Thank you. You know, I'm also sad about like, I didn't love his character, but I had become familiar with the actor. And so now I'm having to adjust to somebody else do we know what did he want to leave the show? Or did he get written off? Do we know what happened there?
I think he got signed onto something else. I don't think he was like fired or anything like that. I think it was just a one year contract, and then you just did something else.
Um, okay, so apparently, according to the internet, he was disappointed when he realized it was an ensemble show and not a show where he was the star so he quit after the first season. Oh, Joe Rama. Alright, I'm excited. What is the first crime of season two?
Are you ready?
I'm ready. Okay, do I will I recognize it?
I don't think so. I didn't recognize it. Okay, so season two, Episode One was inspired by the case of the state of Arizona versus arrest a full minute day. Okay. Yes. And my sources were of course Wikipedia and the law and order wiki. Okay, so the I read the digital case file of the Arizona vs. fulminant a. Case 1991. There was an article or submission to the Kentucky Law Journal by Kenneth kenkel. In 1992, and an essay by ti most pet tasks in 2020. There were three articles. One in the mesa Tribune, from 1992 by David Robb and Dan Madea a New York Times article from 91 by Lena greenhouse, and an LA Times uncredited, uncredited article from 1991. And I found a little video to watch from c span It was a broadcast from March 28 1991. About the case. Okay. All right. So this case much like the episode, it's not really about the crime. It's more about okay happens because of the crime. So interesting. Yeah. So like, while the basis of it is about a murder case, it's real, like their inspiration and the similarities for the episode are drawn from the subsequent trial and the decisions that are made based on it. Okay, okay. So here we go. On September 14 of 1982. The Mesa Arizona Police Department received an early morning call to report a missing child. 11 year old Janine Michelle Hunt was being looked after by her staff. Father arrest day filming Dante while her mother was in the hospital, and he's the one who reports her missing. He's the one who makes this call. And sorry,
he's the father. He's the stepfather, stepfather.
There's no mention of the Father. Really, there's not a lot of mentioned about the mother either. Just that she was confirmed she was in the hospital. And he calls them they come over and the police department comes over and they question him. And when authorities question him, they find a lot of inconsistency in his story. He repeats the few times and it just doesn't sound quite right. So he becomes a person of interest pretty quickly, okay, two days later, Julian's body is found in the desert east of Mesa. And because of the level of decomposition, they couldn't conclude if she had been sexually assaulted or not. But there are there's a ligature around her neck still, and she been shot twice in the head from a large caliber weapon.
And this was two days after her disappearance was reported.
Yes, two days after her disappearance is reported. She is found out and it does not say when the estimated time of death was it doesn't say how long she had been missing for. It's very, very hard to find information on this. Yeah, it doesn't even give an estimated day of when the crime occurred. It just says the month and then like when he called
Yeah, cuz it's so interesting that they would say, you know, in theory, if it was only two days in between when she was killed, and when she was found, you would think that decomposition wouldn't be a huge issue to determine if there was any kind of sexual assault.
Yeah, I wonder if because it's summertime. She's out in the desert in Arizona. I wonder if that has ended? In June? I think it's I think, September so who knows, but
probably still hot in the desert? Yeah,
I thought it was kind of strange, too. But like I said, unfortunately, I couldn't find hardly any information about anything else involving the existence of this young girl. You know, I always try in in cases where there's a victim who's who's no longer with us, I tried to speak a little bit for them and try to, you know, get a better picture of them than maybe was painted at the time.
But yes, I couldn't find any articles and anything
at all, even about the original trial. Like I really, really searched. So it's really most more about what happens afterwards. So you know, okay, I guess I would just say, I hope that the I yeah. I hope that the reason I'm unable to find any information is, you know, that everyone's respecting the privacy of her legacy and her surviving loved one. Yes. You know, I don't know if that's true or not. That's the reason. Yeah. Yeah. But in any event, you know, she's definitely not forgotten, even though she's much forgotten in this case. So. Yeah, you know, note so after, you know, he makes this report. I think he's suspicious, no charges are filed right away. And then from what I can use in somewhere in 1983 1984, time period, unclear. Comandante is arrested in New Jersey. Remember, he's in he's from Arizona, Mesa, Arizona, but he he moves to New Jersey, and he's arrested there for a unrelated weapons charge. And he's imprisoned in Ray Brook Federal Correctional Facility in New York. I believe it was because he had a weapon on him that was purchased from a felon or something like that. So he makes the acquaintance of Anthony's Hara viola, who is in for some organized crime related charges. What foreman it doesn't know, though, is that his new friend is also a paid informant for the FBI. And oh, okay, twists abound. Through their little friendship, they make the topic of filming on tape being suspected of a murder in Arizona, of an 11 year old girl comes up. And he mentions this, mainly because he's saying that inmates at the correctional Correctional Facility have caught wind of this rumor even though he's there on a weapons charge. And he really doesn't want that getting out. I guess most of us who watch anything True Crime II, we've all heard you know that when someone's incarcerated under suspicion of doing something to a child, they have a target on their back and they're treated poorly by essentially everyone there. That's kind of like a known thing, right?
Yeah, actually, it's so funny. You bring that up, because one of the things that I've I saw in the news just in the last like five days, was that Roger kibby, who is better known as the I five strangler was found strangled in his prison cell, like two days ago. Wow. Yeah.
I'm so fed up.
So that's just to say that, you know, when, when folks are known to be rapists, and people who do awful things to women and children, they are very often given what is kind of colloquially referred to as jailhouse justice.
Exactly. That's exactly what he's worried is going to which I am not
condoning to be clear. No,
no, no, not at all. If you're listening, please don't do that. Yeah, exactly. Please, please refrain. So he is very afraid of this. And he's already experienced some minor brutality from other inmates. And he's, he's scared. And he's confiding in his friend who has been in there for longer. And Sarah Vala offers him protection, and says that he can, essentially himself or through connections, he can give him protection while he's in the prison. But in exchange, he needs to give him some sort of collateral. And what he proposes is a full account of what happened from the you know, what he mentioned earlier about the 11 year old? Yeah, you know, this is the information he doesn't want to get out. So this is the, you know, good collateral he assumes, and he says, If you give me this, I can promise you protection in here. So, he obliges, he gives him a detailed account of what he done. He and by the way of this confession, I there's not I couldn't find it. I wanted to find like a transcript. There's some details that come out,
like what did he do?
Yeah, like there's, there's details about what he said in the confession that I was able to find, but not the actual meat. The whole fashion. Okay. Okay. So I see, in the confession, he states that he, it's, it's stated by multiple sources that he uses foul language when speaking of jeanene he shows very little remorse for what he says he says he says he's done. And he says that the reason she was killed because she was in the way of his relationship with her mom, so she had to go his Yeah, so his original statement
what is on the people's decisions, sometimes, like another person is standing in the way of our love, so I'm going to kill that person.
Like, and what's going to make the person I love more than if I killed her child?
Right and and presumably, what that also says, This person is really close to the person I love. And yet I have no qualms about killing that person. That
is was is eerie to me. That's beyond us. The new dating game show that's gonna come out the new reality show. Brought to you by COVID. Okay,
did you ever watch the SNL Irish dating?
Hilarious. Okay. God loves us the strong. Okay, so, okay. his, his new confession differs wildly from his original statements, which differed from each other over time. Little by little, and his initial statement, I
mean, you start to lose track of the story when you're
lying. So right. So his initial statement was that he suspects that she was killed by drug dealers in the desert. Not
sure how he would know that. That's what he told police at the beginning.
Yeah, like when they find the body. That's his. Okay. That's like basically what the defenses is like, Well, here's an alternative. You know, she was killed by drug dealers in the desert. It gives no explanation as to whether he was involved with drugs, whether the mother was involved with drugs, why this was like a credible alternative presented in court. But it doesn't, it's kind of like, the episodes
from from last season where the first thing they have to rule out is a cult killing. Or the when the Menendez brothers are like, maybe it was the mob. Like, what, okay, what a weird thing to
maybe it was Jewish, basically, it's
one of those things. You know, it's like that case where the guy murdered his wife and kids and then said that a satanic cult broke into his house and was chanting kill the pigs or whatever, yeah, and stabbed us and none of it was true. It's like, it's, you know, people create these really random ideas to confuse the investigation, which are always like, what? Yeah, I
know. 11 year old girl was killed by drug dealers.
Okay, right. In the middle of the desert. Yeah. What was she doing there? Do you know she had a question mark, question mark, question mark.
So yeah, so later this same? Yeah. Later the same year in 1984. formati is released from the New York prison. He's served his time for the the gun charge and he is driven home by Sarah vola, who had been previously released. His charge was basically up first, or maybe they let him out early because he's an informant. In any case, he's out and Sarah bola comes to pick up from an auntie with his then girlfriend who would eventually be his wife. Can I
can I interject something really, really? I really like all of these people's names and they all sound like spells from Harry Potter and Sarah
foreman Dante Foley sounds like a like a spell 100% maybe like a charm.
A curse? Yeah. Yes.
His wife's name is not so hairy pottery. It's Donna. I actually love that name though. I feel like you can't be
you can't be named Donna without some really big hair.
I was. So I was gonna say I feel like if my name is Donna, you need curly hair. You need curly hair. Do you need volume
with a lot of volume? I knew I worked with a Donna and she had a lot of big curly hair. Yeah, I
feel like several people. I don't have any Donna's in the family. But I've had several family members with friends named Donna and they all had big curly hair, and I loved every minute of it. So Donna, Anthony savola and former nanti are on the car ride back from just you know, casual car ride back from the correctional facility and bring this car ride. He confesses again, this time on his own volition to both of them giving more details they need to even the first time for the whole car ride home on September.
I mean that's like he got to pass the way some way on a road trip notes, if not any, you know, share some stories. Oh, well, here's the time that I murdered my stepdaughter in the desert. It's like guys, just light hearted, easy breezy car ride conversation. You know,
I'm tired of punch buggy. Can we do something else? I spy contest about a murder of my 11 year old stepdaughter some something? Anything? Yes, go jack in the box. Wow.
Okay, but I got jack in the box with miles the other day. And I'm still really upset because I ordered curly fries. And I got regular fries. And we didn't realize until we had driven away
one time recently we ordered and also
we went to in and out today. And I got a Dr Pepper and they gave me Diet Coke. Not the same not
Oh my God, not even close, like
multiple levels of annex Oh my God,
I re recently ordered a check in the box. And we just wanted like a shake, essentially a shake and fries each. Like we worked on something. We ordered it just two shakes and to fries. And the guy drops it off while we're outside with the dogs. So we saw him like dropping off from other cars that ours is that doesn't look like our order. He's walking by and he sees us walking towards the doors. Who knows it's us and he goes, Oh, hey, guys, your orders by your doors that you guys were like, yeah, and he's like, they were out of shakes. So I got you eat your coke. Oh,
that's the whole reason we ordered we just wanted to shake.
I don't even really drink a coke. so upset on September 4 of 1984. So later that same year, former nanti is indicted for first degree murder. And there's not a lot of details about the case. And but he both confessions are allowed and he's indicted for first degree murder and in 1985 he is sentenced to death. This of course, though, is not the end of the story. So immediately following this decision, feminazis team attempts to have both confessions thrown out. They say that the first one was coerced. And they claimed that by offering him protection from harm and prison, which he was certainly faced otherwise, he had been coerced. And that the second confession in turn was quote, fruit from the poisonous tree. Just like from the episode,
So the judge
confession fruit from the poisonous tree?
No, it's a second confession to Donna in the car. That would be fruit from the poisonous tree because the first confession was coerced.
Gotcha. Okay, okay. Okay,
you know, instantly matched. So similarly, both confessions and the person who received the first confession was in the car as well. They're saying, you know, that shouldn't be allowed, either. The judge doesn't agree that the first confession was coerced. But he argues that it's admissible because it would have been protected as quote unquote, harmless error, which I think they mentioned in the episode tune. So this harmless error statute works in his judgment, because the second confession was not coerced. And since it matched so closely to the first, they ruled that it would have likely secure the conviction, even if the first confession was not said in court. So that makes it quote unquote, harmless error, which is essentially what they're trying to do in the episode with, you know, they would have found the gun anyway. So it's considered harmless error.
You don't I mean, that's kind of what the episode is trying to say. That's the similarity here. The you know, the question, the question being coerced is sort of non essential, because it wouldn't have mattered, right, exactly. Yeah. After the after he's sentenced to life. I'm sorry, after he's sentenced to death. His attorneys appeal the case. Anyway, the appeal the conviction with the Arizona Supreme Court, and in 1991, they agreed to look at it based on the fact of the confession, even from their first judge was admittedly coerced, so they they reviewed the case, okay. And on October 10 1991. In a five to four decision, the conviction is overturned, and a second trial is promised without the admission of the first confession being allowed. Okay. So they say that this should not have happened. The first confession was coerced For sure, and they couldn't in a five to four decision, which is a little controversial. They said that the first confession should never have been allowed in the first place. The reason this is such a big deal is because now this trial sets precedent that is really controversial, and I think still stands today, which we'll get into momentarily. Okay, but we'll we'll finish out this guy's journey, shall we? Sorry, to have to remember his name anymore on
Exactly. So while his first confession is inadmissible, they argue, regardless of that, the second one is totally legit. It's not, you know, fruit from the tree and all that nonsense. And I searched and I scoured and I found only one single, like four sentences in one single article that provides any update on this whatsoever, because every article says he's, you know, the convictions overturned, and he's given a new trial. All these articles are from like, 1991. And, and that's the plan. Yeah. So I found one article. Okay, good news from from the mesa from the mesa Tribune in Arizona, which I guess is a local publication, which is why I found it. And it says that the update is that a new trial date was set for 1994. And in this trial, Anthony's hypervolt did not testify. And Donna, the girlfriends now wife felt a quote, I'll just read the quote, because, yeah, Donna, quote, failed to appear at three pretrial conferences, forcing the trial judge to forbid the prosecution from using her as a witness and quote, so this new trial goes on, not only does it not have the first confession, it doesn't have Sara volley there at all to corroborate anything that happened in prison. And the, like, main witness that has that with the second confession was told to so both both people the confession was told to the second time do not appear in case in court, which totally, you know, weakens the case.
Yeah, like, what what evidence do you have at that point? Yeah.
And in the first case, a lot is put on the fact that without the confessions, there's not any firm, firm evidence tying him to the crime. But right, regardless of all of this, he's still found guilty again, and sentenced once again to death.
But wait, wow. Okay.
There's more. In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that he had to be given a third trial, because in this second trial in 1994, they said that there was inadmissible testimony that was allowed. That shouldn't have been, where the victims fears that her stepdad was planning to murder her were revealed, but it's, you know, hearsay, I would say that's important. But hey,
they, like I guess, I guess it depends on, you know, if somebody says, like, Sarah told me that she was afraid he was going to stab me stab her with a knife. He was always like, waving a knife around threatening to stab her is different from like, he was kind of a menacing jerk. You know, like, I guess it depends on the level of detail, maybe in the, whether it's hearsay or not.
Yeah, I, and again, they don't give any information. So I mean, I guess that's kind of it. That was the last piece of information on the case, I could find, I don't know, if a third party ever given I don't know, if it's still pending, I don't even know if he's in jail. I really could not find anything else about this guy. So I don't even know, I even looked up that and when I looked up, his, you know, arrest a foam formula to alive or dead or in jail, and it just kept coming up with the same like 12 links. interest. So yeah, every article that I was able to find is mostly about the decision made in this case, and in the appeal, rather, which you know, now sometimes allows coerced confessions during trial. So a standard was set in 1967. In a case of Chapman versus the state of California, where if any of the following three things were exposed during a trial or immediately following an immediate reversal of the case was an order. And those three things were a judge's bias towards the case, a complete absence of counsel, or coerced confessions. Now, because of this case, that has been amended, and some quote, some coerced confessions are admissible as harmless error on a case by case basis. So
Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So now, what was previously an immediate reversal is now considered sometimes harmless error in a 1991 New York Times article, it says and this is I think, really the fear of this says, quote, Jeffrey Wiener, President elect of the National Association of criminal defense lawyers said The decision was a quote, trouble someone that at a time of more awareness of police brutality gives subtle encouragement to law enforcement to break the rules and quote, and that was in 1991. And look where we are now.
where we are today. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I don't I don't like that.
Yeah, it's very controversial. And when I read a lot about it, there were a ton of names of the of the Supreme Court judges or whatever the correct terminology is, who voted on this, this five to four decision. And it's widely believed that if the one judge who would usually be there had been on staff that day or on the docket or whatever, it would have reassure never passed, but because someone else was like, kind of switched in. It looks that way. Yeah. There's also a lot of information on the internet about this Sarah, body guy that I've been saying was the informant. Yes, there's a lot of controversy about the validity of his statements, because he ends up going he he gets out of jail, he's promised some something like a reduced sentence, I think, for this testimony and all that. But it's only like, I think a year or two before he's back in jail on something unrelated, and I think he's still in jail today. And previously to this, they've used him as an informant for other things. And in one of those cases, it was found that he produced fake recordings between him and someone else on a case, but they still use him as an informant.
I mean, that's the thing that's tricky about any time the law uses something against somebody to get them to get information, like the whole, you know, we'll drop these charges, if you pretend to be this guy's cellmate and, you know, get a confession out of him, blah, blah, blah, is that person then has incentive to find evidence that confirms a pre existing supposition? You know, like you're looking, it's essentially creating confirmation bias that we want to prove this specific conclusion that we believe is correct. And so we are going to create circumstances in which people will people have people will benefit by creating that evidence. Does that make sense? Yeah, the way I just saw that percent,
and it's a big thing that is looked at, in this case, a lot of the articles I was finding are scholarly, you know, essays and things are all about the treatment of performance. The you hear Harrison,
I just heard Harrison. Yeah,
yeah. The the treatment of informants the way they are compensated promises that array to them, the pressure that's on them, all the different cases in which an informant essentially coerces a confession. And it's allowed. It's, it's hard because you don't want to label the people that are imprisoned as on on reliable sources, especially if they're the only people that are around, you know, people who are there for a reason and who record potentially lean on. At the same time, the way our system is, you're creating situations for people where it's like, Am I gonna save myself or a stranger, right? So like, of course, there's the like, a lot, even to the average person who has all the best morals in the world. Imagine you're in a precedent for something you did or didn't do. And you have a family on the outside. that's growing up without you. And this opportunity comes along, who would not feel a moment of like, Okay, listen, this guy is confessing he killed a 11 year old girl. I don't really care whether he's lying to me or not. I mean, I know I didn't do what I did is I want to get out. I don't know, right, dude from? Well, it's, I don't know, at the, you know, at the end of the day, the only real connection to the episode, and this was the, you know, all of this stuff, the coersion,
the theme of coercion. And
then, you know, 11 year old Jeanine Michelle hunt, who is the whole reason any of this even happened was her horrendous murder. She would be 39 years old today. And, I mean, I'm 35 I just think like, this life was stopped short for no reason. And I hope, I hope that those that knew her and loved her and remember her able to, you know, were able to make sense of the horrendous tragedy that was her murder. I, I hate that this tragedy caused this sort of, you know, legislation to be changed because I don't, I don't necessarily think it's great. And, again, I this is all I could find on it. And I wanted to say anyone out there who if you've heard of this case, if you have some sort of connection somehow to this case, and you think I left a lot out or if the details seem kind of spotty. Please, please please write in contact us on all the social media and stuff that will give you I would love to know more about this. I would love to know if I've missed anything. Yeah. And that's, that's everything I have. I have one quote from the short c span video I watched in 1991 it's an Interview with Professor wasserstrom. And he's I forget what he studies. But anyhow, they interview him for about 20 minutes. And he says that he believes that it is dangerous. And that was how the media was covering it. Like, is this decision dangerous at the time? What does this mean right future? And he says, Yes, he can understand why it would be dangerous. But he thinks that the media is exaggerating the importance of the decision. Because practically in in law, he says, quote, I really don't think as a practical matter, there will be any cases where the applet court will find that there's a harmless error and quote, and throughout the whole thing, he's he's on the side of everyone who thinks it's dangerous. He's not opposing that. But he thinks that right over all, this decision, the odds are low
that this will exactly
yeah, there's not a lot of cases where he thinks it's going to come up, where it will, you know, influence anything. And I did do a little research trying to find out, you know, the significance of this decision how many cases it was used on. And it's so hard to find that kind of information, and anything I did find was, like, dense and wordy. So I really, legally, yeah, yeah. But that's, uh,
I think it's so interesting, though, that part of the way that the legal system works is not part of the way but a huge portion of the way that the legal system works is based on case precedent. And, you know, in in each of these situations, where these sorts of decisions are being made, it then becomes the evidence and the precedent for for future cases. And so that's kind of the, you know, like cases aren't just deciding this case, they then become the material from which lawyers will draw in order to, you know, prosecute or defend, right. And so any sort of like misjudgment in how to determine guilt or innocence, or whether a court case can proceed or things like that, is is heavily influential of the ones that will come after it. And so, even if we all sort of like as people feel fine with, or SJ, fallen on Tay, being found guilty of killing his 11 year old step daughter, the way that his case came to that place is is a little, you know, if there could be ways that that could be applied to future cases that are really troubling, you know,
exactly, because in this case, when we hear coercion, generally the general public has a very limited view of what coerced confession could entail, you know, we have this could mean sure image of like someone in a room all by them, like what we've seen, unfortunately, with, you know, kids with people of color with women. Yeah, anyone who has,
like, just just watched the documentary, or sorry, what is the Netflix series when they see they see endless amounts? Of course, testimony? Exactly. So
we normally have this vision of like, a really, like, shady cop covering a camera twisting an arm or, you know, good cop, bad cop, you're sitting in this room for hours.
But holding the light bulb above your face, yeah, that like swinging light bulb.
But you know, it's things like this to where there's imminent danger that you know, is coming and someone is promising you to help you from this hell that you're living in. And let's remember, he is we don't know if he's guilty or not for sure. It I don't see any other suspects besides the mysterious drug dealers. But he's in prison. And remember, when we washed when we when they see us the experience of prison and for some people is not great. And, you know, if he's actually innocent, and people think he's a someone who murdered an 11 year old girl murdered a child, yeah, he's gonna be be treated like he his life is in danger. So for sure, you know, there is there is that to be considered in coercion, that is not just this one radical look, but at the same time, that's why it's so dangerous to have this legislation changed. Because in cases where the coerced confession is like that, crash the date, you know,
so like, yep, insane to think that that's the thing that could happen. It's interesting to hear somebody with legal expertise, basically say like, yes, this sets a kind of troubling precedent, perhaps, but the odds of this happening are pretty low. I mean, I guess I don't know if that person is basing that off of evidence, but I suppose that's mildly reassuring to somebody who doesn't really know that necessarily. The law Yeah, we're, you know, the ins and outs of it felt
it felt like a reliable source, but it also felt like it's 1991 and I don't know if that's where we are now. So anyhow, there was also kind of an interesting article I didn't include because it was wording I didn't really understand and a whole rabbit hole. I didn't want to get through Like go down. But the the informant was also linked to a possible cover up with the Bush administration. Previously where he had said he witnessed George W. Bush, during his run for presidency, his initial run for presidency, like accepting some sort of buyout from somebody, and it never like, pans out. So there's a lot of like, credibility issues with the informant himself. A lot of them interesting, it's okay, argued that he should probably not have even been an informant at that point. Because all of these other things that happened before he was even chosen to like, you know, get more information out of this guy. And he wasn't even in that person to be an informative for that case. It was totally coincidental, you know, anyhow, but interesting. That's, that's what this was about.
job. Thank you.
It's interesting one, I, I will say that my favorite part of doing this was reading that case file. When I saw I was like, Oh, god, this is so confusing. But the more I read through the parts that were understandable, it was interesting to see because it was about the it was about the Supreme Court decision. And it was interesting to see how the processes of that they had each Supreme Court judge who had a say on this, how do we say on this decision? Like all nine of them had their whole, like reasoning written out for each person? So I got to read Yeah, judge has said and why they decided yes or no, it was really interesting to see that, like, I don't know, when I think about decisions getting passed. And I'm reading these four statements that are like against this. And how, yeah, like valid they are. I'm like, Wow, it's so crazy that even with these four incredible arguments against this, it just takes one person to just have, you know, to nail Yeah,
Well, how would you rate the episode?
I would say, for the way it handled the topic. It's kind of hard to say because I guess the topic is police misconduct. Maybe? I don't think that's what they think the conversation. Yeah, I think they think it's coerced confessions, mostly. But it's a little bit of police misconduct, too. I would say they handled the idea of mental health poorly. Just the typical, I'm too much or to go to therapy. I'm fine. But I'm not by the end of the episode. Yeah. So that was poor and the police misconduct they danced around, so I'll give it a see. I'm going to give it a C for
Okay, and then for about for like watchability
I actually kind of enjoyed this episode. I found it like, entertaining. One of the more entertaining one. Yeah. And yeah, so I would give it I'd give it a B. Just a solid.
I think that's fair.
What about you?
Yeah, I think this is again, one of those episodes that was more about the characters than about the type of crime or whatever. And so I thought it was like more watchable to an extent. So I would give it a B as well for watchability. And yeah, they didn't do great with mental health. They didn't do great with coerced testimony. Like at the end of the day, Logan was still like, Footloose, fancy, free running around doing his police stuff, when everybody on the episode knows that he made a grave error. And that was just kind of fine with everybody. So I'm going to give it a D plus. Hmm. Okay, for how it dealt with the issue.
Yeah, they gave him way too many passes for grieving, grieving grief.
That should be the episode. He's gonna
Well, if you would like to help us grow it, the best thing that you can do is to rate and review our podcast on whatever platform you are using to listen to our episodes.
Yes. And please tell a friend who you think might be interested in what we're doing because word of mouth is really the hugest way anyone finds out about us and you know, probably how you found about us. That's right.
You can find us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram at ripped headlines and our email is ripped headlines. firstname.lastname@example.org we love getting emails. So feel free to send us a note just to say hi, we will definitely say hi back.
Yes, please let us know if we can read it on the show. Also, because we love to have oh
yes do that. And so give me your name and pronouns if you do want it read on the show.
Yes. And if you forget any of this, any of our social media, we have a new website, it's ripped headlines, pod calm.
You can find information about future things like newsletters, merchandise, we have a lot of fun things coming up. Speaking of we are getting closer to launching a Patreon in the new future. So if there are things that you would love to see us create for you as part of a Patreon subscription, please send us a message and let us know those things that you would love that would make it worthwhile for you to support our podcast.
Yeah, it's been really fun playing with different ideas and if you know any other podcasters out there if you are another podcaster out there YouTube show host anything. We love collaborating, any collaboration we've done so far has been super fun. So message us or get the message out to them and tell tell them about us.
Thank you so much for listening to read from the headlines where you get the facts and some fiction. We'll see
you next week and Until then, stay out of the headlines.