think, but you but yeah,
Speaker 1: I think if you're trying to be like a darling
Speaker 1: in a Sweetheart, this might not be the jump for Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, I really couldn't put it any better than that.
Speaker 3: I mean, just from the start. Yeah, probably probably the
Speaker 3: biggest risk.
Speaker 4: Is on the legal side.
Speaker 3: You know, and that's we've we've learned that that can happen,
Speaker 3: and we've come out on the other side of that
Speaker 3: and in a good way, and you learn from it.
Speaker 4: But even on a small.
Speaker 3: Scale, Yeah, like, at the very least, you are going
Speaker 3: to upset some people doing this, whether it's law enforcement,
Speaker 3: whether it's you know, persons of interest in the case,
Speaker 3: whether it's the victim's family. All those things are are possibilities.
Speaker 3: I've done all of those, you know. I've I've upset
Speaker 3: a mother really badly and then had to you know,
Speaker 3: try to mend that relationship and thankfully was able to.
Speaker 3: I've definitely upset persons of interest, definitely, you know, upset
Speaker 3: law enforcement.
Speaker 4: So those things are just kind of part of it,
Speaker 4: you know.
Speaker 3: I just try to be as as respectful and honest
Speaker 3: as as possible. I'm you know, and just you just
Speaker 3: hope for the best. But but that's just kind of
Speaker 3: the nature of it, because these are very, very sensitive
Speaker 3: and vulnerable topics and stories we're exploring, and and the
Speaker 3: nature of putting the truth out there is like the
Speaker 3: truth is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Speaker 4: But at the end of the day, that's that's what
Speaker 4: we have to put out there is the truth.
Speaker 1: So you just.
Speaker 4: It is what it is.
Speaker 1: Really, Yeah, you just kind of have to take a
Speaker 1: journalist spirit and be tough question Mark.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I do think some people forget that another
Speaker 2: risk could be stigmatizing someone with mental health or stigmatizing
Speaker 2: stigmatizing someone with substances. It's important to know that people
Speaker 2: can be a offender regardless of the background, and they
Speaker 2: could be an offender regardless.
Speaker 1: If they have any of those isms.
Speaker 2: Right, So, I think that you both do a wonderful
Speaker 2: job of peeling back the layers without just saying this
Speaker 2: is why it happened, and we should blame this person.
Speaker 1: In the story.
Speaker 4: So I applaud you both for that. Appreciate that, Thank you,
Speaker 4: thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So listeners often want conclusion beginning, middle end. Jody, you
Speaker 2: have so much experience, and you know production and award
Speaker 2: winning and your your big way out here. How do
Speaker 2: you meet the audience where they are and ensure they're
Speaker 2: getting a full story, even if it's not a clean ending,
Speaker 2: which Dennis knows culpable often isn't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's so, it really is so difficult. You want
Speaker 1: to I want to offer whoever spending the time with
Speaker 1: our storytelling as much of a conclusion that I can offer.
Speaker 1: I mean, in theory, that's what they expect, right, Like,
Speaker 1: there's some sort of expectation and promise from a listener
Speaker 1: to a host or a narrator or whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call it. But I think at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, for at least I can what I can say,
Speaker 1: at least for Wisecrack is that you know, I think
Speaker 1: that Ed's character arc across the episodes, it is very
Speaker 1: much as much of a roller coaster that he's on
Speaker 1: about learning about himself and looking back at his childhood
Speaker 1: and saying, oh, that wasn't at all what I thought
Speaker 1: it was. If you are hopefully invested in him as
Speaker 1: a person, I think you will find a satisfying conclusion.
Speaker 1: But if you are I really just being very frank,
Speaker 1: if you're somebody who is just in it for the
Speaker 1: blood and the gore and wants to get in and
Speaker 1: get out and find out guilty not guilty, this might
Speaker 1: not be the one for you. There is some very
Speaker 1: interesting shades that we explore and hope, and I guess
Speaker 1: my biggest hope is that myself and Charles who wrote
Speaker 1: the podcast. At least you're invested in Ed's transformation using
Speaker 1: the information that we uncover, and that would be then
Speaker 1: hopefully a satisfying conclusion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, back to your question from earlier about you know,
Speaker 3: the definition of justice for us again, like the best
Speaker 3: conclusion for us, for families, for audiences is always going
Speaker 3: to be resolution to the case and the nature of
Speaker 3: what I do. It's like, that's not in any way
Speaker 3: a guarantee. It's just something that you're striving for. Uh,
Speaker 3: And so you know, I always say like the last
Speaker 3: episode has always been the hardest one to write because
Speaker 3: you just that would be the only true ending that
Speaker 3: would like I probably leave you and what you would feel,
Speaker 3: like your audience, how they would feel about it's fully satisfied.
Speaker 4: But that's at the end of the day, a long
Speaker 4: shot that we're striving for.
Speaker 3: Not every story is going to end like you know,
Speaker 3: like the Terrigrin's case and up in Vanish that's not
Speaker 3: It can happen, but it's not a guarantee.
Speaker 4: It's just something that we strive for.
Speaker 3: So that last episode is always so hard to write
Speaker 3: because one you're trying to find the best way to
Speaker 3: put a Bow on this very long, emotional roller coaster
Speaker 3: investigation that you've been on. But you also realize, like
Speaker 3: if you haven't reached that conclusion you're striving for, that
Speaker 3: the story's not technically over with yet, So like you
Speaker 3: also have this feeling of like is this even really
Speaker 3: going to be the end of the series, Like do
Speaker 3: we need to come back and do more, because you
Speaker 3: know we're going to keep exploring this until we get
Speaker 3: that resolution.
Speaker 4: So like, I'm still working on I'm still looking.
Speaker 3: Into cases that I've wrapped up, like season one Christian Dracus,
Speaker 3: season two, Brittany Stikes.
Speaker 4: I'm still following up those families.
Speaker 3: I'm still looking into those when I wrap up season three,
Speaker 3: I got a list of things I want to do
Speaker 3: with those, So you know, I don't even know if
Speaker 3: the end that I.
Speaker 4: Told to those is actually the end of those stories yet.
Speaker 3: So that's all always the hardest one to write, because
Speaker 3: you know, you want to give audiences the best conclusion
Speaker 3: possible and they're going to have their opinions on that,
Speaker 3: but we just got to do the best we can.
Speaker 1: It's hard because you don't go again, the point being
Speaker 1: we're not We're normal people who just like look at
Speaker 1: things and go, well, I kind of have an opinion
Speaker 1: about that, but at the end, But at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I think if we come in with
Speaker 1: the end of the story in mind, we never did
Speaker 1: a real investigation. Absolutely, so it is a real risk
Speaker 1: I think on our part because we spent so much
Speaker 1: time and we're like, oh no, there's no end to
Speaker 1: point whether how do you tell the story?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 1: And I you know, you go to someone and they're like, well,
Speaker 1: there's no end, and I'm like, good point, excellent, excellent work.
Speaker 1: We got to keep working. And so Wise Crack is out. Yes,
Speaker 1: what can listeners expect from this season? Why should they
Speaker 1: tune in? And what's next for you? Well, we've just
Speaker 1: launched I guess I'm not sure when this is coming out,
Speaker 1: but at the beginning of What led the Wey in September,
Speaker 1: so we'll be running through October with new episodes. Very exciting,
Speaker 1: I think the again, I think if you're I kind
Speaker 1: of see this for fans like a true crime one
Speaker 1: oh two. It's not a one oh one because it's
Speaker 1: much more of a character exploration and again we're asking
Speaker 1: the question why, if why is something that you find
Speaker 1: yourself asking a lot. This is the story for you.
Speaker 1: If you've ever been bellied before as a child and
Speaker 1: then had that person come back in your life, this
Speaker 1: is a story for you. I think that if you
Speaker 1: like stand up comedy, obviously this is a story for you.
Speaker 1: Ed's hilarious. But I also think that there's two families
Speaker 1: involved in this story that live right next door to
Speaker 1: each other, had very similar lives, and their children were
Speaker 1: very similar and then went in complete opposite directions. So
Speaker 1: I hope that you know, I think we can all
Speaker 1: look back in our childhood and think of the family
Speaker 1: that we were all friends with, and now you're like,
Speaker 1: where are they, what are they doing? Or what happened
Speaker 1: if something this thing dramatic had happened. So I think
Speaker 1: that those if you're interested in any of those three things,
Speaker 1: I think this would be something that people might enjoy.
Speaker 1: And I hope that they'll listen what's next. I just
Speaker 1: told you I'm taking a nap, and then an app
Speaker 1: is so hard in the car. That's where I'm goness
Speaker 1: And yeah, I don't you know this is a close
Speaker 1: ended story. You mean, we know who the killer is,
Speaker 1: and we did an exploration and obviously of all the
Speaker 1: people involved in the case. But I have a feeling
Speaker 1: based on all the reactions of what we've seen at
Speaker 1: Crime Con, particularly as performance last night, I don't think
Speaker 1: that this is the end, because it's amazing how everybody
Speaker 1: wants to share their own personal stories of trauma. So
Speaker 1: you know, season two, it's probably with amongst the listeners
Speaker 1: is the reality for us, and so I'd certainly encourage
Speaker 1: people to reach out and share their opinions and thoughts,
Speaker 1: and also if you need an event, if you need
Speaker 1: to talk about stuff, we're here for you too, well.
Speaker 2: Culpable yes out.
Speaker 4: What can they expect this season, Yeah, a little bit
Speaker 4: of everything.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: For one, I think you can if you enjoyed season
Speaker 3: one of colpol Christiandiaki, I do think there's some parallels
Speaker 3: to that.
Speaker 4: I think there's some shades of that in this story.
Speaker 4: So I think fans of that season will certainly enjoy
Speaker 4: digging into this with me. It's kind of like a
Speaker 4: meshing of.
Speaker 3: Time frames as far as like you're going to hear
Speaker 3: reporting from ninety eight and you're gonna hear reporting from
Speaker 3: two thousand or twenty twenty four to twenty twenty five,
Speaker 3: you're gonna hear recordings from nineteen ninety eight, and you're
Speaker 3: gonna hear recordings from twenty four and twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: And so it's been a real challenge to work that
Speaker 3: because you know, the cases I worked before, Christian and
Speaker 3: Britney's were nowhere near as old as this. When I
Speaker 3: started following Danny's case, it was a twenty five year
Speaker 3: old cold case. We're coming up on in October twenty seven,
Speaker 3: it'll be twenty seven years. So it's been it's been
Speaker 3: an interesting one, in a challenging one because you learn
Speaker 3: that with time. You know, obviously the case changes hands
Speaker 3: several times, people pass away, people move on people. One
Speaker 3: thing I've really learned in this season, this will come
Speaker 3: up throughout it is like how it challenging to think,
Speaker 3: like how well can you trust people's memory that much longer,
Speaker 3: especially when you can hear what they said in nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety eight versus what they're saying now, And it'll really
Speaker 3: kind of make you think.
Speaker 4: And I think you'll be on your toes to the end.
Speaker 3: I think you'll again, like I've always wanted to lean
Speaker 3: into that, I don't I want it to feel like
Speaker 3: there's a lot of possibilities there because genuinely there are,
Speaker 3: and I think you're going to feel that with this
Speaker 3: case as far as not knowing, you know, was was
Speaker 3: he killed or or did someone murder him as as
Speaker 3: a homicide or did some other accident happen? How did
Speaker 3: he end up in that field? You know, did somebody
Speaker 3: put him there or or is that where the crime happened.
Speaker 3: And then as far or as who's responsible, I think
Speaker 3: you're going to have all sorts of thoughts on who
Speaker 3: may have played a role in this in some way
Speaker 3: or who may have more information.
Speaker 4: So I think you'll be on your toes at the end.
Speaker 4: I know I have been.
Speaker 3: It's actively releasing right now, and like I said, I'm
Speaker 3: still digging into it and I'm still working on the
Speaker 3: story as it's unfolding in kind of real time. So
Speaker 3: you know, if you're into that, then then you'll enjoy
Speaker 3: this too, because it's about is about as a live investigative,
Speaker 3: you know, in real time as you can be with
Speaker 3: this type of with this type of work we do
Speaker 3: so cool and.
Speaker 2: Then well, I applaud you both for the work that
Speaker 2: you do, diving deep into stories, looking into culpability, looking
Speaker 2: deeper than what's on the surface. So congratulations to your
Speaker 2: success and I can't wait to see and hear what's next.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Thanks Jamie,