Speaker 1: Podcast Unite Our Voices.
Speaker 2: This is Curtain, a podcast where we expose the disappearances
Speaker 2: of Aboriginal people across this country, shining a light on
Speaker 2: the darkest parts of our justice system.
Speaker 1: We ask who are the victims? I'm aiming Maquire, and
Speaker 1: I'm Martin Hodgson, Senior Advocate at the Foreign Prisoner Support Service.
Speaker 1: And a warning. This series contains the names of deceased
Speaker 1: people and includes distressing content that may upset some listeners.
Speaker 2: Hello, Welcome to Season two, Episode seven of Curtain, the
Speaker 2: podcast where we're looking in depth at the disappearances of
Speaker 2: Aboriginal women. And today we're going to take a turn.
Speaker 2: We're going to look particularly at police investigations because we
Speaker 2: feel we need an evidence base in which to work
Speaker 2: from when we begin looking at cases that we're going
Speaker 2: to investigate through this podcast, and we want to give
Speaker 2: you the listener and understanding and the background of some
Speaker 2: of the logistics and roles that police play when they're
Speaker 2: actively looking at missing persons. The reason this is so
Speaker 2: important is because we're looking particularly at the racialized nature
Speaker 2: of these cases and how the police are complicit in
Speaker 2: the continual disappearances of Aboriginal women in order to understand that,
Speaker 2: we have to actually delve into police protocols and how
Speaker 2: they actually investigate these ongoing cases. We're going to specifically
Speaker 2: look at one issue, and that's triangulation because it does
Speaker 2: play a role when police are going out to look
Speaker 2: for a missing person. Across Australia, over forty thousand people
Speaker 2: are reported missing every year. We don't really know how
Speaker 2: many of those are Aboriginal people, how many of those
Speaker 2: are Aboriginal men, women, and children, because the police often
Speaker 2: do not count and they don't tell us.
Speaker 1: The majority of those missing.
Speaker 2: Persons are found within a day. Then there's about two
Speaker 2: percent of US persons who are ongoing missing person's cases,
Speaker 2: and we've told you in this podcast that it disproportionately
Speaker 2: affects Aboriginal women and people in particular.
Speaker 1: Martin has done his.
Speaker 2: Own research into the issue of triangulation, and so we're
Speaker 2: going to start there. Martin, can I ask you first
Speaker 2: what is triangulation?
Speaker 1: So triangulation is one form of locating someone via their
Speaker 1: mobile phone. So in this day and age, it's really
Speaker 1: important given that almost everybody has their mobile has a
Speaker 1: mobile phone and often has it when they go missing.
Speaker 1: It is known that some people do leave their mobile
Speaker 1: phone behind, but generally those missing persons cases where the
Speaker 1: mobile phone has been left behind and tragically involves suicide.
Speaker 1: So given that so many people who go missing have
Speaker 1: their mobile phone on them, triangulation allows the police to
Speaker 1: locate a person using their mobile data. And the way
Speaker 1: it works is that almost every mobile phone app that
Speaker 1: you have knows your location. You give your phone approval
Speaker 1: for that app to access it, so it can be
Speaker 1: done via GPS, which is a much more powerful tool
Speaker 1: as it's very accurate. But triangulation, as it's used currently
Speaker 1: by most state polices in Australia, simply involves looking at
Speaker 1: the most recent mobile phone towers that a mobile phone
Speaker 1: has communicated with, So for it to be most effective,
Speaker 1: you want three mobile phone towers, as has been shown
Speaker 1: in a missing person's case in Victoria this year, just
Speaker 1: one mobile phone tower was enough. And the way it works,
Speaker 1: quite simply, is that when your mobile phone communicates with
Speaker 1: a tower, it takes a certain number of milliseconds for
Speaker 1: the data to go to the tower and come back
Speaker 1: from your phone, and triangulation allows for that amount of
Speaker 1: time to be measured, and when you measure that across
Speaker 1: the three mobile phone towers. You basically draw a circle
Speaker 1: around each one based on the time it took, and
Speaker 1: each millisecond gives you roughly the number of meters it is.
Speaker 1: And it allows those three circles, once they're drawn, to
Speaker 1: show a common point where they overlap, and that will
Speaker 1: help police know within roughly fifty to two hundred meters
Speaker 1: where a person might be. Using what's known as trilateration,
Speaker 1: which some police forces are now using, you can locate
Speaker 1: someone to within ten meters or less. So when someone's missing,
Speaker 1: this is a really powerful tool, but it has to
Speaker 1: be used and it has to be used appropriately.
Speaker 2: So Martin, can the police so just say a missing
Speaker 2: person has been reported, Can the police just go and
Speaker 2: do that and decide to triangulate their phone or are
Speaker 2: their protocols in place that they have to meet first?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So there's protocols in place, and there's Commonwealth legislation
Speaker 1: that governs it and governs it around the Telecommunications Act
Speaker 1: and also the Privacy Act. So one of the first
Speaker 1: hurdles that has to be overcome is that the person
Speaker 1: has to be deemed high risk and that's either high
Speaker 1: risk of or harming themselves, hurting or harming someone else,
Speaker 1: or being hurt or seriously harmed. But one of the
Speaker 1: problems with that is obviously different police are going to
Speaker 1: assess someone as high risk differently, and this is what
Speaker 1: we've seen come out throughout a number of inquests that
Speaker 1: generally officers who are familiar with missing persons cases and
Speaker 1: have had the appropriate training will understand much better who
Speaker 1: is at high risk, whereas we've seen far too often
Speaker 1: that police officers who have not had that training, and
Speaker 1: many have admitted on the stand under oath that they
Speaker 1: were never given the training to do these assessments and
Speaker 1: have wrongly categorized people as low or medium risk. And
Speaker 1: if someone is only at low risk or medium risk,
Speaker 1: then the legislation does not allow for the triangulation to occur.
Speaker 1: And what's important to understand is that is even if
Speaker 1: the family requests it, and in a lot of inquests
Speaker 1: we've seen recently where the person has never been found,
Speaker 1: the family were desperately asking for that. So the other
Speaker 1: test is that and something that's just been changed was
Speaker 1: that the person had to face an imminent threat, meaning
Speaker 1: the danger to them was very serious. And what the
Speaker 1: inquests over the last ten years have found is again
Speaker 1: different police were determining imminent as being different from case
Speaker 1: to case, and often they were completely wrong, and again
Speaker 1: they just hadn't had the training. So a number of
Speaker 1: requests for triangulation were refused based on these misunderstandings and
Speaker 1: often just bad practice. So the way it works is
Speaker 1: a police officer will be assigned to a missing person's
Speaker 1: case and then they take charge and they're supposed to
Speaker 1: have a role throughout that process. Obviously they're not on
Speaker 1: duty twenty four to seven, so the file of the
Speaker 1: missing person is supposed to be updated, and new information
Speaker 1: about that person means that a new risk assessment should
Speaker 1: be done. Once they are deemed high risk with the
Speaker 1: approval of their generally like the station manager for one
Speaker 1: of a better word, it's usually an inspector, they will
Speaker 1: then ask them if they can apply for triangulation to
Speaker 1: be performed. Then that officer has to call a dedicated
Speaker 1: officer in the police force in each state ask for
Speaker 1: their permission, and that officer decides whether it's high risk
Speaker 1: and whether there is a risk of serious harm or
Speaker 1: death to either the person someone else or causing it
Speaker 1: to themselves. And again we've seen that knocked back far
Speaker 1: too many times where triangulation would have worked very well
Speaker 1: and it was refused by that officer with the powder
Speaker 1: decide whether it's used. So just last year, the federal
Speaker 1: government overwhelmingly voted to remove the imminent aspect of the
Speaker 1: threat because it was something it seemed largely to be
Speaker 1: a word that many police did not even understand its meaning,
Speaker 1: and a number of coroners were very scathing of the
Speaker 1: police that it was obvious to all experts involved except
Speaker 1: the police, that the was in imminent danger, and yet
Speaker 1: the police did not understand that, not because they didn't
Speaker 1: understand the evidence, but they simply didn't understand the word.
Speaker 1: So to get past that risk, the word imminent has
Speaker 1: been removed from the legislation. But we still have the
Speaker 1: issue of whether police even ask for triangulation to occur,
Speaker 1: whether they deem the person to be at risk, whether
Speaker 1: they deem the person to be worthy. We've heard too
Speaker 1: often where police have accused Aboriginal women in particular of
Speaker 1: just walking off for gone walk about, and in that
Speaker 1: case it simply will not be used. And the problem
Speaker 1: with that, and the problem with making that assertion by
Speaker 1: the police, and that assumption that the person wasn't at
Speaker 1: risk of harm and has just walked off or gone
Speaker 1: away for a few days. Is once the battery of
Speaker 1: that far goes flat, triangulation is almost impossible, and so
Speaker 1: we need the police and emergency services who also including
Speaker 1: ambulance and fire departments who do have access to this
Speaker 1: technology as well, to understand how urgent that first twenty
Speaker 1: four hours is.
Speaker 2: I'm just wondering Martin as well, with the fact that
Speaker 2: triangulation kind assisted a battery is flat, what would happen,
Speaker 2: for example, in a case where maybe a person hasn't
Speaker 2: been reported missing until a couple of days after, maybe
Speaker 2: because the family didn't know where they were or what
Speaker 2: had happened, or that the police response had been a
Speaker 2: bit lax in that it had been a few days
Speaker 2: since the person has been last seen. Would triangulation in
Speaker 2: any way assist or would there be I guess justification
Speaker 2: for not using triangulation by those police officers.
Speaker 1: I don't think there is a justification for not using it,
Speaker 1: but it is often justified by saying the phone will
Speaker 1: have gone flat.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The reason why I say it should still be used
Speaker 1: is because let's say, for example, that a person will
Speaker 1: make it really basic. Goes missing in camera in the
Speaker 1: Act and after two days you can be pretty sure
Speaker 1: that a modern mobile phone will have gone flat, it
Speaker 1: will have lost all battery charge and not be giving
Speaker 1: out a signal anymore. And in the vast majority of
Speaker 1: missing persons cases, obviously they don't have a phone charger,
Speaker 1: especially if they're at risk someone's taken them. But my
Speaker 1: argument is that you can still ascertain the last location
Speaker 1: of that phone. And so if that person's gone missing
Speaker 1: from Canberra and they're reported missing in camera, but you
Speaker 1: request triangulation and shows that they're in Wollongong or that
Speaker 1: was the last known location, suddenly you completely change your investigation.
Speaker 1: You're much more likely now to focus on the area
Speaker 1: around Wollongong. You're also going to change who did that
Speaker 1: person maybe know from Wollongong. Was there someone who was
Speaker 1: a threat to them who had a reason to head
Speaker 1: to the Wollongong area if they had kidnapped or taken
Speaker 1: that person. It would also mean that it would instantly
Speaker 1: give authority to the Act Police to contact New South
Speaker 1: Wales Police, both at a statewide level, so that a
Speaker 1: missing person's report could be put out across New South
Speaker 1: Wales and also they could contact Wollongong Local Area Command
Speaker 1: so that investigations could take place in that area, and
Speaker 1: that would also police to go to the last known
Speaker 1: location of that mobile phone and look for clues and
Speaker 1: evidence there. So that's why I always believe that when
Speaker 1: someone is at risk, it still should be used. The
Speaker 1: other issue is that there is newer and better technology
Speaker 1: usually known as trilateration, and what it is able to
Speaker 1: do is like any app on your mobile phone, and
Speaker 1: what your mobile phone does is not only is it
Speaker 1: using mobile phone sell tower data, it's also using the
Speaker 1: data of any Wi Fi networks that your phone has
Speaker 1: either connected to or attempted to connect to. And it
Speaker 1: also uses the GPS signal inside your phone, which if
Speaker 1: you've ever used say Google Maps, it knows exactly where
Speaker 1: you are. If you are standing on the corner of
Speaker 1: a street, it knows you're standing on the corner of
Speaker 1: a street. So that information is available to police if
Speaker 1: they choose to use it. And people might think that
Speaker 1: this is very difficult or expensive, but anybody who has
Speaker 1: an Apple device will have access to the fine MyPhone
Speaker 1: feature which you can use to find your phone or
Speaker 1: your iPad or rye Watch, and it's no more complicated
Speaker 1: than that, and that app simply relies on trilateration. So
Speaker 1: the last Wi Fi network, which a Wi Fi network
Speaker 1: has a very small range it would generally in a
Speaker 1: residential area, allow you to determine that the person was
Speaker 1: in one of maybe two houses at the most. It
Speaker 1: also uses the GPS data, which not only lets police
Speaker 1: know the location or the last known location, but the
Speaker 1: route by which the person has gone from their last
Speaker 1: known location to where that phone currently is, and it
Speaker 1: also can tell them which Wi Fi connections it's tried
Speaker 1: to pick up along the way, again helping with that
Speaker 1: root information. So it's a very powerful tool, especially because
Speaker 1: we know how important those first twenty four hours are.
Speaker 2: And just to clarify, madam, because I think you know,
Speaker 2: just thinking through what triangulation actually is in logistics. So
Speaker 2: even if the phone is off, can still get that
Speaker 2: same data before the phone was turned off? Is that
Speaker 2: how a triangulation works? You can still you're still able
Speaker 2: to get the data from the towers after it's turned off.
Speaker 1: Yes, So the way that then works is that if
Speaker 1: the phone's live, as in the battery hasn't turned off,
Speaker 1: the police have the ability to access that information for themselves.
Speaker 1: Generally if once the phone is off, they will then
Speaker 1: need the assistance of the telecommunications provider, and the legislation
Speaker 1: covers the procedures for that, so the police officer in
Speaker 1: charge will then be able to call, say the person's
Speaker 1: mobile phone was with Voteraphone, They can call Votaphone and
Speaker 1: Votaphone can very quickly bring up on their computer which
Speaker 1: sell towers. Mobile phone towers were the last ones that
Speaker 1: that Mobile Phone ACTSS. And in addition to that, using trilateration,
Speaker 1: the police also have the power to contact say Google
Speaker 1: or Meta who runs Facebook and Instagram and all the
Speaker 1: other app providers and developers, and get information from them
Speaker 1: as to when a person may have logged onto Facebook,
Speaker 1: and that will also contain their location data, so the
Speaker 1: police have that power. The telecommunications companies have that information
Speaker 1: and it's stored, so even if someone is not reported
Speaker 1: missing for a few days, it's very easy for Facebook
Speaker 1: to go and look when someone lasts accessed their website
Speaker 1: or their app and where that was done from and
Speaker 1: how it was done, was it done using Wi Fi
Speaker 1: mobile phone data? And where did that come from? And
Speaker 1: they'll be up to again detail that to a very
Speaker 1: close area. So it really reduces things from looking for
Speaker 1: a needle in a haystack to really giving police a
Speaker 1: very good location of either where the person is or
Speaker 1: where they have been. And just to give one example
Speaker 1: of a person who sadly passed away having been reported
Speaker 1: missing by their family, the police chose not to request triangulation.
Speaker 1: That request was refused by the senior police officer because
Speaker 1: they didn't believe the person was at risk of serious harm,
Speaker 1: even though the evidence showed that they were, and they
Speaker 1: were known after the event to have been in a
Speaker 1: room in a certain hotel and the later triangulation and
Speaker 1: trilateration data pinpointed that room, and had police made the
Speaker 1: request for triangulation, they would have had four hours where
Speaker 1: that person was still alive and still in that hotel
Speaker 1: room and be able to go immediately to where they were.
Speaker 2: And Madam, what happens. Is there any difference in geography,
Speaker 2: for example, the use of triangulation in a city compared
Speaker 2: to a regional or particularly a rural area where there
Speaker 2: might not be those levels of data available.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a really good point. So one thing, geography
Speaker 1: plays a big role in multiple senses. One is that
Speaker 1: obviously in a city there are far more mobile phone
Speaker 1: towers than out in regional Australia, and even less in
Speaker 1: the bush. The other issue is that something like a mountain,
Speaker 1: even when you have mobile phone access and reception, will
Speaker 1: slow down the speed at which the signal bounces from
Speaker 1: the person's phone to the tower and back again, and
Speaker 1: so that can throw out the calculations, but again it
Speaker 1: still at least gives the police an idea. In the city,
Speaker 1: you can have things like if someone was in an
Speaker 1: underground car park, then there might not be any reception,
Speaker 1: or there might be a great delay again in that
Speaker 1: signal going from the mobile tower back to the phone,
Speaker 1: but it will still tell the police that they were
Speaker 1: in that underground car park. In a country area where
Speaker 1: mobile phone reception is poor still in Australia, and Australia
Speaker 1: is one of the worst countries in the OECD for
Speaker 1: mobile phone reception, it will still drastically narrow down a
Speaker 1: person's location, even if it's not as accurate. Again, so
Speaker 1: in the city you could be accurate within at least
Speaker 1: a few hundred meters, if not within one or two
Speaker 1: houses on a street. In a rural area. It might
Speaker 1: give you a result of perhaps one square kilometer, but
Speaker 1: that is still a hell of a lot better than
Speaker 1: someone being three or four or five towns away. So
Speaker 1: I would argue it's always useful, and as technology improves,
Speaker 1: it's becoming increasingly more useful.
Speaker 2: And I was just wondering as well, like surely that
Speaker 2: it just shocks me so much that police would be
Speaker 2: reluctant to use triangulation if there's a search and rescue
Speaker 2: as well, and a search and rescue effort, because it
Speaker 2: makes me think that if you're searching in the wrong
Speaker 2: place or you have the wrong paravidus for research and
Speaker 2: you haven't done that triangulation, you've wasted all those resources
Speaker 2: and that time towards finding that person as well, Like,
Speaker 2: it's shocking that this isn't a key part in investigating
Speaker 2: missing purposes to begin with, particularly when you know, like
Speaker 2: a lot of these cases we know of, there have
Speaker 2: been searchers, and what we're going to argue in future
Speaker 2: episodes is that they were searching in the wrong place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's really important for people to understand that. Because
Speaker 1: there was resistance to the Amendment to the Telecommunications Act
Speaker 1: that made this now easier for the police to access.
Speaker 1: There were organizations who wanted this data to be harder
Speaker 1: to access for the police because they were saying that
Speaker 1: it infringes people's right to privacy and the privacy of
Speaker 1: their data. But there are very important and clear boundaries
Speaker 1: with in terms of what information the police can access
Speaker 1: from triangulation. So they can't access your phone calls, who
Speaker 1: you've been calling. They can't access, say, your text messages,
Speaker 1: or your photos or your videos. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of misinformation around that. And if the police do need
Speaker 1: to access that sort of information, then there is a
Speaker 1: very detailed log that has to be recorded and it's
Speaker 1: monitored by a third party, so states have telecommunications ombardsman.
Speaker 1: There is oversight on how often police use triangulation, in
Speaker 1: what cases was it appropriate, And there really is no
Speaker 1: suggestion of any merit that I can see that argue
Speaker 1: against using it. Largely, in my opinion, the pushback against
Speaker 1: using it is misguided, and it's misguided in the sense
Speaker 1: that it's seeking to protect people's privacy when those people's
Speaker 1: privacy is not at risk. What is at risk is
Speaker 1: their life, And what we know is that in nations
Speaker 1: like the United Kingdom, where they've been using this technology
Speaker 1: for a lot longer than we have in Australia, that
Speaker 1: sixty four percent of people were located within the first
Speaker 1: forty eight hours, and that twenty two percent were located
Speaker 1: within the first week, and ninety seven percent of all
Speaker 1: missing people in the United Kingdom ended up being found alive.
Speaker 1: That's by the police, and that at least twenty percent
Speaker 1: of those cases in the forty eight hours, triangulation was
Speaker 1: a crucial tool in finding them. And so this was
Speaker 1: part of arguing for the change to the legislation last year,
Speaker 1: was that it really is very very important, and especially
Speaker 1: as you pointed out Amy, where we know in so
Speaker 1: many missing persons cases where the police have simply been
Speaker 1: looking in the wrong area, that this is a tool
Speaker 1: that would have put search and rescue, the SEES and
Speaker 1: other volunteer organizations like Surf Life savers looking in the
Speaker 1: right area. It's not just police who can use this technology,
Speaker 1: it is emergency services across the board. And so one
Speaker 1: of the big problems, however, remains police reluctance to use
Speaker 1: it when they don't believe someone is at a high risk.
Speaker 1: And I think we have explored and we understand that
Speaker 1: in Australia, Aboriginal women and children are at a particularly
Speaker 1: high risk of serious harm or death when they go missing,
Speaker 1: and for it not to be used to locate them
Speaker 1: safely and in a timely manner is deeply problematic. Just
Speaker 1: to give one more example, many people will know about
Speaker 1: baby Charlie who was murdered in Western Australia. Both his
Speaker 1: mother and his grandfather begged police to use triangulation to
Speaker 1: find Baby Charlie's former stepfather, who eventually murdered him, and
Speaker 1: the police refused to do it. Baby Charlie was known
Speaker 1: to be alive for at least ten hours after they'd
Speaker 1: made that request, and he was in an area where
Speaker 1: mobile phone data would have shown not only what street
Speaker 1: he was in, but right down to one, maybe two houses.
Speaker 1: He could still be alive if triangulation was used. And
Speaker 1: I think it's a tragic and prime example of where
Speaker 1: this technology can be used to save a life, and
Speaker 1: because of the police was not used to save.
Speaker 2: A life and might I don't know. I was just
Speaker 2: going to say as well, particularly when we talk about
Speaker 2: high risk and vulnerability, like what's more vulnerable than a
Speaker 2: young baby fact that he isn't seen as at risk.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the issue that we're seeing in
Speaker 2: a lot of the cases we're currently looking at, is
Speaker 2: that Aboriginal women are seen as criminals rather than vulnerable
Speaker 2: to violence and as being victimized and as being disappeared.
Speaker 2: And I think so it comes down to, you know,
Speaker 2: the fact that there is this technology that could very
Speaker 2: easily find them, save potentially save lives, but also find
Speaker 2: them to bring them home to their families so their
Speaker 2: families don't have to go through that long process. And
Speaker 2: because of this, these racialized in these outright race views
Speaker 2: of Aboriginal people, we know existing police forces across the country,
Speaker 2: it's not being utilized. And that's what I wanted to
Speaker 2: ask you as a closing question, Martin, is why is
Speaker 2: it so important to actually start digging into things like
Speaker 2: triangulation and I guess investigating every part of these processes
Speaker 2: as we look into these cases have disappeared Aboriginal women.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there's three key reasons why we need
Speaker 1: to analyze the data and analyze the way these technologies
Speaker 1: are used. The first is it shows where police have
Speaker 1: dramatically failed in the past, and there are countless cases
Speaker 1: I can point to like Baby Charlie, where an Aboriginal
Speaker 1: woman or child could still be alive had that technology
Speaker 1: been used. So I think that's the first thing to
Speaker 1: understand that the police do and have failed, and so
Speaker 1: moving forward we can assess the best way to help
Speaker 1: by knowing that they have not helped. You know, we
Speaker 1: are stupid if we keep allowing the same mistakes to
Speaker 1: be made over and over again. The second reason is
Speaker 1: it allows us to propose new legislation. As Aboriginal people
Speaker 1: and lobby groups work around these issues, then you can
Speaker 1: call for a new legislation to make, for example, some
Speaker 1: of this technology mandatory when an Aboriginal person is missing
Speaker 1: or feared kidnapped. So, just as we have the Custody
Speaker 1: Notification Service in almost every state where the police must
Speaker 1: contact the Aboriginal Legal Service and report that there's an
Speaker 1: Aboriginal person they've taken into custody, why do we not
Speaker 1: have the same mandatory practices for when an Aboriginal person
Speaker 1: goes me? And thirdly, I think it highlights a need
Speaker 1: for serious oversight by Aboriginal people in these contexts. So
Speaker 1: I would prefer to see rather than a senior police
Speaker 1: officer making the decision about whether triangulation should be used
Speaker 1: because we know it works, it should be taken out
Speaker 1: of their hands. And we could have dedicated Aboriginal workers
Speaker 1: who are trained in this area, who can liaise with
Speaker 1: the family, and who can make an informed decision as
Speaker 1: an advocate for that missing person that they want that
Speaker 1: technology used immediately. And so I think there's three really
Speaker 1: key reasons why exploring these issues are so important. We
Speaker 1: can discover past mistakes, we can rectify them into the future,
Speaker 1: and we can understand how to best do that. That
Speaker 1: was episode seven of Curtin the Podcast, brought to you
Speaker 1: by black Cast and produced by Clint Curtis. For more
Speaker 1: you can visit us at www dot curtinpodcast dot com,
Speaker 1: follow us on Twitter at Curtain Podcast, and help to
Speaker 1: support our work at Patreon dot com. Backslash Curtain Podcast