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 the stuff they don't want you to know. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the show. My name is Matt, my name
Speaker 1: is Nolan. They call me Ben. We are joined with
Speaker 1: our long suffering, super tolerant super producer Paul Decant. Most importantly,
Speaker 1: you are here. You are you that makes this stuff
Speaker 1: they don't want you to know. Part three in a
Speaker 1: continuing series, the Tranfinity and unfortunately continuing series we should
Speaker 1: add as well. Uh you see, folks, this is part
Speaker 1: three in our series on unapprehended serial killers. And in
Speaker 1: the past and previous episodes we covered the new Bedford
Speaker 1: Highway killer remains unapprehended, the Lisbon Ripper, also unapprehended, Pedro Lopez,
Speaker 1: famously known as the Monster of the andes apprehended then
Speaker 1: not anymore. Yes, once apprehended then escaped. Uh. In a
Speaker 1: few years ago, Interpol released a warrant or a call
Speaker 1: to find this guy. And then we also covered the
Speaker 1: Connecticut River Valley killer and the possibilities of that killer's
Speaker 1: true identity. We also covered the Long Island serial killer,
Speaker 1: a k a. The Craigslist Ripper. Yeah, and then we
Speaker 1: had Bible John thrown in there from the last one,
Speaker 1: the Babysitter, which was an odd name I remember, uh
Speaker 1: for for a killer. The Freeway Phantom was one, and
Speaker 1: the Maniac of Nova s Birsk. Yeah, I believe that's
Speaker 1: how you say it. That sounds right to me. Okay, cool,
Speaker 1: And you can you can check out our previous episodes,
Speaker 1: one of which has a guest on the show who
Speaker 1: has not themselves a serial killer so far as we know,
Speaker 1: and there you can find some deep dives into both
Speaker 1: the methods of murder, the times these killers were known
Speaker 1: to be active, and the latest research at the time
Speaker 1: of the recording regarding whether or not they will be apprehended.
Speaker 1: And we did this along with serial killers who almost
Speaker 1: got away who very well would have gotten away had
Speaker 1: they not returned to an active state, and those would
Speaker 1: be people like the Grim Sleeper or Dennis Radar also
Speaker 1: known as b t K or the Mind Torture Kill.
Speaker 1: And we've also explored the stories of the original night Stalker,
Speaker 1: which was that was a tough one and in the
Speaker 1: Highway of Tears, especially which continues man in Canada. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a lot to go back and listen to, So
Speaker 1: I would recommend just getting those archives, go way back
Speaker 1: and um explore it. But it's a grizzly ride, and
Speaker 1: don't do it while you're eating, please, And as we
Speaker 1: said at the top, more serial killers remain on the
Speaker 1: loose today. We're spoiler alert not going to have any
Speaker 1: chance of covering them all in this episode. So as
Speaker 1: you are listening, if there is one that you think
Speaker 1: your fellow listeners would find particularly fascinating, or most importantly,
Speaker 1: if you think there might be some sort of lead
Speaker 1: that could ultimately result in the apprehension, conviction, or arrest
Speaker 1: of one of these unidentified killers, whether or not they're
Speaker 1: on this show. Let us know several of the killers
Speaker 1: we're exploring today have little or no chance of facing
Speaker 1: up to the consequences of their crimes, those crimes being
Speaker 1: serial murder, right, So this is different from garden variety homicide,
Speaker 1: not to diminish the tragedies inherent in that. And first
Speaker 1: let's let's have a quick recap of what exactly defines
Speaker 1: a serial killer. So the base level criteria for a
Speaker 1: serial killer are that this individual commits at least three
Speaker 1: murders um and at least three separate locations, and that
Speaker 1: there is something of a cooling off period in between.
Speaker 1: It's almost like a kind of hibernation, almost, yeah. And
Speaker 1: that that comes from crime classification manual and m that's
Speaker 1: where it outlines all that stuff. But that's not where
Speaker 1: the term serial killer originates, right. The term serial killers
Speaker 1: we understand it today was coined in the mid nineteen
Speaker 1: seventies by former director of the FBI's Violent Criminal Apprehension Program,
Speaker 1: a man named Robert Wrestler. He chose Cereal for peak
Speaker 1: behind the Curtain. He because the police in England called
Speaker 1: these types of murders crimes in a series quote unquote,
Speaker 1: and because of the serial films that he grew up watching.
Speaker 1: In Part two of the series, in the previous episode
Speaker 1: on Uncaught serial Killers, we examine some of the methods
Speaker 1: that have been used to classify this type of murderer
Speaker 1: based on their motivations. Their processes are the very rough
Speaker 1: demographics from killers who were caught or were observed in
Speaker 1: enough detail by witnesses or survivors to create a reasonable
Speaker 1: uh a reasonable shot at a physical description. And what
Speaker 1: we've learned from these various investigations, is that real life
Speaker 1: serial killers, as exceedingly rare as they are, don't often
Speaker 1: match the image of a killer of this type that
Speaker 1: you would see in so many works of fiction. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know, this is the first uncut Serial Killers
Speaker 1: episode we've done since mind Hunter has been out on Netflix,
Speaker 1: which and then that's just one of those shows that
Speaker 1: really gets you into the behavioral science department of the
Speaker 1: FBI and how they're thinking about crimes in a series
Speaker 1: really has evolved over time, and how the psychology of
Speaker 1: some of these people, how it functions. I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting how little action that show has, but how it
Speaker 1: still keeps you on the edge of your seat, and
Speaker 1: it really reveals so much about the inner workings, and
Speaker 1: like a lot of the tension comes from conversation rather
Speaker 1: than confrontation kind of. And I think it's really really
Speaker 1: great show. But unlike some of the highlights from a show,
Speaker 1: a fictionalized show like that, these murderers are not brilliant masterminds.
Speaker 1: Many times, a lot of times they're just like you
Speaker 1: and I. They have families, they have networks of friends,
Speaker 1: they drive cars, they have a car note that they pay,
Speaker 1: They've got a mortgage perhaps or something to that effect,
Speaker 1: and they might even be on social media, and these
Speaker 1: impulses that we're talking about, like this urge to kill
Speaker 1: in this way is less some sort of calculated mastermind
Speaker 1: kind of thing, and as it is like an addiction
Speaker 1: that you're constantly struggling with and fighting every day and
Speaker 1: having to kind of figure out how to incorporate it
Speaker 1: into that family life and not be discovered, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a really fascinating psychological landscape for
Speaker 1: these crimes and serial killers like many other people, because ultimately,
Speaker 1: these are not some sort of superpowered subspecies of humanity.
Speaker 1: These are people at base right, and ultimately they are
Speaker 1: as varied in terms of their demographic description or their
Speaker 1: motivations as another person would be about their own, you know,
Speaker 1: socioeconomic status thrown genetic makeup their aims and desires. Just
Speaker 1: as there are are uh, serial killers who feel they
Speaker 1: have voices commanding them to do something, there are also
Speaker 1: serial killers who have belief that, you know, as Noll said,
Speaker 1: there's a there's maybe a compulsion, and then there may
Speaker 1: also be a belief that a certain amount of people
Speaker 1: must be killed in a certain way for some sort
Speaker 1: of design. Uh, these are not uh, cookie cutter profiles.
Speaker 1: And we want to emphasize again the damning thing about
Speaker 1: the information we do have, we being human civilization law
Speaker 1: enforcement at large, is that we are basing these classifications
Speaker 1: almost entirely on incomplete evidence, because we're only talking usually
Speaker 1: about the ones who get caught, because how do you
Speaker 1: talk about the ones who are still out there? I mean,
Speaker 1: if you if you can't interview someone and they can't
Speaker 1: tell you something, you're just inferring from what you find
Speaker 1: at a crime scene. So we've mentioned in previous episodes
Speaker 1: that again pre mind Hunters, a lot of people would
Speaker 1: be most familiar with certain fictional characters when they think
Speaker 1: of serial killers, like a Hannibal Lecter, sure or Dexter
Speaker 1: for instance. Right. And in both of those cases, the
Speaker 1: killers are they ultimately transform into anti heroes, right. And
Speaker 1: they are also meticulous and brilliant and very rarely driven
Speaker 1: by passion rather than premeditation, which in real life is
Speaker 1: not always the case. Have you guys seen Man Hunter,
Speaker 1: the the original appearance of Hannibal Lecter the original Michael
Speaker 1: Man movie. It's weird, it's very eighties, but it's it's
Speaker 1: very beautifully shot. And Brian Cox plays Hannibal Lecter, which
Speaker 1: is interesting because we know, you know the Anthony Hopkins
Speaker 1: portrayal of that role so well, because it's so over
Speaker 1: the top, kind of like you see him in that
Speaker 1: role and you're almost like, how would anyone not peg
Speaker 1: that dude for a psycho a mile away? Brian Cox
Speaker 1: plays it much more understated and much more like, you know,
Speaker 1: he could pass for a regular dude, whereas Anthony Hawkins, Well,
Speaker 1: that performance is captivating. I kind of feel like, how
Speaker 1: would you not know that that guy's got bodies in
Speaker 1: his basement? I have to say really fast, when when
Speaker 1: I hear Brian Cox, I think of the physicist that
Speaker 1: that I remember from our days with Discovery, the younger Serant.
Speaker 1: I believe he's a certain physicist, and I don't think
Speaker 1: I know what Brian Cox, the actor looks like. Well
Speaker 1: you are in luck. Oh yes, okay, very familiar. Okay,
Speaker 1: So for everyone who can't see, because this is of
Speaker 1: course coming to you as an audio podcast, Noel pulled
Speaker 1: up a photograph of Brian Cox for Matt's illumination and meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at the English they're in physicist. He does
Speaker 1: come up first, though I know why. I think I
Speaker 1: spelled Brian's name wrong. He has an English spelling maybe
Speaker 1: b R I A N versus. No. No other names
Speaker 1: are spell identically, but Brian Cox, the physicist definitely comes
Speaker 1: up before the actor. Good on you, Google. You know what.
Speaker 1: I will take that a step further and say, good
Speaker 1: on you humanity. Maybe it's because Stephen Hawking died today
Speaker 1: and so physics are a top of mind. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess it worked. That was a top thing. That's true. Yes,
Speaker 1: as we're recording this, it is both the anniversary of
Speaker 1: Albert Einstein's birth, it is Pie Day, and it is
Speaker 1: the day that Stephen Hawkings, legendary astrophysicist, expired. This may
Speaker 1: well be old news by the time this hits the airwaves,
Speaker 1: but hopefully it's still relevant and what a fascinating would
Speaker 1: have would have fascinating person. But wait, you may be seeing,
Speaker 1: isn't this an episode about uncaught serial killers? It is, indeed,
Speaker 1: and we'll dive into that after a word from our sponsor.
Speaker 1: Here's where it gets crazy. There are so many serial
Speaker 1: killers that have been active over the years that are
Speaker 1: still uncaught that may be active right now, maybe we're
Speaker 1: just unaware of it. Um or that have been caught
Speaker 1: and released or caught and then you know, evidence, very
Speaker 1: compelling evidence exists, but some technicality has allowed them to
Speaker 1: walk free. Possibility, or as also happens, they may have
Speaker 1: been apprehended for another crime and not tied to the
Speaker 1: murders right as the case might be, but instead be
Speaker 1: languishing in prison for some time. And then maybe police
Speaker 1: are out, authorities are looking for someone and they're right
Speaker 1: under their noses. We just don't know. So let's travel
Speaker 1: to India, to Mumbai, and let's look at some specific
Speaker 1: examples of serial killers on the loose or at least unapprehended. Today,
Speaker 1: we're looking at a killer known as beer Man. That's
Speaker 1: our first example. And yes, that is beer b e R.
Speaker 1: Like something you would you know, cold when you would
Speaker 1: crack open with the boys, to paraphrase Reddit. So between
Speaker 1: October two thousand and six and January two thousand seven
Speaker 1: and by India, uh, the press and law enforcement were
Speaker 1: on the track of a killer they called beer Man
Speaker 1: because according to them, them being the press and law enforcement,
Speaker 1: one of the primary linkages between these deaths was the
Speaker 1: presence of beer bottles near the bodies. But you'll find
Speaker 1: conflicting info about this case. Yeah. One source said there
Speaker 1: were only two beer cans found throughout the entirety of
Speaker 1: the serial killers run um and it was only two
Speaker 1: victims and they were in fact beer cans. But again,
Speaker 1: this is reporting from India and the sources we're using
Speaker 1: or everything from the Times of India, UH to dy
Speaker 1: t V too. There's a blog called open Something that
Speaker 1: I can't recall any of it right now, but they're
Speaker 1: they're varying sources and we're definitely getting conflicting information. You
Speaker 1: ever notice how in most movies about serial killers, the
Speaker 1: cops always are super piste. When the press gives a
Speaker 1: snappy nickname to a killer like that is not serving
Speaker 1: their goals, Usually they're usually very annoyed, or if someone
Speaker 1: refers to them like that as an internal memo, they're like,
Speaker 1: you know, you better not let this get out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And that happens in real life too, because one of
Speaker 1: the one of the things that puts the press and
Speaker 1: law enforcement and loggerheads in the investigations of these crimes
Speaker 1: is going to be uh. The idea of the good scoop,
Speaker 1: the exclusive scoop versus uh, the need to hold information
Speaker 1: back so they can real identify the killer. Because another
Speaker 1: trope in fiction that does turn out to be true, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: is that when the specific details of a murder or
Speaker 1: a murderer's rituals are released, copycat people or or people
Speaker 1: who want the attention will just call into the police
Speaker 1: department and say, you know, you got me. I am
Speaker 1: the bag of Badger's butcher or whatever. I knew it
Speaker 1: was you all along. Ben, Oh, this is my Paul impression.
Speaker 1: I like it now, but it's true. And you can
Speaker 1: you imagine being a compresponsible for solving one of these crimes,
Speaker 1: and how annoying and like muddling it must be when
Speaker 1: this information starts flooding the press and you're constantly having
Speaker 1: to differentiate between real information and these jerks that are
Speaker 1: just trying to like waste your time and get a
Speaker 1: little you know, get a little rise. You know, I can't.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, but then from a journalist perspective,
Speaker 1: it's almost your duty to inform the people around you
Speaker 1: the public dangers that exist. So know, you have those
Speaker 1: two competing things, and you know, we can't assign motives
Speaker 1: to journalism entire because it's also true that journalist will
Speaker 1: seek to gain the most credibility in the media marketplace.
Speaker 1: And it's also true they want to uh sell the
Speaker 1: most uh maybe sell the most papers back in the day,
Speaker 1: get the most clicks online nowadays. And yes, by the way,
Speaker 1: side note, it's entirely possible that an active serial killer
Speaker 1: today is on social media just because of the numbers. However,
Speaker 1: uh One one thing that we have noticed in the
Speaker 1: past is that there have been times where journalists have
Speaker 1: assigned a killer or a perceived killer a nickname that
Speaker 1: the killer themselves objected to, you know, like don't call
Speaker 1: me the baby rubber I am, you know, the King
Speaker 1: of Darkness, and then it become it introduces this whole
Speaker 1: new layer of complication with investigating the case. And you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that law enforcement doesn't want a
Speaker 1: killer to do. One of the reasons they disclike nicknames
Speaker 1: in general is because some of these murders have latched
Speaker 1: onto this in the past. Right Jack the Ripper, right,
Speaker 1: uh the axe man in New Orleans or h let's see,
Speaker 1: did the Zodiac killer self assigned? That's a weird one. Though, right,
Speaker 1: because I feel like he set the terms for his
Speaker 1: role and then the press kind of fed back into
Speaker 1: it and became this like weird feedback loop. Um, but
Speaker 1: I kind of want to say he at least had
Speaker 1: a symbol of some kind or did he sign his
Speaker 1: letters Zodiac. We're going to have to dive in. We
Speaker 1: could do an entire episode on the Zodiac killer. For now,
Speaker 1: let's look at the beer Man. Let's go back to India.
Speaker 1: Current speculation as we record this puts the number of
Speaker 1: victims at between six to eight individuals. Their methods of
Speaker 1: murder differ. They were killed by being hit on the
Speaker 1: head with a stone, in some cases bludgeoned or in
Speaker 1: other cases, according to in d t V, they were
Speaker 1: stabbed in the chest. Yeah, several different types of bludgeonings
Speaker 1: occurred and stabbings from the reports we had read, um
Speaker 1: though all the men there were there were several men.
Speaker 1: The first victim was a taxi driver that was found.
Speaker 1: All the men were poor or not at least not wealthy. Um.
Speaker 1: Some of them were homeless. It was surmised that the
Speaker 1: killer himself was probably not poor. And this is for
Speaker 1: several several reasons. Because first of all, he drinks beer
Speaker 1: out of cans, which I guess is a a factor. Um.
Speaker 1: And then also because he must have been or was
Speaker 1: probably operating a vehicle of some sort, and you have
Speaker 1: to have a certain amount of money in India in
Speaker 1: that area to own or at least operate a vehicle
Speaker 1: in any part of the world. Wouldn't ad a glass
Speaker 1: be fancy? Possibly, I don't. I don't know the customs
Speaker 1: in that area, but yeah, it was. It was given
Speaker 1: as drinking beer from a can was one of the reasons. Well,
Speaker 1: I know that in cases with glass bottled beverages like
Speaker 1: Thumbs Up, which is popular soda, that the glasses are
Speaker 1: typically purchased and returned and then refilled, so that that
Speaker 1: might play a role in there. They also attempted to
Speaker 1: build a profile, and they said that the killer was
Speaker 1: likely young, early thirties, thirty five and uh in pretty
Speaker 1: good physical shape because he was able to overpower his
Speaker 1: victims easily. The killers uh. The sites of the murders
Speaker 1: were secluded spots, which to them indicated that this murderer
Speaker 1: knew South Mumbai well, or here's the terrifying thing, knows
Speaker 1: South Mumbai well. And the perpetrator of these crimes was
Speaker 1: believed to have had sex with five of his victims
Speaker 1: before killing them. Um. At the fourth scene, the killer
Speaker 1: allegedly left a note which was written in very polished English. Uh.
Speaker 1: And while he may have had good English, he did
Speaker 1: not have good handwritting, apparently because most of the text
Speaker 1: of the letter was undecipherable. Or it's possible that the
Speaker 1: cops chose not to release the contents and full and
Speaker 1: just exerted instead. Um. But one of the things that
Speaker 1: was contained in the note was the quite chilling welcome
Speaker 1: to the clan. Yeah yeah, what does that mean? Like
Speaker 1: an initiation of some sort? Right c l A and
Speaker 1: not kale right? Uh So Again, there are differences in
Speaker 1: the m O the mode of operation here, specifically stabbing
Speaker 1: versus bludgeoning or also strangulation. Uh. Police believe that these
Speaker 1: murders have been committed by the same man and then
Speaker 1: things took a turn. On January twenty in two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven, Mumbai law enforcement arrested someone for the murders,
Speaker 1: a man named Revendra um control and it's also written
Speaker 1: Contralo in a couple of places. Um So, Revendra cantroll,
Speaker 1: I think that's what we'll probably call him for this.
Speaker 1: They rested him for the murders, and according to the
Speaker 1: Times of India, once he was in custody, he was
Speaker 1: subjected to several tests, some of which I at least
Speaker 1: personally was not familiar with. They called it one narco analysis,
Speaker 1: which we think is probably just a drug test of
Speaker 1: some sort, brain mapping which I have not seen used
Speaker 1: in law enforcement. UH, and polygraph So let's go through
Speaker 1: these really fast. The narco analysis tests that Mr Revendra
Speaker 1: went through, they seem to clear up the beer mystery.
Speaker 1: According to the Times of India, UM saying okay, so
Speaker 1: he allegedly said, as he's going through this test that
Speaker 1: he would make him his victims drink beer before killing them,
Speaker 1: but he did deny. According to the Times of India, UH,
Speaker 1: any sexual conduct with his victims and a lot of
Speaker 1: homophobia draws into this part of the investigation, which has happened,
Speaker 1: happened before. For instance, uh. One of John Wayne gay
Speaker 1: Sy's primary things that he stuck to for his entire
Speaker 1: time in prison was that he was not a homosexual,
Speaker 1: and he was very irritated and frustrated that he felt
Speaker 1: the press was unfairly calling him that. And there's there's
Speaker 1: an echo of this here with the suspect revengea controller
Speaker 1: saying that he was being falsely accused of being attracted
Speaker 1: to the same sex, and that trope actually going to
Speaker 1: come into play later on in today's episode in a
Speaker 1: in a very big way. Now, the other tests, when
Speaker 1: the other ones, was called brain mapping, and with this
Speaker 1: one controller was attached to a device that looked at
Speaker 1: I guess brain signals, brain waves, if you will, um,
Speaker 1: while he's looking at pictures of victims from these the
Speaker 1: beer Man killings, like some black mirrors stuff. It does, right,
Speaker 1: And allegedly, according to these sources, he showed signs of
Speaker 1: recognizing several of the photographs. So maybe the activity in
Speaker 1: a certain region of his brain spiked when he saw
Speaker 1: certain photographs. And then we're assuming if it were to
Speaker 1: be a valid test, they would also present him with
Speaker 1: pictures of strangers, yes, and contrast those, uh, those findings.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but we don't have the specifics of these
Speaker 1: tests that were performed over vendra Um. The last one
Speaker 1: is polygraph which is inadmissible in US courts because it's
Speaker 1: a load of hooey. Yes, and those are the tests.
Speaker 1: You know this already, but those are the tests that
Speaker 1: look at how your body is responding to stress while
Speaker 1: you're under questioning. Oh, do we tell everybody the way
Speaker 1: to be a polygraph on this show or the way
Speaker 1: to render it method? That's one yeah, yeah, what what
Speaker 1: is the thumb tap? I think if you just have
Speaker 1: like a a baseline of pain that you have, it
Speaker 1: can skew the entire results. So if you like sneak
Speaker 1: in a thumb tack and just like stab yourself in
Speaker 1: the lag with a thumb tack the entire time, it's
Speaker 1: going to exkew the results. Where the baseline of like
Speaker 1: calmness I guess that it's looking for is going to
Speaker 1: be much more difficult to ascertain. And it may look
Speaker 1: like a faked test, it's like you know, or it
Speaker 1: may look like a botch test or something was wrong,
Speaker 1: but they certainly can't actually get anything useful out of it.
Speaker 1: This yeah, yeah, yeah, And that's it's similar to the
Speaker 1: other approach, which is to just uh, for the entire
Speaker 1: length of the interview, really flex your butt and and
Speaker 1: like really put some put some effort into it. Uh.
Speaker 1: So that again there's this strain that alters the bay
Speaker 1: s line. You know, for Atlanta Monster, we had we
Speaker 1: interviewed a gentleman who performed a polygraph on Wayne Williams.
Speaker 1: And one of the things he said is there are
Speaker 1: sensors now in the chairs to prevent that that very thing,
Speaker 1: so you clenching anything like that. They do like a
Speaker 1: full search now if they ever do these not the
Speaker 1: polygraphs are just you know, being used all over the
Speaker 1: place in law enforcement. But they, yeah, they that method
Speaker 1: was real, So let's all get some thumb tax or
Speaker 1: maybe not kill people. That's also the way it's laughable
Speaker 1: when someone accused of sexual misconduct will come up, come
Speaker 1: out and say, but look, I I took a polygraph
Speaker 1: by my own, you know, I I volunteered to do it.
Speaker 1: Here the results check it out. It's like, dude, you
Speaker 1: just yeah. And just the one last thing with those
Speaker 1: polygraphs Wayne Williams, they they performed three tests, so they
Speaker 1: run the same questions three times and they don't look
Speaker 1: at one individual test. They come like, look at how
Speaker 1: each question changes each time you answer it? Right, to
Speaker 1: build a more robust data set. Well, what did what
Speaker 1: did this alleged beer man say? During his polygraph. Well,
Speaker 1: the authorities said that during these tests, Ravendra had confessed
Speaker 1: to both being involved in twenty one criminal cases and
Speaker 1: to committing fifteen murders. Yeah so, so involved in twenty
Speaker 1: one crimes. But uh, you know, committed fifteen murders. According
Speaker 1: to the authorities, that's a weird thing to admit. It's
Speaker 1: a weird distinction to It makes you wonder if it
Speaker 1: was torture involved. Well now, well here's the thing now,
Speaker 1: I remember this is you know, a report that came
Speaker 1: out right from sources. Then of course he went to
Speaker 1: trial and he only stood trial for three murders, so
Speaker 1: there was only enough evidence to connect him with three
Speaker 1: of them, and he was found guilty on one count
Speaker 1: of murder. This led to him being sent in to
Speaker 1: life imprisonment. However, things changed in September of two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine when the Bombay High Court made a ruling.
Speaker 1: And what a ruling it was. Um. The Bombay High
Speaker 1: Court overruled in fact Revenger's conviction and declared Cantroll not
Speaker 1: guilty of the murders. Um. And so he went on
Speaker 1: to open himself a little food truck fast food stall, uh,
Speaker 1: and he sold the rights to have his story he
Speaker 1: adapted into a film, and as of now he is
Speaker 1: a freeman and and the beer Man murders remain unsolved. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was when I was doing the research. That was
Speaker 1: my favorite part was the fast food stall and the
Speaker 1: rights to the film adaptation. You can find an interview
Speaker 1: where he talks about it. But he also says that
Speaker 1: his reputation by and large is ruined because you know,
Speaker 1: he was sentenced. He was convicted and sentenced, and after
Speaker 1: a sentence like that is overturned, it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the community forgets. Yeah, and it's not like your picture
Speaker 1: wasn't all over the media so people can recognize you.
Speaker 1: And the other thing apparently he is now a usual
Speaker 1: suspect in Mumbai, so anytime anyone dies, they'll go and
Speaker 1: find him and bring him in for questioning. Well again
Speaker 1: to that point, he did confess to committing murders. That's right,
Speaker 1: and like according to according to somebody, so right, And
Speaker 1: you know, and like we said, we don't know if
Speaker 1: if these things were said under duress. But you gotta
Speaker 1: wonder too, if you get a nickname like that and
Speaker 1: that's your claim to fame, whether in good taste or not.
Speaker 1: If you've gone free, do you get to keep the nickname?
Speaker 1: Like can you can you call your food truck the
Speaker 1: beer Man. I'm sorry, that's making a face. It's just
Speaker 1: I don't I don't like the idea of a potential
Speaker 1: serial killer opening a food truck based on the name
Speaker 1: that was given to the serial killer by the media. Well,
Speaker 1: you will be happy to learn that most of the
Speaker 1: serial killers who were committing acts accountabalism and a feeding
Speaker 1: unsuspecting people human flesh. Uh, A lot of them have
Speaker 1: been caught. Again, I can't make you feel a hundred
Speaker 1: percent better because we only know the ones that got caught.
Speaker 1: But the hey, you know, I'm here for you, man.
Speaker 1: But the interesting thing, the darkly fascinating thing about the
Speaker 1: power of nicknames here is that there was a case
Speaker 1: in Egypt with a serial killer who was known for
Speaker 1: heading a gang on the train where they would, uh,
Speaker 1: they would abduct people children, other gang members sexually assault
Speaker 1: them and kill them. Uh. He got caught, he was executed,
Speaker 1: but afterwards people began naming things after him. Uh, and
Speaker 1: his name caught on posthumously, which is a troubling statement.
Speaker 1: But he's not in this episode. Because he was definitely caught. Well,
Speaker 1: but I mean, you had a conversation off Mike about
Speaker 1: that Museum of Death that I went to in l A.
Speaker 1: And the the whole like the ethics of making money
Speaker 1: off of your crimes if you are actually incarcerated, whether
Speaker 1: you can sell let's say, like a work of art
Speaker 1: like John Wayne Gaycy. In this museum there were a
Speaker 1: ton of John Wayne Gaycy paintings that he had done
Speaker 1: of him as a clown or you know, various things
Speaker 1: like that. And there was even I can't remember the
Speaker 1: guy's name now, but he was an absolute monster. But
Speaker 1: he had this series of like these collages and these
Speaker 1: like almost pop up books, and there was a notebook
Speaker 1: of letters, and one of them was a dispute that
Speaker 1: he had with an art dealer about how they like
Speaker 1: owed him money, and it was literally a correspondence between
Speaker 1: him and this art dealer, and you can see the
Speaker 1: back and forth. And I mentioned this to you Ben,
Speaker 1: and and the theory was, it's it's technically not legal,
Speaker 1: I guess to um represent a known criminal like that
Speaker 1: for works that glory. I don't know exactly what the
Speaker 1: laws are, but our theory was that maybe they did
Speaker 1: it to get him in the door, and then they
Speaker 1: were not they were they weren't going to pay him
Speaker 1: because he doesn't really have a leg to stand. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's what it was. They didn't didn't really have a
Speaker 1: right to see them. Yeah, due to the Son of
Speaker 1: Sam Law, which is a kind of an umbrella term
Speaker 1: for laws designed to keep not just serial killers, but
Speaker 1: any criminals from profiting off off the result of their crimes.
Speaker 1: So not just you know, not not just art for instance,
Speaker 1: but you can't sell the rights to your life story
Speaker 1: or film. Like if Matt and I apologize in advance
Speaker 1: for using you as an example here, we've just got
Speaker 1: a system and your name came up. So if if
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick the gave like the worst example, what's so
Speaker 1: let's say let's say Matt Frederick is in I don't know,
Speaker 1: constant talks with a convicted serial killer, um, and there
Speaker 1: are talks of selling rights to a story, and then
Speaker 1: the Georgia Department of Actions finds out and then you
Speaker 1: have to go through the motions. Right, let's just say
Speaker 1: hypathetically that happens. Well, the first the first law that
Speaker 1: qualify his son and Sam Law was creating new York
Speaker 1: after David Berkowitz, because there were all these rumors that
Speaker 1: publishers and movie studios were offering a lot of money
Speaker 1: to him directly, which is paying. If you think about it,
Speaker 1: it's it's not that far away from paying someone to
Speaker 1: kill people. That's essentially what it is. So yes, Noel
Speaker 1: is absolutely right. That is a debate that continues today
Speaker 1: because then the other question would be, well, is it
Speaker 1: is it as bad if we buy the rights to
Speaker 1: this but the money legally is required to go to
Speaker 1: a fund for the surviving family members or something that's
Speaker 1: exactly That's exactly how it's handled nowadays for the victims families.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't bring anyone back and earlier. Let's so
Speaker 1: now we have no we as in the human species,
Speaker 1: don't have any public clues for the beer Man murders. Uh.
Speaker 1: We do have other cases, and they're not just in India,
Speaker 1: They're not just in the United States. We will travel
Speaker 1: to a very different part of the world for our
Speaker 1: next example, after a word from our sponsors, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Speaker 1: Beginning so far as we officially know, in two thousand
Speaker 1: and ten, uh, an unknown individual or group of killers
Speaker 1: was meeting gay men online and forums, gaining their trust,
Speaker 1: traveling to their homes and brutally murdering them. At this point,
Speaker 1: you know, earlier in our beer Man example, we were
Speaker 1: able to say for a certain span of years, but
Speaker 1: at this point the years just ending question marks. We
Speaker 1: don't know when or if this stopped, because for years
Speaker 1: law enforcement would not identify the murders as linked, nor
Speaker 1: did they publicly describe this as the action of a
Speaker 1: serial killer. And this led community activists in in the
Speaker 1: area in Johannesburg to say that the police were slow
Speaker 1: to investigate due to rampant homophobia in South Africa, so
Speaker 1: slow in fact, that they were actively just not caring
Speaker 1: or prioritizing these violent crimes. Yeah, and that sentiment is
Speaker 1: echoed by Dowie Nell, the director of Out, who says
Speaker 1: that police were sluggish the same thing. Police were sluggish
Speaker 1: in their investigation because of the sexuality of the victims,
Speaker 1: and as each murder becomes um or became known to
Speaker 1: the media, Nell would call police to step up their investigation,
Speaker 1: say come on, you guys, get on this, this is happening,
Speaker 1: this is very real. But apparently it just didn't do
Speaker 1: any good and we have a quote from Dowie. Up
Speaker 1: to this point there have only been three arrest in
Speaker 1: one of the cases. We call on the police to
Speaker 1: please take this seriously and increase the urgency of their
Speaker 1: investigation to ensure justice for the victims and their families.
Speaker 1: And the police went on to state that they believe
Speaker 1: that there may be a gang of homophobic murderers targeting
Speaker 1: men um with the last reports as recently as alleging
Speaker 1: that the killer or killers may have actually relocated to
Speaker 1: Cape Town, South Africa, which is strange. Isn't it that
Speaker 1: they moved from Johannesburg to Cape Town? If they are
Speaker 1: indeed related and in this instance, questions remain, we would
Speaker 1: be would be very interested in hearing your take on
Speaker 1: this if you lived in Cape Town or in Johannesburg
Speaker 1: during this time especially, we'd like to know if the
Speaker 1: local community believes these are ongoing or if this was
Speaker 1: a spate of things that were considered to have some
Speaker 1: definitive span of time and just remain unsolved. Again, the critics,
Speaker 1: lgbt Q activists and more uh say that the South
Speaker 1: African police forces are simply not prioritizing these murders due
Speaker 1: to the fact that it afflicts a stigmatized section of
Speaker 1: the population. And when we go when we talk about
Speaker 1: this kind of cultural prejudice, it's deceptively easy to say, Oh,
Speaker 1: that happens in another culture. Right, Homophobia is so rampant
Speaker 1: in insert city or insert country here that it is
Speaker 1: an unfortunate fact of the matter. And it surely wouldn't
Speaker 1: be the case in I don't know, country like Canada
Speaker 1: or Western Europe or the United States. Wait. Example number three,
Speaker 1: The Doodler. Yeah, this one's tough. Um. From four to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy five, a man known only as the Doodler
Speaker 1: killed up to fourteen gay men in San Francisco. Um.
Speaker 1: He got this name because he would meet his victims
Speaker 1: at gay bars and sketch their portraits before um taking
Speaker 1: them to a location, having sex with them, and then
Speaker 1: stabbing them to death. Yeah. And the will mention that
Speaker 1: you would draw portraits, paintings, just drawings of his victims.
Speaker 1: And none of these were ever released to the press.
Speaker 1: And although it's believed he killed fourteen people, it's much
Speaker 1: more likely that he took around five victims. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that that can sound confusing. What what that means? Is
Speaker 1: that up to fourteen people in similar circumstances disappeared or
Speaker 1: met a violent end around that time, But the investigation
Speaker 1: as it stands, traces the traces only five specifically to him.
Speaker 1: Uh usually the eyewitness accounts right and months after his
Speaker 1: last killing in seventy five, the San Francisco Police Department
Speaker 1: did release one sketch related to the Doodler. It was
Speaker 1: not a sketch he made of his victims. It was
Speaker 1: a sketch law enforcement and made based on descriptions of
Speaker 1: the suspects. Uh. He was a black man his early twenties,
Speaker 1: around six ft tall, with a slim build, and according
Speaker 1: to one witness, he described himself as someone studying commercial art.
Speaker 1: And one of the big questions that pops up in
Speaker 1: our minds when we look at this is why why
Speaker 1: haven't we heard of this? You know, why is this
Speaker 1: um murder, this series of murders in a very well
Speaker 1: known part of the United States? Why is it so
Speaker 1: unknown today and in the great span of history. Nine
Speaker 1: seventy five was not that long ago. Many people listening
Speaker 1: to the show now we're alive. Then here's part of
Speaker 1: why this may have been brushed aside. The murders took
Speaker 1: place around the same time of the notorious and likewise
Speaker 1: unsolved Zodiac murders, and and as in the case with
Speaker 1: the Johannesburg murders, it seems that part of the official
Speaker 1: disregard and part of the legal obstacle course facing any
Speaker 1: uh any pursuit of this criminal can be traced directly
Speaker 1: back to homophobia. In fact, the killer could have been caught, yes,
Speaker 1: because he left. There were some surviving victims of the
Speaker 1: doodler who were actually prominent people that could have gone
Speaker 1: to the police and said who they were. But there's
Speaker 1: a problem in doing that. You're gonna out yourself to
Speaker 1: everyone if if you admit to being a part of this. Right.
Speaker 1: Harvey Milk, who was a well known politician and activist
Speaker 1: in San Francisco, also a game man himself. Um. He
Speaker 1: said this to the Associated Press regarding his understanding of
Speaker 1: people's position in this case, said, I respect the pressure
Speaker 1: society has put on them. Um. He estimated homosexuals lived
Speaker 1: in San Francisco, uh and he said that of that number,
Speaker 1: a good are in the closet. And Milk's estimation proved
Speaker 1: to have some sand because the police questions survivors, including
Speaker 1: a quote well known entertainer, a diplomat from Europe, as
Speaker 1: as Matt had said, prominent people. And for a year.
Speaker 1: For a year, the police were questioning a suspect that
Speaker 1: they believed was the doodler. Right, but he did not
Speaker 1: admit guilt, and none of the survivors, to the earlier point,
Speaker 1: we're willing to testify. And this meant that there was
Speaker 1: no way to charge him. There isn't any smoking gun evidence.
Speaker 1: He was not uh, you know, he was not physically
Speaker 1: linked to this stuff. And the most important piece of
Speaker 1: the evidence. The survivors who could point at the guy
Speaker 1: in court and say, yes, that's the man who tried
Speaker 1: to kill me, we're not willing to, you know, having
Speaker 1: already risked their lives by surviving this ordeal, they were
Speaker 1: not willing to risk their lives again given the social
Speaker 1: stigmas of the time. And you can ask the San
Speaker 1: Francisco Police Department about these cases, uh, they will give
Speaker 1: you the same response they gave journalists, which is, we
Speaker 1: don't discuss open investigations. See it's fascinating that it's it's
Speaker 1: still an open investigation somehow, And I wonder what methods
Speaker 1: there could be to attain some of some of those
Speaker 1: records because it's been it's I don't know, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: look I'm really I'm seriously I'm gonna look into that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I feel like it's one of those things
Speaker 1: where when the case is that old and that cold,
Speaker 1: the only break you're gonna get is someone running their mouth,
Speaker 1: you know, talking out of school in a bar that
Speaker 1: someone happens to over here and they make a complaint
Speaker 1: and the next thing you know, you're in Buffalo Bills Dungeon,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean? Like that that that that
Speaker 1: really does feel like like a short of you know,
Speaker 1: they call them cold cases, but they definitely get trundled
Speaker 1: off to the back to to relegate it to the
Speaker 1: filing cabinets, you know. I mean, people are not actively
Speaker 1: working these cases. They just don't have the resources to
Speaker 1: do it right. And especially in a time where news
Speaker 1: cycles move so quickly and news become so ephemeral, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's easy for these things to be forgotten. I like
Speaker 1: your point about somebody having to speak out of turn
Speaker 1: to release this kind of information that would be held
Speaker 1: up because you know the reality is that murder cases
Speaker 1: the national average is around a sixty something percent clearance rate,
Speaker 1: which means that UH, clearing a case means that has
Speaker 1: been explained. It was a spected murder. They either explained
Speaker 1: what happened or they found the person responsible, the people responsible.
Speaker 1: So with that uh, with that little less than forty
Speaker 1: unclosed uncleared case ratio, we know this kind of stuff happens.
Speaker 1: And in the course of our exploration today of uncaught
Speaker 1: serial killers, we found what we'd like to call a
Speaker 1: dishonorable mention, and it involves a case that may well
Speaker 1: encompass multiple assailants. It is the case that may be
Speaker 1: familiar to some true detective fans, known as the jeff
Speaker 1: Davis Eight. Yes, between two thousand five and two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: there were eight women from the town of Jennings, Louisiana
Speaker 1: in this in the Jefferson Davis Parish. UH. They were
Speaker 1: murder her and their bodies were dumped in ponds and
Speaker 1: canals in the area. And of these these victims died
Speaker 1: of various causes. Some had appeared to have been asphyxiated.
Speaker 1: Two of the women had their throats slashed, one in
Speaker 1: a one in a truck that was available to law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Covered in her blood, but the means of death aside.
Speaker 1: The women of the jeff Davis eight had plenty in common.
Speaker 1: All of them were from South Jennings, the poor side
Speaker 1: of town, and they knew each other. And they were
Speaker 1: all living in poverty and had criminal records um full
Speaker 1: of drug abuse and petty crimes. Uh. And they often
Speaker 1: supported their drug habits with with sex work. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: sounds very familiar and author named Ethan Brown investigated this
Speaker 1: for a number of years. He wrote a book about
Speaker 1: it called Murder in the Bayou, and he also noted
Speaker 1: that all eight of the victims there in Jefferson dave
Speaker 1: Is Parish where informants for local law enforcement about the
Speaker 1: drug sales in the drug trade there in Jennings, which
Speaker 1: is a very small town. Originally, investigators believed this was
Speaker 1: a single deranged serial killer. However, Brown, who was a
Speaker 1: New Orleans based p I, when he first heard of
Speaker 1: the murders in two thousand ten, uh, he thought there
Speaker 1: was something else to the story and he was astonished
Speaker 1: that the police claimed they had no leads. To Brown,
Speaker 1: this sounded strange in the town that had around ten
Speaker 1: thousand people, and he visited the side himself over the
Speaker 1: next few years, connecting one dot after another. Here's some
Speaker 1: of the things he found. He found that all the
Speaker 1: victims had at some point stayed in the Bordeaux in
Speaker 1: and this was a motel which is closed now, where
Speaker 1: the town's drug dealers and sex workers would get together
Speaker 1: to get high and to have their clients over. He
Speaker 1: also found that officers of the parish slept with some
Speaker 1: of the women who later became victims. Is some kind
Speaker 1: of like kinky police murder ring. Well, Brown, to his credit,
Speaker 1: just connects dots and doesn't draw He's trying to be
Speaker 1: very journalistic about it, so he's not drawing hard conclusions.
Speaker 1: But I agree with you, it does seem to be
Speaker 1: the case. He also found pretty compelling proof that evidence
Speaker 1: in these eight murder cases had been tampered with or
Speaker 1: was removed from the parish entirely. And one of the
Speaker 1: big things that went missing was that truck where the
Speaker 1: one victim etter of throat slashed. You would think that
Speaker 1: a truck that was a essentially rolling crime scene wouldn't
Speaker 1: disappear in that way. So additionally, prison nurse and a
Speaker 1: sergeant voice concerns about this. They said they thought there
Speaker 1: was something rotten in the parish, and they were fired.
Speaker 1: Several women who provided information about the initial murders later
Speaker 1: became victims themselves, leading Ethan Brown, like like Noel, to
Speaker 1: believe that there wasn't so much a serial killer active
Speaker 1: here as there was a cover up that was in
Speaker 1: some way directly connected to the sheriff's office. And here's
Speaker 1: where it gets even crazier. Brown discovered that the Boudreau
Speaker 1: in was owned by Louisiana congressman named Charles boost Any,
Speaker 1: and this gentleman had himself slept with at least three
Speaker 1: of the murder victims. So here's my question. Are they
Speaker 1: murdering them to keep them quiet? Or is the murder
Speaker 1: like the kink that's being exploited here. It's like sex
Speaker 1: isn't enough. These powerful men like want to take lives,
Speaker 1: you know, for sport. Well that's if he was actually involved.
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just throwing it out there. It's a
Speaker 1: good question because we see so we can sketch this
Speaker 1: out in a little bit more detail here, which you
Speaker 1: can find in Ethan Brown's book. He connected the ownership
Speaker 1: of the inn in the following manner. A guy who
Speaker 1: was a fixer and a representative for the congressman had
Speaker 1: the hotel purchased under an entity that he controlled. This
Speaker 1: enabled the congressman's office to say, oh, we had no
Speaker 1: knowledge that you owned, that we had no stake in this.
Speaker 1: Any allegations regarding me are completely unfounded, completely untrue. What
Speaker 1: happened to these women that I, again have never met,
Speaker 1: is a tragedy, and any uh, anyone living in town
Speaker 1: that you want to ask, will tell you that I
Speaker 1: have not been with these people. Again. To rewind that
Speaker 1: a bit, anyone living in town, I can tell you
Speaker 1: I was not involved. Uh. Brown also found that law
Speaker 1: enforcement's own witnesses to the murders, the ones who weren't
Speaker 1: later killed, believe that members of the police force themselves
Speaker 1: or either directly responsible or know who is and aren't
Speaker 1: saying anything. As of today's episode, the murders remain, like
Speaker 1: the murders in our earlier cases, officially unsolved. You mentioned
Speaker 1: True Detective before this one. Is this this story is
Speaker 1: was the basis for some of the writing of that season,
Speaker 1: like the Good Seasontive. Well, you know, it's It's interesting
Speaker 1: because a lot of people, both fans of True Detective
Speaker 1: and people who would uh witness this dark story unfolding
Speaker 1: felt that what's his name, Nick Pizzolatto, Uh, they believe
Speaker 1: that he had taken inspiration from this. For his part,
Speaker 1: he says that he was not aware of uh these murders,
Speaker 1: even though he was located in the rough area. He
Speaker 1: got danged for for ripping off some other source material
Speaker 1: to The Yellow King, right, well, not the Yellow The
Speaker 1: Yellow King was definitely referenced like as a work of
Speaker 1: fiction in the in the plotline, but I think there
Speaker 1: was another like a philosopher or something who he kind
Speaker 1: of stole from verbatim and some of the things that
Speaker 1: Cole the Matthew McConaughey character said. It was a thing
Speaker 1: that came out in an article right when that was
Speaker 1: really hot, and I remember it was not particularly flattering, right, Yes,
Speaker 1: I remember that Thomas, Yes, Thomas Ligotti a very dark
Speaker 1: philosophical horror writer as well. Yeah, I remember when we
Speaker 1: were talking about the article off air because we all
Speaker 1: we all stopped work because there was such true detective
Speaker 1: nuts that we had to we had to convene an
Speaker 1: emergency summit. But yeah, for for that part, and I
Speaker 1: think it is important to mention that there this was
Speaker 1: not the only accusation of this author taking ideas from
Speaker 1: other people. Uh. But for this part, the author says
Speaker 1: that he was unaware of this uh, and the connections
Speaker 1: to um Ethan Brown's articles were somewhat coincidental or entirely
Speaker 1: coincidental would be Pisolado's argument. But regardless of what inspirational
Speaker 1: fount he drank from, it remains the case that these
Speaker 1: these murders are unsolved. The beer Man murders are. I
Speaker 1: guess now they're officially unsolved since the one case got
Speaker 1: turned over. Yeah, I got they let that guy sell
Speaker 1: the rights to his story and open a food truck,
Speaker 1: so they must be onto the next thing. But I
Speaker 1: couldn't find anything uh more recent than just that guy walking,
Speaker 1: So I guess they're back to the grindstone. And in
Speaker 1: several of the cases outlined above, it is almost entirely
Speaker 1: certain that the killer will either never be caught or
Speaker 1: never be convicted in court. It's true that there are
Speaker 1: additional cases wherein a killer is revealed after their death
Speaker 1: or while confessing on their deathbed. But going to our
Speaker 1: early your point about about people falsely confessing to things,
Speaker 1: there's also this troubling phenomenon wherein someone perhaps due to
Speaker 1: uh the dementia of age, or to some other desire, right, uh,
Speaker 1: some condition or desire, they will falsely confess to something
Speaker 1: they never did, and then people say, well, maybe they
Speaker 1: were this uncaught person. But in this case, the in
Speaker 1: these cases, rather the murderers listed in this episode have
Speaker 1: not been caught. Several of them walk free as we
Speaker 1: record this. I don't know if we should add a
Speaker 1: moral to this. I don't know if there is one.
Speaker 1: I think maybe instead we add a call for your help,
Speaker 1: both on behalf of the survivors and uh behalf of
Speaker 1: your fellow listeners, and on our behalf as well. Do
Speaker 1: you live near any of these areas where you alive
Speaker 1: while these crimes we're taking place. In the course of
Speaker 1: our research for this episode, you know, we found numerous
Speaker 1: numerous cases of unsolved crimes from say the seventeen hundreds
Speaker 1: or the eighteen hundreds, well before criminologists had even attempted
Speaker 1: to make a term to encapsulate this sort of practice.
Speaker 1: But those those crimes have even less of a chance
Speaker 1: of being solved. These crimes, well, they have a very
Speaker 1: very very slim hope of being solved. Are still not
Speaker 1: completely impossible to crack today. So right to us on
Speaker 1: social media where we are at Conspiracy Stuff on Twitter
Speaker 1: and Facebook. We also have a new Facebook group called
Speaker 1: Here's where it Gets Crazy, because that's the place where
Speaker 1: it gets crazy is in that Facebook group, and you can,
Speaker 1: you know, you can sign up and it will send
Speaker 1: us a thing and if if, if we think you've
Speaker 1: got the stuff, accept you. Yeah, we accept everybody. We do.
Speaker 1: It's a great place to discuss an episode if you
Speaker 1: just want to talk with somebody else about it, and
Speaker 1: maybe nobody in your close family or friend group is
Speaker 1: interested in a specific thing, go there. There will be
Speaker 1: people who want to talk with you about it, and
Speaker 1: I guarantee it has the potential to create some fodder
Speaker 1: for future episodes and future discussions. Right here on the
Speaker 1: show and jumping right back into social media, we are
Speaker 1: Conspiracy Stuff Show on Instagram. Find us there, and if
Speaker 1: you don't want to link with us in any of
Speaker 1: those ways, just send us an email. We are conspiracy
Speaker 1: at how stuff works dot com.