(upbeat music) When you think about businesses that are selling through the roof, like Aloe or Allbirds, sure, you think about a great product, a cool brand and great marketing, but an often overlooked secret is actually the businesses behind the business, making selling and for shoppers buying simple. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Nobody does online business better than Shopify. It's home of shop pay, the number one checkout in the world. You can use it to boost conversions up to 50%, meaning way less hearts going abandoned and way more sales going through to checkout. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/income, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com/income to upgrade your selling today. That's shopify.com/income. This is the sound of your ride home with dad after he caught you vaping. Awkward, isn't it? Most vapes contain seriously addictive levels of nicotine and disappointment. Know the real cost of vapes, brought to you by the FDA. Slow Burn Media, Evergreen Podcasts and Killer Podcasts presents Who Killed, a podcast that provides a voice for the voiceless. An Idaho judge granted a change of venue request for accused killer Brian Coburger. Coburger is accused of killing four University of Idaho students in 2022. Now, the judge sided with the defense's request, calling it the most difficult decision of his career. Coburger's defense team argued that potential jurors from Lata County would most likely have biased views of their client due to the intense media interest and coverage in the case. Defense Attorney suggested moving the trial about 300 miles away to the Boise area. The judge has not confirmed though, where the trial will take place. - Hello and welcome to this week's episode of Who Killed. I'm your host, Bill Huffman. And this is a slow burn media, Evergreen Podcasts and Killer Podcasts production. On this week's episode, I am joined by our resident law expert, the one and only Matt Mangino. And Matt, absolutely thank you so much for coming on the show. I hear there's been an update in Idaho. - Yeah, thanks, Bill, I appreciate it. - What's the latest? - Well, it's interesting. There's been a flurry of motions filed. Probably the biggest news is that the judge in the case has agreed to the defense's request for a change of venue. So this is going to be a trial in a different county than where the crime occurred. There's two different options in a situation like that. You can get what's called a change of venue, which means you move the trial to another county, to another courthouse. Or you can get what's called a change of the near, which means you go out to a different county, you pick a jury and you bring that jury back to the county where the crime occurred. So in this case, it's a change of venue. And part of that reason is because the judge essentially said we don't have the resources, the security in the other means to have this case tried in our county. So not only is it an issue of potentially the jury pull being tainted by the media coverage, but it's also an issue of the capability. I believe the county has about 41,000 residents. Just the pick a jury, the judge estimated there'd be thousands of potential jurors and they just don't have the resources or ability to try a case like that. Yeah, that's gonna be interesting to see where in Idaho this case ends up. Because again, a lot of the counties I would assume in Idaho are rural counties, probably smaller than this college community itself. So there's gonna be limited places. The judge did not direct where this case would be tried. He's left it up to the state Supreme Court administrator to make that determination. But I think we'll learn pretty soon where it's going to be tried. And my understanding is that it's the court administration who will make that decision. And I would assume what they're going to do is they're gonna look first at the map and determine which particular areas have the resources to try a case like this and to have a large enough jury pool to pick from. And then I would think they're going to call these counties and say, "Hey, how would you like to try this case "in your county?" So you're going to get a new judge, you're gonna get a new location and you're gonna get a new jury pool. - It makes you wonder if it's gonna end up in a city like Boise. - You think that they're gonna have to go to the larger, more metropolitan areas of Idaho if they're gonna feel comfortable that they have the resources they need to see this case through. - You're absolutely right about being rural. And the further north you go, as you know, the Idaho Peninsula is infamous for being the land of white supremacy. So probably not the best place to hold a trial. - Yeah, I had a chance actually to visit that area and to visit Idaho a couple of years ago. And I actually, I was at Idaho State, not the University of Idaho, which is an interesting place because their football stadium is indoors. They have a roof over there filled. It's kind of like a minigame. But yeah, so it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of the location selection where this trial begins. The other issue is one of the things that courts are often concerned about when they change venue is if this trial moves to a place miles and miles away, if you wanted to have the jury there to see the crime scene logistically, how does that work and is it practical to do that? But here, the building is going, there is no crime scene. So that's really not gonna be an issue in this case. So they can move it away 'cause there's, I don't see any reason why you would have to bring this jury back to Moscow to do this. - Do you think this is something that they're actually gonna reconstruct for the case like the house or just possibly the rooms? - I would think if anything, they're gonna do it sort of digitally with technology. - Right, 30 years ago, maybe yeah, you would consider I'm gonna build a structure that's the exact dimensions of this room, but that's not, I don't think that's gonna happen. - Who cannot forget the Ted Kaczynski case where they actually brought the shed into the courthouse and into the courtroom. And it really showed how small of a place that this lunatic was living. - Yeah, I don't anticipate any sort of theatrics like that. It's gonna be what you can watch any night on television if you're watching some crime television show or something like that, it's all gonna be graphics. - I assumed it would be digital, but the death penalty, we've talked about the death penalty in the past and how Idaho is similar to Pennsylvania, where it's on the books, but it's not really used on the regular. I'm gonna have to ask if this case is going to be something that they use as a bargaining chip or is it actually gonna be taken to the end and death will be on the table. - Well, I think that they've made several arguments or proposed arguments to the court with regard to the death penalty. And frankly, some of these are interesting arguments. By and large, every state that has a death penalty and there's fewer and fewer, but every state that has a death penalty has a certain scheme that's been approved by the United States Supreme Court. So if we go back to 1972 and firm in v. Georgia, the Supreme Court said that the death penalty didn't say it was unconstitutional. What they said it was unfair. It was arbitrary in the way it was being imposed. So what that meant was the death penalty in Pennsylvania and how you get to that point might be completely different than the death penalty in South Carolina or in Ohio. And so what the court said is we're not gonna do away with the death penalty, but we're gonna stop the death penalty because it's arbitrary right now. And so states came back very quickly, rewrote their laws and now we're in a situation in which I refer to as the modern error of the death penalty. And in that sort of modern error of the death penalty, the basic changes that occurred in every state that conform with the Supreme Court's decision is that number one, you have a bifurcated trial. So what's meant by that is number one, you have two phases to the trial. The guilt phase where they determine whether or not you're guilty or not guilty of first degree murder and then the penalty phase. Should you get the death penalty or life in prison? So that was one major change. The next major change was at least the thought was that we're gonna only apply the death penalty to the worst of the worst. So not only do you have to be charged with first degree murder, planned, premeditated murder, but there also has to be aggravating circumstances that exist, which means that you committed this crime in a manner that sets it apart from other crimes. And what the court would do is the states would establish what these aggravating circumstances are. And then the defense in this guilt phase would have the right to present mitigating evidence. And if the aggravating evidence outweighs the mitigating evidence, then the jury should impose the death penalty. So in this case, there are I think five aggravating circumstances. There were multiple murders that these murders were committed while committing another felony, which was the burglary going into the home. And then there's disregard for human life, particularly heinous crime and a propensity to commit murder. Now, why I wanted to mention those five is because what has happened over time is that the death penalty is really no longer for the worst of the worst, okay? Because the legislatures have watered down the aggravating circumstances, okay? So initially, it was like, if you killed a child, if you committed multiple murders, if you murdered a pregnant woman, if you tortured somebody in the process. So those kind of things really separated it from other first-degree murder cases. Now you have aggravating circumstances like it's a particularly heinous crime. I mean, murder is, I mean, should we be thinking about, well, did he kill him in a good way or a bad way? I mean, that's a catch-all that makes every first-degree murder potentially subject to the death penalty because you can say every murder is heinous. I mean, what murder is not heinous, okay? Yeah, right. And then, you know, the other one is, in this case, is a disregard for human life, okay? I mean, you murdered somebody. I mean, that's a pretty substantial disregard for human life, okay? So again, that's a catch-all. So in a way, it's been diluted. And so in this case, ultimately, if there's a conviction, a first-degree murder, then the state has to prove these aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigation that the defense would present. The way we look at cases and the way that the public and pop culture are portrayed in the Hollywood machine is that everything's cut and dry and everything is resolved pretty quickly. Clearly, this is not always a case. Are you having been on both sides of this aisle? Are they just doing what they're supposed to be doing as far as attorneys go? Well, yeah. I mean, this is what the prosecution has to do. The prosecution, you know, is required, you know, to put the defense on notice that we're going to seek the death penalty, you know, and these are the five reasons why. Now, you know, certainly this is a case in which, you know, four young people were savagely brutalized and murdered. You know, so, yeah, I mean, there's aggravating circumstances here. I mean, I don't know that you need to have the overkill, you know, with some of the other issues, but this is a multiple murder. If you were in some way able to say, to make a separation between what's heinous and what isn't, I think this qualifies on the heinous side. Certainly, you know, the brutal way, you know, these four young people were murdered. So I'm not necessarily saying that if, you know, that this is flimsy, you know, I think there's strong, aggravating circumstances in this case, if he's convicted of, you know, first-degree murder. You know, the other thing that you have to think about, when you think about it, you know, a jury and a death penalty case, which is different than any other case, is that jurors have to be death qualified, okay? Which means when you're going through vaudire and you're asking these jurors questions, one of the questions that you ask is, if the law and the facts support it, can you impose the death penalty? If you're a juror and you say, no, I can't do that, you're gone, okay? So that death qualification means that whatever jurors are selected in this case, they've already said they can impose the death penalty if the law and the facts support that. So, you know, you're kind of already leaning each order. I mean, you have a group of people who say, yeah, I support the death penalty. And if you look at, you know, polling, that eliminates about half of the population, because half of the population say they're opposed to death penalty. And if those people come in and they're honest and they say, hey, I can't do it, I'm opposed to death penalty, they're disqualified. And, you know, so, you know, you're cutting a big chunk out of your jury pool just on that issue, alum. - You've had a lot of experience with the death penalty. And you can go ahead and talk about your book because that is one of those things that's basically one of those cases where people get to make their own decision. And go ahead and pitch your book a little bit because I really think it's an interesting read and I think the audience would enjoy it. - Yeah, well, thank you. I appreciate that, Bill. Yeah, so my book is the executioners toll 2010. And it's published by McFarland and Company. And, you know, what I did when I thought about this book is, you know, having been a defense attorney and having been a prosecutor who tried, you know, death penalty cases. I was interested in death penalty and I also was interested in how sort of the jurisprudence with regard to death penalty is kind of seeped into other areas of the criminal justice system. And so, you know, one thing that I always found when I was reading about the death penalty or researching the death penalty is that almost everybody wrote from a certain bias. So if you supported the death penalty, you cherry picked all the cases that jumped out and said, "This is why we have a death penalty." And if you were opposed to the death penalty, you did the same thing. You cherry picked the bad cases in terms of the death penalty. What I thought I would do is I said, "Let's, you know, how can we do this in a way that is almost a statistical sort of analysis?" You know, that we're gonna have a random sample that we can take a look at. And one way I thought of going, I said, "Let's just take one year in the death penalty, 2010." There were 46 executions that year. So I thought, "Let's talk about the crimes, the trials, the appeals and, you know, everything down to the last meal and the last word." But, and then also work in the constitutional law that has been so important with regard to the death penalty and the criminal justice system period. And look at those 46 cases and the reader can decide whether or not they support the death penalty. And so that was kind of my objective. And, you know, I think, you know, if you read the book, you know, it gives you an opportunity, you know, to weigh these things. And, you know, sometimes, you know, and I've talked to people who've read the book that, you know, that's great. You know, I went in there thinking, you know, this is going to resolve how I feel or what I think of the death penalty. And it's not an easy answer. It's not an easy conclusion to come to. No, no. And a lot of people want it to be black and white. And a lot of people want everything to be black and white. And guess what? Nothing is black and white. And, yeah, and if you want to, you know, if you want to walk around and think you have all the answers, well... - We have seen a lot of cases where... - That doesn't work. - You can walk around and think that you are the smartest person in the room and you have all the answers. And we can see what hubris does and a lot of terrible things that occur from it. So when you ride around on your high horse, don't be surprised if you get knocked off. - Well, you know, and Bill, I think that the issue with that is that it's easy to want to say things are black and white. You don't have to think about them. Okay, so that's easy. I mean, this is the way it is. You know, the death penalty is good. Murder should be executed. You know, when I talk with people like that, it's typically people who don't want to think it through. They don't want to critically think, you know, so why is the death penalty good in this situation? Why is it bad in this situation? How do we reconcile those differences? That's hard work. You've got to think about that and you really got to spend some time. And if you don't want to think about it, then hey, you know, I'm a hundred percent for the death penalty all the time. Makes it easy. - Sometimes I think that if you don't look around and don't acknowledge what is going on in the world, then you may wake up one day and things will have changed for the worst and you will not have had much to say about it. - Yeah, you know, I think now more than ever in the fall of 2024, people have to critically think about everything that they're doing and every decision that they're going to make in these next 56 days. - Yeah, I mean, you know, I think whatever decision, you know, people make, you know, look at it critically. I mean, examine it, you know, try to figure out why you're making the decision that you are. I mean, you know, certainly, you know, not every decision has to be, you know, critically analyze them and, you know, do I want to coke or do I want to Pepsi? I mean, yeah, you're not going to sit down and ponder that for a few minutes. But there are some, but there's some important decisions that need that type of critical analysis to make an informed decision. - With that being said, and with what came out last week from the DOJ and their misinformation operation through social media influencers, it is very hard for me to not believe that they didn't know where the money was coming from or they just didn't look very hard because it was just so much money. But again, you have a lot of people out there that are just going around and saying things because people are giving them money to do so. And, you know, parenting, parenting is important and sometimes these parents aren't teaching their kids to critically think about stuff and look at what's going on in certain aspects of the party where you have people running around saying that the Haitians are eating animals and ducks and dogs in Springfield, Ohio when that has been completely debunked. But unfortunately, we live in a country and in a state of being where this has become commonplace. - You know, and it's not just, you know, one particular group or one particular segment of our culture. I mean, we've become sort of, you know, entrapped in this continuous motor of information and being accepting of that motor of information that's being churned out and accepting in a face bag. You know, I think there was a time in this country when, you know, most of our news came from, you know, Walter Cronkite and, you know, his colleagues, you know, and, you know, it was non-biased. It was just news for you to take and you trusted that. You know, and I think there were certain, you know, newspapers that you trusted, you know, whether it was the New York Times, you know, or the Chicago Tribune or whatever newspaper it was. And, you know, so when you read that information, you could trust that it was fact-checked, that it was as unbiased as possible and that you could rely on it. So that's, you know, the way we were sort of programmed. You know, so that's what television did for us in the early years. That's what newspapers did for us. You know, you could read it, you could make up your own mind. Now you can get news or information from thousands of different sources. And I think we're still programmed to think, well, I'm watching this on television or on my screen. It's got to be reliable. I'm listening to these people talk about this issue. This, you know, crazy conspiracy theory that, you know, Haitians are reading Haitian immigrants and they're reading pets in Springfield, huh? And you believe it because it's on TV because, you know, it's on the internet. And that's a real problem. And that's not, you know, it's not just a political problem. That has implications, you know, through, you know, all the institutions. - Implications for sure. I mean, look at education. I mean, our rankings worldwide have gone down every year since we've started teaching the test. My ex-wife was a teacher and she would teach her kindergartners how to take the test and... - Well, you know, Bill, and I think you hit on another issue that I think is so important. It is, and we talked about critical thinking a moment ago. But, you know, we've moved away from the liberal arts education, okay? As you said, we prepare students for exams. You know, we want specialization in our learning. And listen, I think it's important, you know, to learn a skill, to be specialized in something. But you need that liberal arts background so that you understand history and you understand literature and you understand it's importance. So you're not out there supporting book banning and book burning and you know history. So you understand how history can repeat itself and how we can look at history to help form a path forward. That's a liberal arts education. And I think every student needs it, whether you're going to be a welder, a nurse, a teacher, a pharmacist, a doctor, it doesn't matter. It's also so we don't repeat ourselves. And we don't continue down this path that we've seen in movies before. They don't ever end well. And this one isn't going to end well if we continue down this path. - Right, and if you don't know about it or your knowledge historically is superficial, then you don't see the similarities. You don't see the trouble that could be brewing ahead. - Yeah, it's absolutely crazy. If you don't understand the past, then how do you ever prevent making the same mistakes in the future? I just think the idea of a liberal arts education not being as important as it once was is very much a disservice to this nation and for the minds of our children because the fact is they're not critically thinking and it blows my mind. - And I think we're heading for disaster if we completely abandon the history, the literature, the things like that that help us understand the world around us. - The history, the literature, things like that that we talk and they bring up an interesting point because I think about the education that I received and I know it was sanitized. I mean, I didn't learn about the Tulsa race riots until I was older, you know, they were completely whitewashed. I mean, how many times did we have Pilgrim Indian Day, you know, on Thanksgiving? And I'm sure they still do it to a degree, but again, we weren't really told what really happened. I mean, the Osage tribe should have probably kept their oil money and probably shouldn't have been white men in charge of their deeds and all the things that have come from these horrible events in the past. I mean, if you don't know these histories of these parties, these individuals, it's just gonna basically create a environment that is not gonna be beneficial for anybody. - All right. Yeah, I mean, I think what a liberal arts education does is, you know, obviously you can't learn everything. You're not gonna learn about every incident that occurred everywhere in the country or around the world, but what I think it does is it gets people interested in wanting to know more. So if you know, if you learn the basics, if you're introduced to war and conflict and government and all these different things, you know, relationships between countries, you know, maybe it's gonna, you know, peak your interest and you're gonna wanna, you're gonna wanna learn more. So you know that, you know, you've learned about Tom Crow, you learned about the Civil War, you learned about Tom Crow, you learned about, you know, race relations in this country. Maybe that ultimately leads you to learn more and you learn about the Tulsa, you know, massacre and you learn, you know, so your interest has been prodded by learning, you know, the basics. And so you've learned about, you learned about the Nazis in World War II and you learned about the atrocities that they committed and you learned about, you know, unilaterally invading Poland and starting World War II. But maybe you wanna learn more about the run-up to it. You know, how did Adolf Hitler, how did he get elected in 1932? Right, and what role did violence play in Germany itself with the rise? You know, so now you learn those basics and hey, you know, I wanna learn a little bit more and then you really get a grasp historically about how these things can occur right under the nose of law-abiding good people who, you know, are raising their family. It's not like in Germany, everybody was a Nazi, you know, it just wasn't the way it was. I mean, the whole feeling on this is, let's just not go down that path and let's continue moving forward onward and upward and speaking of that, there is another case that is moving forward and that would be one of Delphi and Richard Allen. Have you heard anything about that case lately? Yeah, no, I know about the case and have you been following it and talking about it. You know, but I haven't kept up in the last few days. Yeah, nothing's really changed in the last few days, but in the last few weeks there were some rulings that I believe they couldn't use certain evidence in their defense. Yeah, yeah, I think I read they can't use the third party defendant or, you know, point the finger at somebody else. And we've seen that in other high profile cases, you know, where the courts have, you know, prohibited, you know, the ability to bring in, you know, to basically try somebody else in the middle of the trial of the defendant. What's the reasoning behind that? I mean, they can't bring up another possible killer? Well, I think the reasoning with regard to situations like that is that there has to be, you know, you know, some legitimate basis for it, okay? So I think the courts, they scrutinize, you know, what, you know, someone wants to say, you know, what evidence they want to present. I mean, obviously in most situations where you're going to point the finger at a third party, you know, what you're doing is just trying to mark, you know, make the water murky and make it difficult for jurors to sort things out. I mean, you know, it'd be wonderful, you know, you know, if you're a defendant to be trying somebody else in the middle of your, in the middle of your own trial. And, you know, so, you know, unless there's really something substantial that would support that, you know, the courts are reliable that you do it. So as a layman, I guess that's pretty normal for not allowing that type of action within the actual case. - Yeah, I would say more often than not, courts are not going to permit you to do that unless you really have some compelling evidence that could be presented. I was thinking of Sam Shepard. - Oh, yeah. - You know, that was... - The city is very close to my heart and it's right next to the city where I grew up. Also where the Amy Mihalovic case takes place. - Yeah, that was Cleveland. - Yeah, and that was Efle Bailey. That's what launched his career as kind of the superstar defense attorney, you know, then all the way through OJ Simpson. But, but yeah, I mean, you know, it's... I can't think off the top of my head any high profile cases that I recall where, you know, someone has effectively used the third party perpetrator, so to speak. - Yeah, I get it from a law perspective. I just think it kind of limits your defense, in my opinion. - Yeah, I think that judges, you know, try to give the benefit of the doubt, you know, to defendants if they have legitimate claims. But, you know, we see every day, you know, motions in lemonade, you know, pretrial motions, you know, suppression motions where you're trying to keep evidence out of a case or you're trying to find out, you know, what, how the prosecution is going to present their evidence through motions in lemonade and those kind of things. And, you know, I would say that, you know, significant majority of those, you know, are in favor of the prosecution. You know, it's not easy to suppress evidence and the Supreme Court has made it more and more difficult by limiting the number of situations in which you are going to be able to, you know, suppress evidence. You know, so, you know, that's why, you know, more than 95% of cases end up in police. Because, not that the deck is stacked against defendants, but, you know, we've seen a lot of decisions from the Warren court that gave a lot of rights to individual defendants, kind of be chiseled away. And, you know, prosecutors have resources and investigators, you know, most defendants are represented, you know, by public defendants, the public defender or court appointed counsel. So, the resources aren't there to mount a battle against a party that has resources. And, you know, at least in the modern era, favorable decisions on admissible evidence. - My high school teacher, Dennis Krenak, once said that if you had a grand jury convening to determine your possible guilt, you were probably already screwed. - Yeah, well, that's funny, you know, you know, Henry Morgenthal, who was the district attorney in New York City, and you talk about a grand jury being convened to determine, you know, whether or not someone's going to be indicted. And Morgenthal said that he could indict a ham sandwich. It was that easy to get an indictment in front of a grand jury. Because the defendant's not there and there's no cross-examination. And, you know, so, yeah, he made it pretty clear how easy it was to get an indictment in New York City. - As a Clevelander and having to be burdened with the one and only Deshaun Watson as our quarterback, I mean, he went through two grand juries in Texas and neither of those returned an indictment. - Yeah. Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, you don't, you know, those are kind of unique situations. There's so many different dynamics at play there. I mean, you know, obviously he's well-known. You know, he's a celebrity athlete. You know, our celebrity athletes and celebrities generally, are they vulnerable to people making accusations against them, you know, and, you know, we know that Deshaun Watson settled a lot of cases. You know, and we don't know what they, you know, were they nominal amounts just to get these people to go away so that they wouldn't bother. Or, you know, are these legitimate claims in which he paid, you know, lots and lots of money. We don't really know that, but we do know that he seems to be the target more often than other people. So, you know, with their smoke, I would assume there's fire. Yeah, well, you could be the Pittsburgh Steelers now who this past weekend, the opening weekend. Their offensive player of the game is the kicker. You know, I don't know how that bows for the future, but Boswell is going to probably need the ice himself down after games if they keep this up. I mean, he was just always so dynamic at Ohio State. I mean, he's just been perpetually putting up field goals. So, I don't know what happened to his offensive rhythm. Yeah, you got to turn it on in the red zone. Anyway, Matt, thanks so much. It has been a pleasure. I know you have other appointments and other things to do. So, thank you so much for coming on this week. And where can people find you? And where do you do most of your TV hits these days? Well, you know, I've been doing a lot of core TV, which is a lot of fun. And, you know, I write a weekly column for creators syndicate that started at the first of the year. So, you can find those at creators in different newspapers across the country. So, that's a lot of fun. Of course, my book is available on all the normal sites where you would find a book, you know, Amazon, Barnes and Noble. You can go directly to McFarland in company, you know, my publisher as well. And, you know, you can find me, you know, Twitter. It's Matthew T. Mangino. What is it? X. It's Matthew T. Mangino. And my blog is matmangino.com. I write every day, you know, sometimes more than once a day, you know, so you can check me out there as well. Yeah. So, but Bill, thanks for having me. It's always great to be on your show. And I think you do a fantastic job, you know, for your followers and viewers. It's a great, it's a great podcast. Thanks, Matt. I really do appreciate it. And I did love seeing you at CrimeCon. Yeah, that was great. It's always fun to be there and see all the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, ID addicts. Thank you, Bill. I will see you then. But until next time, thank you very much. Thank you guys so much for tuning into this week's new episode of Who Killed. I was lucky enough to have the one and only Matt Mangino on hand to discuss the latest in the Idaho Four case. Hopefully that gives you guys a little bit of perspective on when that case will head to trial and where it will be held. Until then, I'll be producing new episodes as I have not been doing much of this summer because of a variety of reasons. But we are going to be back in the swing of things. And this is just the first of many new episodes to come. So, as you know, going forward, I've released new episodes every Friday. And I also do a press for the week on occasion. And so, if you are interested in following me on Twitter, you can do so at Bill Huffman 3. It's opinionated and political sometimes, so just warning you now. Anyway, in the meantime, as always, until next time, stay healthy and be safe. 24 hours ago, I found out the person I had been dating and seeing for the last six months as a con man. That is my sister Emma. Andrew Tonks's lies had been so convincing. She had invested $300,000 with him. However, the tables were about to turn on Andrew. What he didn't know was that Emma had discovered his real identity. But to get any chance of justice, Emma had to act like it was business, as usual. Coming up in this series, and that's when Muda, all this stuff goes through my mind. I'm really, really scared. I'm assuming Sarah has watched too much Netflix and figures I've been defrauding you, couldn't be through the former truth. That's what this was, a real life story that seems so unbelievable, but it was actually true. True story that all starts with one simple swipe to the right. I'm Sarah Ferris, and I'm Emma Ferris, and this is my story, Conning the Con. True terrors of horror is our happenings, unexplainable events. On our podcast, Disturbed Terror takes center stage. Each episode is a journey into the darkest corners of human existence, delving into bone-chilling tales of kidnappings, serial killers, maniacs, and the very essence of your worst nightmares coming to life on this weekly true horror show. Disturbed is not for the faint of heart. It's an exploration of real, unadulterated horror sourced from everyday people. Each episode is a descent into the macabre, where we narrate stories that will leave you on the edge of your seat and crawling in your skin. We navigate the disturbing narratives that lurk in the shadows, offering a raw and unfiltered listen into the most terrifying aspects of the human experience. Enter at your own risk and let the unsettling tales unfold in the haunting realm of Disturbed. And remember listeners, stay safe out there. [Music] [MUSIC PLAYING]
