Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3: My name is Matt, my name is Nola. They call
Speaker 3: me Ben.
Speaker 4: We're joined as always with our super producer Alexis codenamed
Speaker 4: Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly, you are here. That makes
Speaker 4: this the stuff they don't want you to know. It
Speaker 4: is the top of the week Monday. If you're hearing
Speaker 4: this evening comes out, which means it's time for some
Speaker 4: strange news quick things at the top. A school board
Speaker 4: of Florida banned a book about book bands hell in
Speaker 4: their library.
Speaker 3: That's pretty meta right there.
Speaker 4: It's love to be an escape room with those guys.
Speaker 3: And no man nightmares probably.
Speaker 4: And before we get to our main stories, maybe we
Speaker 4: can kick it off with some good news. FBI statistics
Speaker 4: have proven that here in the United States, violent crime
Speaker 4: is down significantly and the US murder rate is plummeting.
Speaker 4: So millennials killed the diamond market, I guess right, and
Speaker 4: now they're killing crime. So khudn't say yeah, Yay, who
Speaker 4: could afford a crime in this economy?
Speaker 3: Are you kidding? Not me?
Speaker 4: So say we all. We may talk a little bit
Speaker 4: about the recent conviction of Hunter Biden, but we are
Speaker 4: definitely going to give you some updates on Baby Reindeer,
Speaker 4: some unfortunate paramilitary news, got some neat legos stories. We
Speaker 4: got a lot of stuff to get to.
Speaker 2: One last thing. As we are recording this today on
Speaker 2: June twelfth, you are hearing it on June seventeenth. From
Speaker 2: the day we record until the day you hear this,
Speaker 2: there are four large Russian vessels parked just hanging out
Speaker 2: in Cuba, in Havana. Yeah, and it's fine, Everything's fine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but if you look at those four vessels, they're
Speaker 4: not I mean, I don't think the US Navy is worried.
Speaker 2: No, but it's definitely a little Hey, remember that we
Speaker 2: can kind of hang out down here, just just below Florida.
Speaker 4: He can reach out and touch each other or easily
Speaker 4: now than at any point in history. Breaking news, fellow
Speaker 4: conspiracy realist, our first story.
Speaker 3: Of this evening.
Speaker 4: There is a man who is set to be executed
Speaker 4: in Missouri on September twenty fourth. His name is Marcellus Williams.
Speaker 4: This was a decision of the Missouri Supreme Court, and
Speaker 4: it's a decision that the prosecutor does not agree with.
Speaker 4: Let's go to AP News article. Execution date set for
Speaker 4: Missouri inmate even as he waits hearing on a claim
Speaker 4: of his actual innocence. So Marcellus Williams, not Wallace as
Speaker 4: fifty five. He was convicted of firstgree murder in the
Speaker 4: nineteen ninety eight death of Lesia Gale during a robbery
Speaker 4: at her home in suburban Saint Louis, and his story
Speaker 4: has been quite a journey because in twenty seventeen he
Speaker 4: was almost executed for this crime until the governor at
Speaker 4: the time halted the process demanded an investigation. And this
Speaker 4: demand for an investigation was based on the fact that
Speaker 4: DNA forensic technology wasn't available at the time of this
Speaker 4: guy's arrest, trial and conviction, and the new DNA investigation
Speaker 4: found DNA on the knife used to stab this person,
Speaker 4: this victim. The DNA does not match Williams, it matches
Speaker 4: someone else. Add to this eyewitness testimony that appears to
Speaker 4: confirm he was hours away from the location where the
Speaker 4: crime occurred. The prosecutors said that they have clear and
Speaker 4: convincing evidence that Marcellus Williams is innocent. This is the
Speaker 4: prosecution saying this. They moved to vacate the conviction, and
Speaker 4: I think, as we all know, it's fairly rare for
Speaker 4: prosecution to go back and vacate this kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, But what we're looking at here is absolutely
Speaker 2: reasonable doubt. And if it was presented in a courtroom
Speaker 2: that the DNA on the weapon used to cause death
Speaker 2: was not the DNA of the person who is now
Speaker 2: in prison awaiting death himself, I feel like the whole
Speaker 2: thing would be over. But it is weird. It's almost
Speaker 2: like we've already made this decision, so we're just going
Speaker 2: to keep.
Speaker 4: It like this right exactly. And we also, to be
Speaker 4: completely fair, we have to say finding different DNA on
Speaker 4: the murder weapon could just be as simple as someone
Speaker 4: touched it at some point, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4: But it doesn't. While it doesn't absolutely prove his innocence,
Speaker 4: it does go to reasonable doubt, which is one of
Speaker 4: the big problems with the US death penalty policies well.
Speaker 3: And it's also a big problem just about the slow
Speaker 3: grinding of the gears of justice and the bureaucracy of
Speaker 3: it all, and just the kind of procedural nature. It's like,
Speaker 3: once things are sort of set in motion, it takes
Speaker 3: a whole lot to reverse things or to even get
Speaker 3: things to kind of pause, right. I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 3: it just seems like they're basically saying, nah, now we're
Speaker 3: already moving forward based on the original information, and it's
Speaker 3: too you know, I don't know, like it's too difficult.
Speaker 3: There isn't there are enough processes in place to allow
Speaker 3: for this kind of thing. Maybe, I don't know. It
Speaker 3: seems like the kind of conversations we were having with
Speaker 3: Lava for Good on that panel just about how there
Speaker 3: are just so many cracks that these kinds of things
Speaker 3: can fall through in the wake of like this.
Speaker 4: You know, machine and the Innocence Project is one of
Speaker 4: the best sources for breaking news and backstory in context
Speaker 4: on this case, So shout out to shout out to
Speaker 4: our pal Jason flam as well as the rest of
Speaker 4: the Lava for Good crew or community. I also want
Speaker 4: to amend an earlier statement. Williams had almost been executed
Speaker 4: twice on two separate occasions. His execution was suspended or
Speaker 4: halted is the language they use. And it is true
Speaker 4: that if this were in a court, the decision of
Speaker 4: the court may well have been very different. No court
Speaker 4: has officially reviewed this DNA evidence. And there was also
Speaker 4: you know, there are also claims from a jailhouse informant,
Speaker 4: an ex girlfriend who likes it's dirty. There was also
Speaker 4: get this, no physical evidence ever presented that linked Williams
Speaker 4: to the crime. And even after the prosecution agreed with
Speaker 4: all of this and said, yes, let's vacate this conviction,
Speaker 4: let's take back the conclusion, even after that, the Supreme Court,
Speaker 4: the State Supreme Court said no, we are executing this
Speaker 4: man in September. The decision has been made. So we're
Speaker 4: working with live a live situation here. I'd like to
Speaker 4: shout out one thing before we move on. If you
Speaker 4: go to the Innocence Project and just search for Marcellus
Speaker 4: Williams that's m A R C L l us, then
Speaker 4: you will see a petition that I think is you know,
Speaker 4: we don't ever tell people what to do, but if
Speaker 4: this kind of stuff concerns you, I think this is
Speaker 4: a good cause to support, a good petition to sign,
Speaker 4: even if you don't live in Missouri.
Speaker 3: And the uh, the mechanism that you're referring to, ben
Speaker 3: was a result of a twenty twenty one Missouri law
Speaker 3: that created the opportunity for attorneys to file this motion
Speaker 3: to vacate a conviction after the fact. But it does
Speaker 3: seem that it's not as simple as that, right, Like
Speaker 3: I mean, once someone has been convicted, we know how
Speaker 3: difficult it can be to reverse that, you know, once
Speaker 3: everything the chips have kind of fallen, right.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. You can again, you can see this
Speaker 4: on the Innocent Innocenceproject dot org. You can check out
Speaker 4: writing about this. There was a great article from Salon
Speaker 4: that came out just about twenty three hours ago that
Speaker 4: talks about some of the back and forth stuff here
Speaker 4: and the fact that this board we're mentioning was established
Speaker 4: nearly six years ago, and it's a it's not a
Speaker 4: grand scheme, it's a noble ambition, and they're trying to
Speaker 4: do the right thing. But there are only five people
Speaker 4: on the board, and once someone makes this decision, this decision, unfortunately,
Speaker 4: it's not, as you said, it's a matter of snapping
Speaker 4: one's bureaucratic fingers. It has to go to other places
Speaker 4: for approval, And I'd love your opinions, guys, I'd love
Speaker 4: the opinions of all of us listening along at home.
Speaker 4: What gives? How could these different stakeholders in the illegal
Speaker 4: process that are supposed to be on the same side,
Speaker 4: How could they seem so contradictory?
Speaker 2: Well, it's weird because governor ultimately gets to say, right, yes,
Speaker 2: what happens?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't have answers for you. I was just looking
Speaker 2: at the case, Ben, I'm sorry, I don't have an
Speaker 2: answer to that question specifically, but I was looking at
Speaker 2: the case and just saw that the victim was stabbed
Speaker 2: forty three times with a nice yeah, which leaves some
Speaker 2: traces well yeah, presoom, yeah. But it also speaks to
Speaker 2: a pretty passionate crime, somebody who stabbed someone over and
Speaker 2: over and over over to that extent. I don't know.
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like someone who breaks in through a
Speaker 2: window the way the prosecutors alleged Marcellus. Did you know
Speaker 2: Waited stabbed this person forty three times and then took
Speaker 2: her personal laptop.
Speaker 3: It seems like a cover story that doesn't even line
Speaker 3: up particularly Well, you're right, Matt, It's absolutely the indication
Speaker 3: of a crime of passion. If someone was trying to
Speaker 3: get in and out. First of all, you're not going
Speaker 3: to murder somebody. Nine times out of ten. You might
Speaker 3: knock them out and capacitate them. If you were going
Speaker 3: to kill, it would not necessarily be your intent. You might,
Speaker 3: you know, stab them once just to put them down
Speaker 3: and then escape. But that level of ferocity or not, Yeah,
Speaker 3: the hallmark of of breaking an entering job.
Speaker 2: It just makes you want to learn more about the
Speaker 2: case and what evidence the Innocence Project you know, has
Speaker 2: basically right, because I'd want to look at it with
Speaker 2: fresh eyes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and again, I do think Innocenceproject dot org is
Speaker 4: objectively the best source to get, at your fingertips all
Speaker 4: the relevant information that the public knows so far. I mean,
Speaker 4: they even get into some of the problematic testimony that
Speaker 4: was the real deciding factor for William's convictions. One this
Speaker 4: prison informant that we mentioned here his name, we'll just
Speaker 4: call him mister Cole. He apparently refused to participate as
Speaker 4: a witness in the murder case until he was promised
Speaker 4: that he would be paid for doing so. He would
Speaker 4: not have come forward of prosecution if the prosecution had
Speaker 4: not given him five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and he was a cell maate right with
Speaker 2: Marc mat Yes, So like that, we've seen that situation
Speaker 2: before where if you've got something to gain, you'll quote
Speaker 2: give up information on your celly if you know, even
Speaker 2: if it's not true, if it helps a prosecutor somewhere, Well,
Speaker 2: what do you have to lose?
Speaker 3: All you have to do is you know a little
Speaker 3: bit of cushy, you know, funds for your time where
Speaker 3: you're kind of stuck, and if it comes around that
Speaker 3: you were lying or mistaken. I mean, depending on the
Speaker 3: severity of the crime that you're being incarcerated for, you
Speaker 3: might not have very much to lose at all. It
Speaker 3: just seems like that should be inadmissible. Just the nature
Speaker 3: of paying for that kind of stuff. It just doesn't
Speaker 3: seem right.
Speaker 4: And one thing I would add, or I wanted to
Speaker 4: add there in the conversation is that we also know
Speaker 4: that if someone is already in these dire circumstances, they
Speaker 4: will help law enforcement clear cases or help things look
Speaker 4: right in exchange for things that you might think are
Speaker 4: very small on the outside, you know, like Henry Lee
Speaker 4: Lucas probably didn't kill all those people, right, he was
Speaker 4: agreeing to say that he did that for better living
Speaker 4: circumstances in prison, for literally better snacks.
Speaker 3: Part of a plea deal, right, more or less? I mean,
Speaker 3: you can you make I mean, maybe that's not exactly
Speaker 3: what that is, but it could be a situation where
Speaker 3: as the result of a plea deal, you're agreeing to
Speaker 3: admit to certain things you know.
Speaker 2: Right well, or he's just in prison already he knows
Speaker 2: he's not going anywhere.
Speaker 3: That's right, Yeah, that's my previous thing. But are there
Speaker 3: not situations though, where as the result of a deal
Speaker 3: with prosecutors you might admit to more than you actually did.
Speaker 4: It could definitely happen because people who are in that
Speaker 4: position are heavily incentivized to pursue a plea, to the
Speaker 4: point where the implication that a lot of people genuinely
Speaker 4: believe is that if they move forward with a jury trial,
Speaker 4: there will be a retribution. If convicted, their sentence will
Speaker 4: be tougher, because otherwise, what's the value of a plea deal.
Speaker 3: You should have taken it while you have the chance
Speaker 3: kind of attitude, right. Unfortunately, that shouldn't be either that
Speaker 3: level of adversarial prosecution. That just doesn't seem to be
Speaker 3: the nature of how justice should work. It shouldn't be
Speaker 3: based on these kind of whims. You know, I thought
Speaker 3: it was supposed to be about finding the truth, but
Speaker 3: we all know that that's not really case.
Speaker 4: That's why I'm a huge supporter of the Innocence Project.
Speaker 4: I wanted to also say that in addition to being
Speaker 4: heavily incentivized toward a plea bargain with the threat of
Speaker 4: punitive sentencing, which unfortunately we do know happens, we also
Speaker 4: saw that there was a curation of cherry picking even
Speaker 4: of what parts of the witness testimony were supposed to
Speaker 4: be treated as fact, even though the testimony was significantly
Speaker 4: different did not match the evidence of the crime scene.
Speaker 4: One example would be the ex girlfriend a Sorrow testified
Speaker 4: that her former boyfriend had scratch marks on him. But
Speaker 4: there's no foreign DNA president underneath the murder victim's fingernails.
Speaker 4: The only evidence really connecting Williams is the testimony of
Speaker 4: these two people, which has been called into deep, deep question.
Speaker 4: And if you look at if you look at the
Speaker 4: larger context here, which is I just cannot recommend this
Speaker 4: source enough. If you look at the larger context here,
Speaker 4: you go to places like the National Registry of Exonerations,
Speaker 4: which says the following incentivized witness testimony help us and
Speaker 4: we'll help you. Kind of stuff has contributed to fourteen
Speaker 4: percent of death penalty cases that later led to DNA exoneration,
Speaker 4: some perhaps posthumously. So lives are literally on the line.
Speaker 3: It's really tough.
Speaker 4: It's a tough one. And it also leads us to
Speaker 4: another conversation that we've touched on a bit here in
Speaker 4: past episodes or past listener mail programs. Should the death
Speaker 4: penalty be around? Knowing that law enforcement, for a myriad
Speaker 4: number of reasons, often gets things wrong, should state still
Speaker 4: have the death penalty?
Speaker 3: It feels like a no from me. Yeah, it just
Speaker 3: doesn't feel like it should. We've seen so many cases
Speaker 3: where things have gone wrong. It just doesn't seem like
Speaker 3: it should be a thing. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I might not have the same level of certitude with this,
Speaker 4: because I do think there are some crimes that should
Speaker 4: be punishable by death, such as, you know, treason, or
Speaker 4: there are certain certain activities that simply cannot be justified
Speaker 4: in any way. But but yeah, The question is how
Speaker 4: many innocent people is this civilization okay with murdering?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 4: And what will happen to mister Williams who has already
Speaker 4: spent quite some time in incarceration, quite possibly for crime
Speaker 4: that he did not commit. If you want to learn
Speaker 4: more about stuff like this, check out wrongful Conviction. That
Speaker 4: is a shore buddy Jason does. Check out also the
Speaker 4: War on drugs. That's it. That's another one. And shout
Speaker 4: out to our fellow hometown native Clayton English, who is
Speaker 4: just on a lighter note. The guy's just hilarious. He's
Speaker 4: so sharp. And guys, I'm gonna keep it short here.
Speaker 4: I know we've got some adventures to get to. But folks,
Speaker 4: please write in Conspiracy iHeartRadio dot com. Let us know
Speaker 4: your thoughts on the justice system, your thoughts on the
Speaker 4: death penalty. We want to know what you think is
Speaker 4: the right answer or something more people need to think about. Please, please, please,
Speaker 4: if you get a chance, check out the information about
Speaker 4: mister Williams. You can find it on the news. You
Speaker 4: can find it Innocensproject dot org. If you feel so inclined,
Speaker 4: consider signing the petition and also give us your thoughts
Speaker 4: on the case. We're gonna pause for word from our sponsors.
Speaker 4: We'll be back with more strange news.
Speaker 3: And we're back with a couple of pieces of strange news.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna keep this first one quick, Ben, you alluded
Speaker 3: to some updates in the baby Reindeer controversy. Richard Gadd's
Speaker 3: hit Netflix series about Well based on We Now seems
Speaker 3: to be a little more accurate. But as they claim
Speaker 3: a true story about Richard Gadd himself, who plays a
Speaker 3: character that is based on his exact experiences, who is
Speaker 3: relentlessly stalked by an individual who is depicted in the show,
Speaker 3: who was later revealed through some Internet sloo thing to
Speaker 3: be a woman named Fiona Harvey, who came out and
Speaker 3: did an interview with Pierce Morgan. And we talked about
Speaker 3: this previously, Pierce Morgan having some problematic bits of his reputation,
Speaker 3: possibly not the greatest person in the world. But I
Speaker 3: will say that the interview she did was very telling
Speaker 3: and very interesting in and of itself. She is now
Speaker 3: suing Netflix, not Richard Gadd himself, which I think is
Speaker 3: interesting maybe a little telling as well. For one hundred
Speaker 3: and thirty three million pounds alleging that the tagline this
Speaker 3: is a true story defamed her, and the suit alleges defamation,
Speaker 3: intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and violations
Speaker 3: of her right to privacy. Speaking of Morgan again, an
Speaker 3: additional interview has now come out with a woman who
Speaker 3: is telling her story again think what she will about
Speaker 3: Pierce Morgan. It is a platform for this woman to
Speaker 3: tell her story about being relentlessly stalked by Fiona Harvey
Speaker 3: in the past, and that instance, she was the wife
Speaker 3: of a member of Parliament and Fiona Harvey was getting
Speaker 3: start to her like legal career, and this woman hired
Speaker 3: her as part of her firm and alleges that she
Speaker 3: was wildly inappropriate, making sexual comments to members of staff,
Speaker 3: just making people very uncomfortable. And then when she was
Speaker 3: let go, relentlessly stalking her and accusing her of abusing
Speaker 3: her child who has a disability, leaving dozens and dozens
Speaker 3: of voicemail messages or at the time I guess it
Speaker 3: was more answering machine messages. All behavior that lines up
Speaker 3: exactly with the kind of behavior that's depicted in the
Speaker 3: series on Netflix. The big issue, though, remains and Morgan
Speaker 3: brings this up to this woman whose name is Laura Ray.
Speaker 3: She is also a lawyer, a currently practicing lawyer. She
Speaker 3: agrees with Piers Morgan's assessment that Netflix did not do
Speaker 3: a good enough job of veiling Fiona's identity, therefore her
Speaker 3: own identity, because now she's kind of caught up in
Speaker 3: this because they do depict the stalking case that is
Speaker 3: being described by Ray on the Piers Morgan Show. And
Speaker 3: she thinks that while all of this stuff is true,
Speaker 3: she says, the fact that they are alleging that this
Speaker 3: woman was convicted twice, not only of the case involving Ray,
Speaker 3: but also of the case involving God that's depicted in
Speaker 3: the series, it does seem like that aspects more some
Speaker 3: creative license to give some kind of dramatic catharsis I guess,
Speaker 3: you know, to the show, but potentially problematic if you're
Speaker 3: accusing someone of something that did not happen at all,
Speaker 3: you know, of being a convicted felon. So I don't know,
Speaker 3: we'll see.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's interesting. Brings up in my opinion, I'm sure
Speaker 4: not the only entity thinking this. It brings up the
Speaker 4: other question of the line between fiction and fact, right, Like,
Speaker 4: if you take something and say this is a work
Speaker 4: of fiction based on or inspired by a true story,
Speaker 4: to what degree are you responsible for anything that might
Speaker 4: be seen as as aspersion upon a real world character
Speaker 4: or entity like that. Maybe that's one of the reasons
Speaker 4: why the creator was so adamant that different people not
Speaker 4: be identified from the story. Perhaps it was aware of
Speaker 4: the risk and knew that he had embellished or at
Speaker 4: least the accusations maybe were true.
Speaker 3: Oh for sure. But the thing that's so interesting is,
Speaker 3: you know it does. There's lots of stories that have
Speaker 3: come out indicating that this. You know, Fiona Harvey has
Speaker 3: this history of this kind of behavior, this stalker kind
Speaker 3: of mentality, and if you watch the interview with Piers Morgan,
Speaker 3: she does have this sort of air of sociopathy about
Speaker 3: her and the way she sort of responds to questions
Speaker 3: and sort of does a lot of walking things back,
Speaker 3: and just the sense that she's sort of kind of
Speaker 3: creating things on the fly and that maybe she's living
Speaker 3: in her own kind of psychic bubble where she believes
Speaker 3: the things that the stories that she's spun, or the
Speaker 3: justification that she's created internally about this type of stuff
Speaker 3: and she's reacting and responding to that rather than the
Speaker 3: facts or the way other people see her action.
Speaker 4: Then you know, perhaps also the law. Yeah, this is
Speaker 4: all true. And again, you know, we are not experts
Speaker 4: in UK defamation law thankfully we haven't been in that
Speaker 4: situation yet, but it does have this strong, I think,
Speaker 4: possibility to set a precedent for creators. And again, you know,
Speaker 4: Baby Reindeer or what became Baby Reindeer on Netflix is
Speaker 4: an adaptation of a one person play from a fringe
Speaker 4: festival in Edinburgh, so he'd been doing this story or
Speaker 4: some version of it for quite some time. In fact,
Speaker 4: we could say it's just the massive amount of attention
Speaker 4: and popularity garnered from Netflix that led to you know,
Speaker 4: people doxing this person and hunting down the real identity
Speaker 4: and then all the ensuing legal problems. But definitely still
Speaker 4: a developing case. How do you think it's going to go?
Speaker 3: I don't know, I mean to your point, but it
Speaker 3: does feel like a little bit of a precedent center
Speaker 3: in terms of like the how important is it to
Speaker 3: say based on a true story versus this is a
Speaker 3: true story. You know, God has come out and said,
Speaker 3: if I wanted it to be completely the real story,
Speaker 3: I would have made it a documentary, which is a
Speaker 3: very somewhat telling thing to say as well, which is true.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, what are the laws. I don't
Speaker 3: Maybe I don't know. I've certainly gotten releases every time
Speaker 3: I've done like an audio true crime story for the participants.
Speaker 3: But you know, you do have to get legal counsel
Speaker 3: as far as accusations that you're making about people that
Speaker 3: didn't participate in the documentary. But like, if it's a
Speaker 3: documentary and you're citing news sources and you're citing things
Speaker 3: that interview subjects and people that participated in the real story, say,
Speaker 3: I think you're covered, you know, But then it does
Speaker 3: become a little different when it's a private citizen versus
Speaker 3: a you know, person of note or a public figure.
Speaker 3: You know all of that stuff and been to your point,
Speaker 3: I'm no expert either, but I do know that defamation
Speaker 3: law in the UK is a little, let's say looser
Speaker 3: in America the United States, it is a lot more
Speaker 3: difficult to sue somebody for defamation to prove actual malice
Speaker 3: I think might be the term. But I know you
Speaker 3: both have been involved in lots of audio documentaries as well.
Speaker 3: Can you speak a little bit from y'all's perspective on
Speaker 3: the difference between a fictionalized account of something and a
Speaker 3: quote unquote documentary.
Speaker 4: Speaking just from one perspective, I would say one thing
Speaker 4: I like about the work of our colleagues is it
Speaker 4: rarely gets to a situation like the what we're describing
Speaker 4: with Baby Reindeer, Because I like to think that all
Speaker 4: of our cohort practices ethical act like what I would
Speaker 4: just call good audio hygiene, and we're pretty ethical with
Speaker 4: does this person want to be on record? Do they
Speaker 4: want to be anonymous?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: Are they As far as recreations or even something like
Speaker 4: the use of AI, I think it's incredibly clear to
Speaker 4: be transparent about when that is occurring so that you're
Speaker 4: not quote unquote tricking or worse, misleading the audience that
Speaker 4: has trusted you with their time and attention. I mean
Speaker 4: that's we I think we're always pretty pretty open on
Speaker 4: the shows we hear when we say, like, this is
Speaker 4: a recreation, this is not actually recording of you know,
Speaker 4: of people at a traffic jam playing a curse song
Speaker 4: from Hungry d resulting in mass suicide in the end
Speaker 4: of the world.
Speaker 3: I would just say that she doesn't seem I mean,
Speaker 3: based on what I know, my you know, meager experience,
Speaker 3: that she doesn't have a case outside of this accusation
Speaker 3: of actual conviction and incarceration. Not only once did they
Speaker 3: say this happened, but twice and the and the one
Speaker 3: that happens spoiler alert in the show at the end
Speaker 3: is very clearly meant to be this sort of like
Speaker 3: narrative Catharsis. And you know, if you're writing something, even
Speaker 3: if it is quote unquote a true story, you know,
Speaker 3: it's still got to be it's got to hit the
Speaker 3: beats man. You know, it's got to like have like
Speaker 3: a beginning, middle, and end. And sometimes true stories aren't
Speaker 3: like that. You know, they're messy and they don't have
Speaker 3: some sort of neatly tied up resolution. So I would
Speaker 3: argue that those bits were fabricated quote unquote, but a
Speaker 3: TV series with a script and with actors I don't know, Matt,
Speaker 3: your eyes are lightening up.
Speaker 4: Oh, and assumably hopefully a legal department.
Speaker 3: Well, it does seem like the Netflix is legal department
Speaker 3: definitely pooped the bed a little bit on this one.
Speaker 3: I would argue because they didn't didn't cover anybody's identity
Speaker 3: up enough for the Internet to not be able to
Speaker 3: figure it out really quickly. They could have cast them
Speaker 3: one that looked different. They could have changed the setting,
Speaker 3: they could have changed the locations that things took place.
Speaker 3: But they were all and even used verbatim tweets that
Speaker 3: still exist on the Internet. I believe was was part
Speaker 3: of how this woman was tracked down Fiona Harvey. But Matt,
Speaker 3: what are your thoughts on this? We can move on
Speaker 3: real quick.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I get I guess there is your case. Like
Speaker 2: probably the actual tweets, the actual locations.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, if you wanted it to not be you,
Speaker 2: you say no, that's not me. You don't go on
Speaker 2: Piers Morgan and talk about how it's you. And for me,
Speaker 2: that's the strongest thing. That just indicates, you know whatever,
Speaker 2: this isn't legal. This is my opinion. I think it
Speaker 2: indicates an opportunity for her now to cash in on
Speaker 2: something that's probably really hard to go through right now.
Speaker 2: It's probably horrible, But at the same time, she didn't
Speaker 2: have to ever raise her hand. She could have just
Speaker 2: said nope.
Speaker 3: Could be.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's the question too. Is it a guilty dog
Speaker 4: barks situation for some people? But we haven't met this person.
Speaker 4: We don't know what their full motives are. I think
Speaker 4: it is. You know, it is important to note that
Speaker 4: now more than ever, they're very much as a court
Speaker 4: of public opinion, regardless of the legal system in your
Speaker 4: neck of the Global woods. So this kind of stuff
Speaker 4: could ruin your life. I mean, let's not forget that.
Speaker 4: People who play villains it works of clear fiction, like
Speaker 4: the kids in Harry Potter or one poor brilliant young
Speaker 4: man in Game of Thrones who played a real asshole
Speaker 4: came acting, Yeah, quit acting because people would come up
Speaker 4: to him and say or do terrible things.
Speaker 3: The guy that plays one of the big bads in
Speaker 3: the New Furiosa movie had to come out on the
Speaker 3: internet and say, hey, y'all, just a reminder, this is
Speaker 3: a fictional character. The horrible things that I do we
Speaker 3: depicted in this film were based on the instructions of
Speaker 3: a director and the script. I'm actually not a whatever.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen the film yet, but apparently he does
Speaker 3: some real gnarly stuff to a young Furiosa. And that's
Speaker 3: got picture of me arms next to the other act.
Speaker 4: We're cool, she's also not really furiosa. Just gonna blow
Speaker 4: some minds with.
Speaker 3: That, and not to tuck down to anybody. I think
Speaker 3: for the most part, people understand these things, but a
Speaker 3: lot of people some people don't. And I just want
Speaker 3: to add, you know, the last thing on this one
Speaker 3: that it is kind of a it's not kind of.
Speaker 3: It's a total bummer that the conversation around this series
Speaker 3: has really shifted to this. And I do get the
Speaker 3: sense of this Fiona Harvey, especially based on the interview
Speaker 3: with this other woman who is very versed in the
Speaker 3: law and knows exactly what she's saying and is not
Speaker 3: going to be seen as defamation. She says some pretty
Speaker 3: gnarly stuff that this woman very clearly did, and it's
Speaker 3: very much in line with what's de pict in the show.
Speaker 3: So I do give the sense to this Fiona Harvey
Speaker 3: as a troubled individual. And it's a bummer that the
Speaker 3: conversation has shifted away from the contents of the show,
Speaker 3: which I think is a very important story about a
Speaker 3: man being sexually abused, about a man being stalked, and
Speaker 3: you know, this is sort of the gender reversals of
Speaker 3: this I think very interesting, and there are men out
Speaker 3: there that are victims in this way that don't I'm
Speaker 3: not being I'm like men's rights activists, see, I'm just
Speaker 3: saying it's an interesting reversal of the story that I
Speaker 3: think is of value. The fact that it's all being
Speaker 3: called in a question, I think sort of you know,
Speaker 3: cuts into that a little bit, you know, of the
Speaker 3: of the social value of what the show represents. So
Speaker 3: this moment a little longer than I thought. I will
Speaker 3: just bring up this other story that I brought that
Speaker 3: I that I found and maybe this is something for
Speaker 3: another time to go into a little more depth on.
Speaker 3: But have you guys heard about the uh, you know,
Speaker 3: Elon Musk had this whole Starlink project to bring the
Speaker 3: Internet to the Amazon. And now there's a fantastic article
Speaker 3: from the New York Times by Jack Nikas about the
Speaker 3: Marubo people who are an isolated community living very deep
Speaker 3: in the Amazon rainforest, with their very own language, their
Speaker 3: very own rituals, their very own you know, culture and
Speaker 3: connection to the forest and all the kinds of things
Speaker 3: that you think would come along with being an isolated
Speaker 3: community and the fact that these are still around and exist.
Speaker 3: I think is very good. I don't know, maybe it's
Speaker 3: either good nor bad. Its given all of the saturation
Speaker 3: of pop culture and internet addiction and all this stuff.
Speaker 3: I like to think that somewhere out there there's somebody
Speaker 3: that is either immune or just unaware of all of
Speaker 3: those trappings. And the story headline or the title of
Speaker 3: the story on the New York Times is the Internet's
Speaker 3: final frontier, Remote Amazon tribes. Elon Musk's starlink has connected
Speaker 3: an isolated tribe to the outside world and divided it
Speaker 3: from within. So essentially what's happened is this Marubo tribe
Speaker 3: has received internets and smart devices and it's caused all
Speaker 3: kinds of problems in their way of life. Surprise, surprise,
Speaker 3: teenagers just want to be on their phones, you know,
Speaker 3: just like everywhere else, and they're lazy, and they are
Speaker 3: no longer participating or seeming to care as much about
Speaker 3: the traditions of this tribe and this culture. One could
Speaker 3: also argue that they're positives where they can get connection
Speaker 3: with the outside world, perhaps get medical attention quicker when
Speaker 3: they're so far away from any hospitals, and you know,
Speaker 3: there are obviously positive things that can be you know,
Speaker 3: gained from having access to the Internet. But you know,
Speaker 3: the article, which is super in depth, way too deep
Speaker 3: to go into here, talks about the good and the
Speaker 3: bad and the thing that I want to just mention,
Speaker 3: just to keep maybe this one almost a little shorter.
Speaker 3: And by way of an update, is that a lot
Speaker 3: of the reporting, the kind of lazy news aggregation around
Speaker 3: this mega in depth piece or this guy height fifty
Speaker 3: miles into the deep Amazon and spent time with these people,
Speaker 3: or one comment that he made about one of the
Speaker 3: young people posting some sort of sexually explicit material on
Speaker 3: a WhatsApp thread that other young people were participating in.
Speaker 3: And from that, the reporting on places like the New
Speaker 3: York Post, even the Economic Times, are really making this
Speaker 3: about horn addiction. It got so out of control that
Speaker 3: the writer of the article, Jack Nicas, had to post
Speaker 3: a follow up piece, No, a remote Amazon tribe did
Speaker 3: not get addicted to porn. A time story about the
Speaker 3: arrival of high speed internet and a remote Amazon tribe
Speaker 3: spiraled into its own cautionary tale on the dark side
Speaker 3: of the web. And I'm just gonna quote this here.
Speaker 3: During a week long visit I saw how they used
Speaker 3: the internet to communicate between villages, chat with faraway loved ones,
Speaker 3: and call for help in emergencies. Many in Marubo also
Speaker 3: told me they were deeply concerned that the connection with
Speaker 3: the outside world would up end their culture, which they
Speaker 3: had preserved for generations by living deep in the forest.
Speaker 3: Some elders complained of teenagers glued to phones, group chats
Speaker 3: full of gossip, and miners who watch pornography as a result.
Speaker 3: The story we published June second was in part about
Speaker 3: the Marubos people's introduction to the ills of the Internet,
Speaker 3: but after publication, that angle took on a whole different dimension.
Speaker 3: Over the past week, more than one hundred websites around
Speaker 3: the world have published headlines that falsely claim the Marubo
Speaker 3: have become addicted to porn. Alongside these headlines, the size
Speaker 3: published images of the Marubo people in their villages. The
Speaker 3: New York Post was among the first saying last week
Speaker 3: that the Marubo people were quote hooked on porn. Dozens
Speaker 3: quickly followed that. Take TMZ's headline was perhaps the most blunt.
Speaker 3: Tribes starlink hookup results in porn addiction. The Post in
Speaker 3: TMZ did not respond for requests for comment. So, I mean,
Speaker 3: I think, you know, the story and of itself is fascinating,
Speaker 3: but maybe we could just take a couple of minutes,
Speaker 3: since I did like two this time, just to talk
Speaker 3: about that echo chamber of like, you know, this is
Speaker 3: a great example of like serious journalism versus what I
Speaker 3: guess can now be considered like the yellow journalism of
Speaker 3: the Internet, the short attention span, theater of news aggregation
Speaker 3: and clickbait, like to take someone's like in depth researched
Speaker 3: and you know, a great personal cost safety wise and
Speaker 3: physically to go out live amongst these people do a
Speaker 3: serious piece of jobsjournalism to them be kind of co
Speaker 3: opted into this what the writer himself calls a false narrative.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it gets into the whole. I only read
Speaker 2: the first couple of words in the article or just
Speaker 2: the title, right, because if you even if you look
Speaker 2: at the New York Post article, you read about how
Speaker 2: it's the culture that is being altered and the fears
Speaker 2: of the elder members of the tribe that this kind
Speaker 2: of influence is going to be detrimental to the generally
Speaker 2: chaste culture that they have, and they've shared right for
Speaker 2: a long long time. This new influence comes in, they're
Speaker 2: nervous about it. It's not about what the headline even
Speaker 2: says it is in this article I'm reading right now.
Speaker 2: And they're nervous about all the things that everybody, every
Speaker 2: parent gets nervous about, oh, first person shooter, video games.
Speaker 2: They're nervous about the violence that the younger that the
Speaker 2: younger members of the tribes are being exposed to, and
Speaker 2: that they might want to try shooting people or be
Speaker 2: violent in some way, or they might be a little
Speaker 2: more aggressive in their sexuality. I mean, that is part
Speaker 2: of the story, right, But yes, they even lay it
Speaker 2: all out in the new or post article. They just
Speaker 2: try and put that headline there to make you click
Speaker 2: on it.
Speaker 3: That's right, that's right. There really isn't anything in the
Speaker 3: body of the aggregate because you know, they can't really
Speaker 3: do that. That's something. They can package it a certain way,
Speaker 3: but they can't quote make up quotes that aren't in
Speaker 3: the original piece. And you're right, Matt, there really isn't
Speaker 3: anything in the writing or in the pieces that are
Speaker 3: lifted or paraphrased from the original piece that indicates some
Speaker 3: sort of widespread porn addiction. It is literally just you know,
Speaker 3: clickbait headlining stuff. I think the closest thing we get
Speaker 3: to is, just like what you said, Matt, the idea
Speaker 3: of witnessing more aggressive and sexual type behavior in a
Speaker 3: culture that prides themselves on modesty, you know, or rather
Speaker 3: like lack of PD. Public displays of affection kissing I
Speaker 3: think is even considered taboo.
Speaker 2: The most telling thing for me in the article, though,
Speaker 2: is that the elders noticed already that members of the
Speaker 2: tribe are not spending as much time interacting in person
Speaker 2: with one another. People are already doing the things that
Speaker 2: we Westerners and everybody else has been doing for so long,
Speaker 2: just hanging out with our phones and that's about it.
Speaker 4: We've talked about this before many previous episodes. One of
Speaker 4: the best, unfortunately most ubiquitous situations with this occurs with
Speaker 4: science reporting. A hardworking scientist or group out thereof bust
Speaker 4: their humps, and one line from the study is pulled
Speaker 4: and becomes a viral headline. Because, like you said, Matt,
Speaker 4: people need to read the stuff more in depth. The
Speaker 4: last point I will make is that the story of
Speaker 4: outside groups contacting indigenous people, especially in the Amazon is
Speaker 4: often a story of genocide and terror and very very
Speaker 4: bad things. One of the biggest concerns was the spread
Speaker 4: of disease, that these tribes had no immunity for these communities,
Speaker 4: And then with that, I would pause it really interested
Speaker 4: in everybody's thoughts here is spreading social media and internet connectivity.
Speaker 4: Is it kind of like spreading a disease.
Speaker 3: For the social disease? Absolutely? Reely? No, I think so. No,
Speaker 3: I think especially when you don't have any immunity to
Speaker 3: it yet at all, you're getting it, getting the most extreme,
Speaker 3: fun attenuated version of it from scratch, right, Like we've
Speaker 3: grown up around the internet, you know, our kids have
Speaker 3: grown up with the Internet, so one would hope they've
Speaker 3: developed some coping mechanisms or some ways of like dialing
Speaker 3: it back and taking it with a grain of salt,
Speaker 3: you know. But if you're like, can you imagine just
Speaker 3: getting like the full dose of like a of a
Speaker 3: disease without any ability of your immune system to have
Speaker 3: worked up a resistance to it. So I think it's
Speaker 3: a perfect analogy. Ben, And I'll just end with just
Speaker 3: reading this one last quote. This is from the actual
Speaker 3: New York Times piece referring to a tribal woman who
Speaker 3: he's observing. She was needing jennapopo berries to make a
Speaker 3: black body paint and wearing ropes of jewelry made from
Speaker 3: snail shells. Lately, the youth had become less interested in
Speaker 3: making such dies and jewelry, she said. A quote here.
Speaker 3: Young people have gotten lazy because of the Internet. She said,
Speaker 3: they're learning the ways of the white people. Then she
Speaker 3: paused and added, but please don't take our internet away.
Speaker 3: You can't put that genie back in the bottle. Is
Speaker 3: the issue. I think that's it for me. Guys. Let's
Speaker 3: take a quick break. You're a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 3: and then come back with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2: And we've returned. Legos, Guys, Legos love them. Lego My
Speaker 2: Legos is the title of this story coming out of
Speaker 2: ABC News in California and Southern California, to be exact.
Speaker 2: It comes to us on June third of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: Thieves target several so Cow Lego shops in string of burglaries.
Speaker 2: At this time. On June third, several of these very
Speaker 2: specific Lego and minifig stores called Bricks and minifigs. They're
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of them. You can find there's one
Speaker 2: in John's Creek near US.
Speaker 3: Guys.
Speaker 2: These stores in southern California have been broken into in
Speaker 2: thousands of dollars worth of boxed Lego sets have been stolen.
Speaker 2: Eyewitness News that's part of ABC there. They obtained surveillance
Speaker 2: video from several of the incidents, and on June third
Speaker 2: they showed some of the footage in their reporting. It
Speaker 2: appears to be two thieves that are going it appears
Speaker 2: at least and at the time, according to the owner
Speaker 2: of these stores, they thought it was the same one
Speaker 2: or two individuals that was going to each one of
Speaker 2: these different stores and just taken as many Lego sets
Speaker 2: as they possibly could. Riverside, California, Whittier, whit t I
Speaker 2: e R. Whittier, Wittier. Maybe I don't know, well, I
Speaker 2: don't know how to say that part of California. Sorry,
Speaker 2: stores in Ontario, then in Anaheim and Coasta Mesa. In
Speaker 2: Anaheim and coast O Mesa, the burglaries were unsuccessful and
Speaker 2: only damage was done to the windows. That's very important.
Speaker 2: But either way, on June third, it was already being
Speaker 2: reported that there was a string of robberies at these
Speaker 2: bricks and Minifig's stores. Then you guys. ABC News comes
Speaker 2: back on June seventh to report that the Los Angeles
Speaker 2: Police Department has discovered over two thousand, eight hundred boxes
Speaker 2: of Legos like Lego sets in a single bust.
Speaker 4: Gotta be a change building a dream.
Speaker 2: Right, right, So it was a residential home that had
Speaker 2: it looked like a store. To be honest, when you
Speaker 2: with the photos that were shared by ABC News as
Speaker 2: well as by CBS, it shows just huge, almost store
Speaker 2: room looking shelves that are filled with like the same
Speaker 2: R two D two Lego set that's worth a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of money, the same whatever other set that's just
Speaker 2: laid out of tons and tons of them in one place.
Speaker 2: Turns out there's this guy named Richard Siegel, seventy one
Speaker 2: years old, and another person named Blanca Gudino who is
Speaker 2: thirty nine. They are both suspected of running these thefts
Speaker 2: all over California, then collecting all the Lego sets together
Speaker 2: theoretically or at least allegedly, to sell them on secondary markets, right,
Speaker 2: whether it's Facebook marketplace or what are the other ones
Speaker 2: that people still use, I don't know, eBay, yeah, Farmerly, Yeah,
Speaker 2: probably Farmly.
Speaker 4: That's a bunch of yeah. Yeah. There are a bunch
Speaker 4: of these different aftermarkets, and there are some probably Lego
Speaker 4: brick specific forums, because if you ever watch videos of
Speaker 4: uh of the Lego conventions, people do go very nuts
Speaker 4: for rare minifigs or just for unopened packages of things,
Speaker 4: or even personal favorite, the people who go bonkers building
Speaker 4: out their own elaborate Lego worlds where you can get.
Speaker 3: At the individual pieces. They're all label they have their
Speaker 3: own codes, each little tiny component and if you've seen
Speaker 3: the Lego movie at the end of the first one,
Speaker 3: I think it was with Will Ferrell, where he's like
Speaker 3: a Lego adult and he's got like what amounts to
Speaker 3: a workshop, you know, with every single possible piece in
Speaker 3: their own drawer kind of tag. It's a whole world
Speaker 3: around it, and they get quite expensive. Another example of
Speaker 3: what you're talking about, Ben would be trace sets. Yeah,
Speaker 3: Monald Chain said that mean, in terms of the things
Speaker 3: that hold their value would be limited edition stuff that's
Speaker 3: unopened that they no longer make, even though they are
Speaker 3: all composed of the same pieces. You could technically do
Speaker 3: it what Lego is really selling. Are these designs right?
Speaker 3: It's kind of fascinating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, dude, shout out magic the gathering. Buy your old
Speaker 2: packs somewhere and then just store them away so future
Speaker 2: college fund. That's right. So the reason why these suspects
Speaker 2: are currently in custody, why that home was searched, it's
Speaker 2: because there was another another one of these stores on
Speaker 2: they it says North Gaffey Street and San Pedro, where
Speaker 2: ye old loss prevention personnel identified Gudino as the suspect.
Speaker 2: Then they watched her take it to Richard Siegel's home,
Speaker 2: and they got a search warrant for that home, and
Speaker 2: they walked in and they went, Holy mackerel, these folks
Speaker 2: are starting a Lego store. Uh two hundred boxes of
Speaker 2: Legos if you can imagine, there are very tiny boxes
Speaker 2: of Lego sets. Others are very large. Think I'm trying
Speaker 2: to think of another like box that is that size,
Speaker 2: you guys, But if you've ever walked into a Best Buy,
Speaker 2: there's a little section that they have now that's Lego sets,
Speaker 2: especially the nicer ones that usually have a black.
Speaker 3: Behind the counter.
Speaker 2: Yes, because some of them are like three hundred dollars
Speaker 2: five hundred dollars and these.
Speaker 4: Folks far more expensive as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just it's just so crazy. Police on Wednesday,
Speaker 2: according to ABC saw there were ads for a lot
Speaker 2: of these toys online and uh, it gets deeper into this,
Speaker 2: but anyway, the whole point of this was just it's
Speaker 2: crazy that you could break into a bunch of brick
Speaker 2: and mortar stores and bricks, yeah, bricks and collectibles whatever,
Speaker 2: to break into these stores then just take it back
Speaker 2: to your house and then try and just sell them.
Speaker 2: And it's similar to the retail thefts that we saw
Speaker 2: early right where it was an organized thing where one
Speaker 2: person appears to have been paying a whole swath of
Speaker 2: people to go out and make these thefts. These brazen
Speaker 2: just grab and walk out the store thefts, take them
Speaker 2: to a central location, and then sell them on secondary markets.
Speaker 4: Especially if you have a if you have a window
Speaker 4: of time where you can retain these things and not
Speaker 4: sell them immediately, wait till they get discontinued, and then
Speaker 4: bang the price up, you know what I mean. It's yeah,
Speaker 4: very it's very easy to do. It's not fun for
Speaker 4: the people who would actually you know, enjoy the legos,
Speaker 4: right or enjoy the lego bricks. I think the company
Speaker 4: wants us to call us the call them those, but
Speaker 4: it is I think, like you're saying, it is teaching
Speaker 4: us there's a market for everything. High value, low weight,
Speaker 4: easy to move product like this that doesn't have any
Speaker 4: telling smells yep, is not itself inherently illegal. It looks
Speaker 4: like too, with all the multiple copies of very high
Speaker 4: end things like seeing the Star Wars collectors and stuff,
Speaker 4: it looks like some of this might have just come
Speaker 4: straight off a truck. It might not have made it
Speaker 4: to a store. You know, maybe that guy had a
Speaker 4: good operation going ethics aside, he was very organized.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, whoever was involved, because it's unknown if there
Speaker 2: are other people involved, right, The LAPD is still asking
Speaker 2: for tips. If anyone has any information on these crimes,
Speaker 2: it says, to reach out to them. You can find
Speaker 2: out how to do that if you wish, if you've
Speaker 2: got some info. Last thing here, the boxes ranged from
Speaker 2: twenty dollars a piece to well over one thousand dollars
Speaker 2: a piece. Looking at several millennium falcons here, which are
Speaker 2: not cheap.
Speaker 4: It's very difficult too, and we're not the only ones
Speaker 4: saying this not to be too much of a nerd,
Speaker 4: but it's very difficult as an adult entity to justify
Speaker 4: spending that much. I like, looking at.
Speaker 2: It, very true, I will, I'll put this out here.
Speaker 2: I splurged on my son's birthday and got him a
Speaker 2: three hundred dollars set that I was like, this is
Speaker 2: all we're getting, pal, this is all It was a Bowser,
Speaker 2: a giant it's amazing, but it was three hundred dollars
Speaker 2: and I just like, when I looked at it, it
Speaker 2: was out of Barnes and Noble, and I just went
Speaker 2: really because he then wanted he saw it in the window,
Speaker 2: he wanted it. We talked about it for months, like okay,
Speaker 2: if that's your birthday present, that's it. And I didn't
Speaker 2: even know how much it costs until I picked up
Speaker 2: the box and just had to like catch myself.
Speaker 4: You went past that emotional threshold for the kid you
Speaker 4: picked it up. You can't put it down.
Speaker 3: Judah to scary and let's be real, Matt, it was
Speaker 3: a little bit for you too.
Speaker 2: Come on, Yeah, no, for sure, because he was he
Speaker 2: was he knew who Bowser was and he was into it.
Speaker 2: And I was like, you know what all right together, Oh.
Speaker 3: I understand curses. I've come is the Fender guitar and
Speaker 3: amplifier set, which I think is around one hundred. But
Speaker 3: I got that because I'm a nerd. I like Fender guitars,
Speaker 3: and Eden was into it and we built it together,
Speaker 3: so it was super I think that's one thing that's
Speaker 3: neat about legos is it is kind of for the
Speaker 3: parents too. It's just this interesting middle ground. But I
Speaker 3: mean to y'all's point though about this, this this resale
Speaker 3: market for you know, fencing stolen items. It's interesting that
Speaker 3: Lego is almost his own category. There are other categories
Speaker 3: like that. There have been a rash of thefts of
Speaker 3: lawn care equipment here in the Atlanta area, where a
Speaker 3: lot of people keep that stuff on a trailer outside
Speaker 3: their house. And a buddy of mine who does that
Speaker 3: for a living. He's a musician, but he makes you
Speaker 3: know his day day work is doing lawn maintenance and landscaping.
Speaker 3: He got he said it was. He was on the news.
Speaker 3: It was around probably thirty thousand dollars worth of landscaping
Speaker 3: stuff still gone. That's your livelihood gone, because apparently you
Speaker 3: know that stuff's easy and quick to flip.
Speaker 4: Yeah and that thank you for seeing the wait seeing
Speaker 4: the Mandalorian.
Speaker 2: Pause. I'm just so proud that was the Mandalorian. Ben,
Speaker 2: that's a.
Speaker 4: Joke for us, that's a joke.
Speaker 3: Oh, No, I missed it. I was I was let
Speaker 3: in another window. Dang, I missed it.
Speaker 2: Ben. That showed us his model that was completed. I
Speaker 2: think it looked amazing of the Mandalorian.
Speaker 3: Very awesome. That's very cool. Sorry I missed it.
Speaker 4: No, No, it's still going to be there for a
Speaker 4: while until we sell it to someone. Right, that's true
Speaker 4: decades since. But yeah, I think there there is that
Speaker 4: power to collection. Obviously, we love nerdy stuff. We love
Speaker 4: nerdy collections. I would love to hear somebody's weirdest collection
Speaker 4: that you're passionate about, Like if you have, for instance,
Speaker 4: if you just have a room of what are those
Speaker 4: troll troll dolls called? I think there'stros Okay confirmed, I'm
Speaker 4: very plugged in with the zeitgeist. Yeah, if you have that,
Speaker 4: send it to us. I want to see. It'd be
Speaker 4: cool to hear from listeners about like your biggest, most
Speaker 4: extensive collection that you have, or your friend has bonus
Speaker 4: points for specificity, the more weirdly specific.
Speaker 3: If I told you guys that I collect crucifixes, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I have an entire wall covered in crucifixes, and I
Speaker 3: now have to just get small ones because I got
Speaker 3: to fill in the gaps. There's no more room for
Speaker 3: big ones or I'm gonna have to spill out onto
Speaker 3: another wall. But I love crucifixes, and there's so many
Speaker 3: different styles and varieties of them. So that's that's mine.
Speaker 2: I don't want to tell stories out of school. But
Speaker 2: my neighbor just found out collects hot wheels, and uh,
Speaker 2: they show are They showed me the collection. It was
Speaker 2: way more hot wheels than I've ever seen.
Speaker 4: That I didn't considered were produced.
Speaker 2: I didn't think there were that many, he assured me.
Speaker 2: He also showed me the security system surrounding it, like
Speaker 2: taking it seriously. And he's a sniper, so I was like,
Speaker 2: you know what, I think you'll be safe there.
Speaker 4: Everybody's got a thing, man, everybody's got a couple of things,
Speaker 4: sniping and hot wheels.
Speaker 2: Well, hey, speaking of snipers, Uh, we're not We're not
Speaker 2: gonna spend a lot of time on this, but we'll
Speaker 2: just put this story out there so you're aware of
Speaker 2: it and you can look at look it up on
Speaker 2: your own if you wish to. There's a very intense
Speaker 2: story regarding ye old company, Chiquita.
Speaker 3: You know them.
Speaker 2: You've bought bananas before, or you've at least seen them
Speaker 2: at a Kroger or publics or wherever.
Speaker 4: Jaquita Bananas shout out to the one person in the
Speaker 4: audience who's like, I have never actually eaten a banana.
Speaker 4: We wish you luck on your journey. Find a good
Speaker 4: fear this part first before you try your first banana.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then move on to plantains. They're amazing. Okay. So,
Speaker 2: Chiquita Banana or Chiquita Brand's international rather, has been found
Speaker 2: liable for funding, or rather financing, let's say, a Colombian
Speaker 2: paramilitary group.
Speaker 3: We've heard about this before. This has happened in the past, right, yes, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yes, Well, there are several issues that this specific group,
Speaker 2: the United Self Defense Forces of Columbia or the AUC,
Speaker 2: They've been involved in several things. They are designated as
Speaker 2: a terrorist organization by the United States. And it appears
Speaker 2: that at least according to this court and the evidence
Speaker 2: that was provided to it and presented Chiquida Brands International
Speaker 2: was funding this group, or at least partly funding this
Speaker 2: group on a monthly basis, and it all ties back
Speaker 2: to several deaths. They pled guilty already in two thousand
Speaker 2: and seven to making payments to this group. They've pled guilty.
Speaker 2: So then the families of victims of this group came
Speaker 2: forward and made a much larger case against Chiquida Brands International,
Speaker 2: and it appears that they have won that case.
Speaker 3: So what is it.
Speaker 2: Thirty eight point three million dollars in damages will be paid,
Speaker 2: or at least they've Chiqeta Brands International has been ordered
Speaker 2: to pay that amount of money. We'll see how that goes,
Speaker 2: because there is going to be an appeal. Of course,
Speaker 2: it's a large company. That's a lot of money. But yeah,
Speaker 2: it was a federal court case in South Florida.
Speaker 4: And they also they of course they're appealing, but they
Speaker 4: also already, like you said, no one's debating whether or
Speaker 4: not they did this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well they admitted to it well years ago, yeah,
Speaker 2: like a seven or something. Yeah, in two thousand and seven,
Speaker 2: and they allegedly paid one point seven million dollars to
Speaker 2: this group, Chiquita Brands to this AUC group, and that
Speaker 2: was from nineteen ninety seven to two thousand and four.
Speaker 4: And you guys know, AUC's far right right politically, they're
Speaker 4: They're not like the communist Garia the enemies thereof.
Speaker 2: Yes, well it gets complicated, right, freedom fighter versus whatever,
Speaker 2: this terrorist.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the history is fascinating and I think it explains
Speaker 4: some of these dirty corporate partnerships.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I mentioned, you know, I think this is
Speaker 3: what you guys. You guys knew what I was talking about.
Speaker 3: The United Fruit Company actually helped fund a nineteen fifty
Speaker 3: four Guatemalan Coup de ta. There is historical precedent for
Speaker 3: this kind of thing in terms of making things more
Speaker 3: beneficial to the corporations, you know, depending on who's in
Speaker 3: power when it affects the other bottom line, it's it's
Speaker 3: not unheard of.
Speaker 4: Shout out to Edward Burnees. Yeah, Edward Burnees instrumental in
Speaker 4: the guatemal And coup. We know that these large companies,
Speaker 4: the names may change and the tactics may evolve a
Speaker 4: little bit, but this is not coming out of left field.
Speaker 4: And if you want to learn more about CIA partnerships
Speaker 4: with private organizations for resource extraction, check out our book.
Speaker 4: In a burst of creativity, we named it stuff they
Speaker 4: don't want you to know.
Speaker 2: Ay ay, I guess we'll leave you with this. This
Speaker 2: is a statement from one of the leading lawyers for
Speaker 2: the plaintiffs in this massive class action lawsuit that was
Speaker 2: brought forth by the families. There were nine cases in
Speaker 2: that case that were focused on out of hundreds of
Speaker 2: cases that were available to be prosecuted. Basically, and this
Speaker 2: is a statement from one of the one of the
Speaker 2: plaintiffs quote. The verdict does not bring back the husbands
Speaker 2: and sons who were killed, but it sets the record
Speaker 2: straight and it places accountability for funding terrorism where it
Speaker 2: belongs at Chiquita's doorstep.
Speaker 3: Wow. By the way, Jaquita is the corporate successor to
Speaker 3: the United Fruit Company. Yes, that's why. Okay, sorry, sorry
Speaker 3: what you meant like in general, but no that in
Speaker 3: actual facts in this situation. Yes, that's who yeky.
Speaker 2: And this reporting, by the ways from the BBC on Tuesday,
Speaker 2: June eleventh, you can read it. It's titled Banana Giant
Speaker 2: held liable for funding paramilitaries and they note at the
Speaker 2: very end of that article that there's a second case
Speaker 2: that's being brought against Schaqida by another group of plaintiffs,
Speaker 2: and it is beginning on July fifteenth.
Speaker 3: Can you get just entered?
Speaker 4: Yeah, live cooking here, folks. And these are stories that
Speaker 4: sometimes can disappear from the news as the appeal process
Speaker 4: whens on slowly and as we confront the ever present
Speaker 4: threat of government and corporate corruption. So we'll have to
Speaker 4: see how this develops. But I'm really glad there does
Speaker 4: seem to be forward progress. We've got so much other
Speaker 4: stuff we didn't get to that we mentioned at the top,
Speaker 4: but I believe we're going to call it an evening
Speaker 4: and take our noctivigations breaking that word back.
Speaker 3: And in the.
Speaker 4: Meantime, we would love to hear your thoughts. I'm so
Speaker 4: excited to see weird elections.
Speaker 3: That's right, tell us show us yours. Jeez, we were
Speaker 3: asking for cat picks. Show us your weird collection picks,
Speaker 3: as long as it's not like human remainsers. Well, I
Speaker 3: don't know, okay, bones are okay, just not like you know.
Speaker 4: Show us your collections. No questions asked, fair enough, but
Speaker 4: you know what, I retracted everything I said.
Speaker 3: I actually bought a drum machine once from a very
Speaker 3: nice fellow who showed me his display case of human skulls,
Speaker 3: apparently illegal to transport across state lines, but not illegal
Speaker 3: to own or to possess. You can find us at
Speaker 3: the handle conspiracy Stuff, where we exist on Facebook, or
Speaker 3: we have our Facebook group Here's where it gets crazy
Speaker 3: on xfka, Twitter and on YouTube, or we have video
Speaker 3: content rolling out every single week on Instagram. At TikTok
Speaker 3: we're conspiracy Stuff Show.
Speaker 2: Hey, do you like calling people? Call us. Our number
Speaker 2: is one eight three three st d wytk. Before you
Speaker 2: choose to call in, why not put that number as
Speaker 2: a contact on your phone. Call it std wytk or
Speaker 2: Ben mattin Nole, whatever you want to do, just call it,
Speaker 2: and when you do, give yourself a cool nickname. You've
Speaker 2: got three minutes. Say whatever you want to include in
Speaker 2: that message. If you would like for us to use
Speaker 2: this message on air, give us permission to do so,
Speaker 2: and to use your name in your voice. If you
Speaker 2: don't want to do that one instead, send us a
Speaker 2: good old fashioned email.
Speaker 4: Wherein we hope we hope you react to this question.
Speaker 4: If possession of a human skull is illegal, then how
Speaker 4: would you enforce it? Because we all possess at least
Speaker 4: one to any other kind of shower thoughts. Let us know,
Speaker 4: write to the void, be well aware. Sometimes the void
Speaker 4: writes back any old day, any old hour. Conspiracy at
Speaker 4: iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: If they don't want you to know, is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.