Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Save on Cox Internet when you add Cox Mobile and get fiber-powered internet at home and unbeatable 5G reliability on the go. So whether you're playing a game at home or attending one live,
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Whether
Whether you love true crime or comedy, celebrity interviews or news, you call the shots on what's in your podcast queue. And guess what? Now you can call them on your auto insurance too with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive. It works just the way it sounds. You tell Progressive how much you want to pay for car insurance and they'll show you coverage options that fit your budget.
Get your quote today at Progressive.com to join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law.
Welcome to the Freak Show.
If you're a returning listener, welcome home, freak. We love you. We are well aware you have tons of options and we appreciate you being here. In other words, you could be anywhere in the world, but you're here tonight with me and I appreciate that. Let's go.
H to the Izzo. Yeah. Yeah. How soon did you know what I was doing? The second you opened your mouth. Oh, right. Man, I am betting zero today. Do you know, I think about that a lot, actually, about timing. So one time when I was living in the city, this was years and years ago. Yeah. Beyonce randomly started to perform in front of the Apple store. What?
It was obviously planned on their part, but they didn't announce it. Right, exactly. When I say randomly, right, like nobody... It was like a stage and shit. I mean, yes, okay, it wasn't random. No, no, no, I mean, it was random for you. It was. And I just remember looking at the goddess that she is and thinking to myself, she could be anywhere in the entire world. So,
So could I, for that matter. Yeah. We are both at that same place at that same time. It was meant to be. It's kismet. Was Jay-Z there? Probably, but he was probably just looking for this dynium tank. Don't even tease. Well, make sure to rate, review, subscribe, share, demand your family and friends listen to this. Everything helps us reach more people and expand this ever-growing community of lunatics.
Speaking of community, if you love this podcast and you just feel like you need a little bit more, head on over to patreon.com slash psychopedia, where you can join in on the giant global group chat running 24 seven with people from, do you know where these fucking people are from? Everywhere. Everywhere. It's incredible. Slovenia, New York. Transylvania. Yes, I forgot about that. Wow. We have a vampire in the chat. Well, in addition to the group chat, you get an episode weekly of Unhinged where
Where I basically just reverse Uno. What does that mean? Investigate us later. I'm in charge and I run you through the case and you struggle. Thank you for that. I don't really think I struggle, but okay. You're not struggling anymore? No, no, I'm past that. I enjoy it now. Oh, you've grown into it? Yeah. Can I say one more thing about Patreon? Of course. We're also going to begin posting a true crime case a week. It'll be not as big and
as in-depth as the psychopedia episode. Yeah. But it will be a true crime case that I'd like to put together weekly and then maybe like every fourth episode so once a month you can deliver the case. Yeah, I'm coming up soon. Yeah, I know. The
The case is basically going to be investigator Slater sized. Yes, Tank. Yes. All right. That's enough of that. Also, we have merch and I'm very excited about that. I truly am. We got a picture the other day of some like four-year-old kid with jeans on with a shirt tucked in. I was like, who is this kid? And he's my friend's baby. He's adorable, but he's definitely one. Okay. Wow. I'm not great with ages. But he is very tall for his age. Yeah. And you can get that by going over to psychopediapod.com and just clicking on the merch tab. Yep.
And make sure to send us pictures so we can repost them. I live in psychopedia threads. All right. So as usual, I know nothing about this case that you're about to present. I don't know if it's gruesome. I don't know if it's interesting, if it's cult-ish in nature, if it has many people involved, one person involved. All I know is that it's going to suck for me.
I don't think it sucks for you anymore. I have seen you grow into this role as a real true crime, crimity host. You know what happens? Yes, I enjoy it, but I only enjoy it because you do such a good job at it. I truly mean that. I've tried to listen to other true crime podcasts. I can't do it. Yeah, thank you. That was really nice of you.
It's not just because I'm a narcissistic egomaniac. When I come chiming in, sometimes I cringe. But I did say something very funny in the cocaine cannibal episode that just made me laugh. What? You said a lot of funny things. When I was making fun of you for not being able to pronounce something. Oh, yeah. And then I mispronounced something. I guess you can't speak English. Yeah, it was bad. It was hurtful. But I enjoyed it a lot. I rewound it like four times. Guys, I...
Another thing I know when I screw up on my words. Yeah. So getting DMS, she really loves it. I do. Yeah. She loves it. Let her know. Just fucking hit that DM button and send her all of the mistakes she makes, which we're going to get to the case in 15 seconds in her defense.
It is very difficult to read words off of a screen while you're trying to be engaged with the other person in the room. And I'm really excited about what I'm talking about. So to deliver it though, in like a very clear manner while having this raging excitement bubbling underneath, it's tough. And I'm also like taking your body language. So if you look a little confused, I'm trying to improvise real quick and like,
kind of simplify things. Maybe if I'm getting too in the weeds, you know, it's, it's an art. What can I say? But I do actually get a lot of enjoyment when you guys tease me about my words. I'm just, I'm here for it. Like apparently last episode I said, seeked instead of sought. I let that one go. Okay. I did. All right. I didn't feel like it was important to harp on that one, but you did get a DM about it. I sure did. You're also saying a lot of words. So your ratio is pretty good.
Not bad. It's probably in the .0001%. Yo, what happened to that guy on Instagram who used to do the conversion rate of your pop quizzes? I don't know. I miss him. Well, if you're hearing this, can you please tell me how often I screw up my words statistically speaking? Or if somebody else wants to step up and do that, child. Yeah. Do we got a math brain in the house? Yeah. I mean, that's going to be a lot of work for you, but not much. Just listen to the episode right down when she says...
wrong words, which is going to be, I don't know, every 15, 20 seconds or so, and then ratio it for us. So without further ado, Z, I'm actually very interested to hear which case you have to present to us today. And I'd like to hear about it. All right, let's go.
Imagine the ground beneath you crumbling, the sky turning pitch black as your name, once uttered with warmth, now rings with the hollow echo of accusation. There, in that gut-wrenching instant, the life you knew slips away, swallowed by a void where your pleas of innocence echo unheard and unheeded. To be wrongfully accused of a crime is to be trapped in a nightmare with eyes wide open.
Ouch. Ouch.
You're drowning, yet you're the only one who feels the water. It's a suffocating solitude, a battle against an invisible enemy where your only ally is the truth that no one else seems to see.
I'm fucking, I'm hooked. Your dignity, your dreams, your very identity are all held hostage in not just the court of public opinion, but more dangerously, the court of law. You are left gasping for air of freedom and the light of vindication, which you realize day in and day out may never come. What the fuck is happening?
In the United States, wrongful convictions tragically impact thousands, a stark reality in a system where the presumption of innocence is foundational yet frequently undermined. Studies suggest approximately four to six percent of those incarcerated out of nearly two million are innocent. That is a lot. This translates to tens of thousands of individuals wrongfully convicted with
with eyewitness misidentification playing a significant role in these miscarriages of justice. Moreover, the issue is compounded by evident racial disproportionality and wrongful convictions, highlighting persistent biases within the criminal legal system. We're going to explore these critical issues as we dive headfirst into the case of a man named Ronald Cotton.
whose life was profoundly altered in 1984 after he was wrongfully convicted of two counts each of rape and burglary in the state of North Carolina. His wrongful conviction was primarily the result of eyewitness misidentification, which is not only absolutely heartbreaking for him as a human being, but also encapsulates the systemic flaws we are set to examine today. Yeah, like my cousin Vinny. Yeah, you got it.
You got your glasses, sweetheart? Did you ever see 12 Angry Men? A long time ago now. I mean, there's a lesson in that movie. It's one I think about it all the time. What's the lesson? So basically, for those of you who don't know, 12 Angry Men is about 12 angry men in a jury. No shit. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're in a courtroom hearing a case. They go in to deliberate. One person thinks the guy didn't do it. 11 of them think he did.
And basically the one guy convinces the 11 other people that he didn't do it by this one simple little thing that he said at the very end, obviously it was drawn out, but he goes, uh,
It was a very old man giving an eyewitness testimony. And what they figured out was that there was no way he could possibly have seen this person do this thing. He's like, this old man, his wife's been dead for 12 years. Kids are out of the house. He's got no friends, no family. He doesn't go anywhere. He doesn't do anything. This is the first time he's felt significant in a decade maybe.
That's what it's about, which obviously made me sad for the old man, but made me realize that people say and do things for all different kinds of reasons. This guy just wanted to be a part of the show. Absolutely. And in the case that we're going to explore today, there wasn't any ulterior motive. There wasn't anything beyond the survivor trying her best to make an identification and just not making the correct one. Yep. But like,
the effect that that has had, like that type of miscarriage of justice is staggering. All right, so let's get into this case. And as always, start at the beginning. I just want to warn everybody that today we're going to be talking about the very, very difficult topic of sexual assault and rape. So if that's something that you're not comfortable hearing about, I completely understand. Maybe this episode isn't for you. So just keep that in mind.
In 1984, Jennifer Thompson, a 22-year-old college student in Burlington, North Carolina, had plans for a casual evening on July 29th. She and her boyfriend, Paul, intended to dine at the China Inn restaurant before heading out to a friend's party. But,
But after devouring a hearty spread of fried rice, egg rolls, and sweet tea. Jealous. Same. Jennifer experienced a sudden and raging MSG-induced headache, the kind that intensely targets behind the eyes and leaves you begging for mercy. I think my mom used to get those. I believe it. Yeah, I forgot about those. Choosing comfort over celebration, Jennifer decided to return back to her apartment instead of going to the party.
Once there, Paul, her boyfriend, brought Jennifer aspirin, a glass of water, and then gently tucked her into bed before quietly slipping out of the apartment at around 11 p.m. so as not to wake his sick girlfriend. At around 3 a.m., Jennifer was jolted by the unmistakable sound of footsteps in her apartment. At first, she assumed it was Paul, but within seconds, she knew in her tensing gut that it was not him.
Terrifying. As fear quickly began to envelop her, she clutched the blanket to her neck and strained to listen beyond the pounding of her own heart, unable to see a thing in the pitch black of her bedroom. Suddenly, she felt the cold, flat pressure of metal against her neck while a gloved hand quickly covered her mouth. Oh my God. And a man's voice harshly whispered, shut up or I'll cut you.
The intruder's breath, heavy with the stench of alcohol and cigarettes, was alarmingly close to her face. Initially, Jennifer believed this terrifying situation to be a robbery and quickly offered all of her money, telling the armed man that her wallet was in the den and that he could take everything she had. But to her horror, the man did not get up to take the wallet.
Instead, he bore his full weight down on her and pinned her legs so that she couldn't move, all while she struggled for breath beneath him. Then the man said, I got your $10, but I don't want your fucking money. He then proceeded to reach down, yank the sheet off her body, and slide down her purple underwear. In that terrifying moment, Jennifer wondered, is this how I'm going to die? I don't want to die. I want to live. I want to see my mom and dad again.
Oh my God.
But Jennifer also knew in that absolutely horrifying, life-altering moment that she needed to learn the landscape of her attacker's face, even though her room was pitch black. That's incredible awareness. Such bravery to even have that thought.
Still, she forced herself to look and observe, even though it was pitch black, to see that his eyes were distinctly almond-shaped, small, and deep-set. He had high, broad cheekbones and a faint mustache, though it could have just been dirt. It was too hard to tell. He wasn't wearing a mask? No, he wasn't.
In many ways, when a perpetrator isn't wearing a mask, it's more terrifying. You think that's part of the thing for them that they're being seen? The reason why it's generally considered not a great sign if you're being attacked by somebody who's not wearing a mask is because they don't plan on having you ever be in a position to identify them. Yeah. But in this case, I don't think it was that. Just negligence. Yeah. He's just a fucking idiot. Yeah.
This disgustingly vile piece of shit kept talking to Jennifer throughout the attack and uttered repulsive lines like, you've probably never had a man like me before while kissing her and raping her.
Jennifer knew she needed to capitalize on this almost perverse, faux romantic vibe that he was trying to exude and whispered to him that she was having a difficult time relaxing with the knife still in his hand. So, brilliant woman that Jennifer is, she asked her assailant to place the knife outside in his car while she fixed them a drink. And incredibly, the assailant agreed. Wow.
Wow. Once the perpetrator was about 15 feet away and out of Jennifer's sight, she quickly turned on the faucet to mask the sound of her quietly opening her back door. In mere seconds, she was now sprinting barefoot through the wet grass of her backyard, heading straight for a neighbor's house. There, she frantically banged on the door, screamed for help.
But with the perpetrator now in pursuit, she couldn't afford to wait to see if somebody was going to come to the door. So she kept running and banging on doors. And as she ran, tree branches were slashing against her face, but she pressed on, fueled by the stark realization that her life depended on the success of this one chance at escape.
vaulting over a fence, Jennifer reached another apartment and pounded on the door in desperation. A couple opened it and ushered her into safety as the husband grabbed his shotgun. There, inside the home of these random heroes, Jennifer was hysterical. She was naked, but she was, thank God, alive and safe.
My dad works in B2B marketing. He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ROAS man. Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.
My friend's still laughing at me to this day. Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do. Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign. Go to LinkedIn.com slash results to claim your credit. That's LinkedIn.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. LinkedIn, the place to be, to be. Jennifer was taken by ambulance to Memorial Hospital where a sexual assault nurse examination was conducted.
While there, a lovely detective named Mike Golden with the Burlington Police Department arrived to conduct an interview. And he conducted his interview, you have to read what she says about him, with such compassion and kindness that it helped her to power through this extremely invasive and to her humiliating experience. Yeah, I can imagine. A few minutes after the detective's arrival at the hospital, another woman named Mary Reynolds was admitted to the same ER
Yeah, oh my God. Yeah.
recalling those narrow, deep-set, almond-shaped eyes, the razor-thin mustache, his lips and nose with the stench of his alcohol and cigarette breath still lingering in her nostrils. Jennifer looked at the detective and said, without a shadow of doubt, yes, I would.
And here's where the case gets a little bit tricky. Because the following day, Jennifer, accompanied by her boyfriend Paul and her sister Janet, as well as Janet's boyfriend Andrew, visited the Burlington Police Department precinct. Fighting against her physical and emotional fatigue, Jennifer was led into a conference room equipped with a recorder and a small microphone.
By mid-morning, she began working with a composite sketch artist to recreate the very face she so desperately wanted to forget. The other survivor, whom she'd seen in the hospital the night before, that woman named Mary, was not confident that she'd be able to identify her assailant, so Jennifer felt that it was up to her to get this right.
Jennifer meticulously scanned pages filled with various images of eyes, ears, noses, chins. And then about after an hour and a half, the composite sketch artist assembled a face. Not a forensic sketch artist. Well, I looked that up. It's funny you should ask, and I'm very proud of you for asking. It was a forensic artist.
So the composite was not perfect. The mouth was slightly off and the ears protruded a little bit more than Jennifer remembered of her attacker, but it closely resembled the haunting image etched in her memory. Very, very close to it.
And we know from our Mary Vincent episode and our Butterfly Effect Larry David episode that hard statistics with respect to the success of composite sketches are very difficult to come by. But generally speaking, the research suggests that composites are usually not... 8 to 20%.
I'm going to die. First of all, that was my pop quiz. Oh, really? And you got ahead of it and you got it right. Wow. I'm fucking amazing. You sharp as a tack. Very, very good. So that means that the majority of the time, about 80% of the time, these efforts do not prove to be beneficial. I can't believe I just crushed one of your pop quizzes. Before I even got it out of my mouth. I know.
I don't know that I've ever been this impressed. Let's take a second and really bask in what I just did. I'm basking. This is why we need to start YouTubing so that people can see my face. I'm like a proud parent.
By noon, on the day on which Jennifer worked with the artist, the sketch was released to all local news outlets. A few days later, detectives Gaulden and Ballard Sullivan, who went by the name Sully, prepared a six-photo lineup of black males while laying out the following clear instructions for Jennifer. Quote, End quote.
Detective Gauldin emphasized that there was no pressure to make an identification and that Jennifer should take as much time as she needed.
Jennifer's heart pounded with a mix of fear and determination as she faced the lineup. She reasoned that her attacker must be among these men. Otherwise, why would they have asked her to return back to the precinct to look at these photos? Yeah, of course. So there's like pressure to choose one of them. Exactly. There's pressure and there's sort of this notion that he's there. Yeah. She quickly ruled out four of the six men.
Then, as her gaze lingered on one photo, a vivid, disturbing memory resurfaced with such intensity that she nearly got sick. Pointing to the photo, she firmly stated, this is the one. I think this is the guy. This poor girl. Oh my God. This is the thing. All of the aftermath, I don't think that people realize the effect that that can have on a survivor. It's re-traumatizing to have to go through all of this.
Or not to have to. I mean, she's choosing to. Which is why, you know, not most, but some people don't come forward with the accusations because maybe they just don't want to relive it. Yeah. Yeah. So this declaration that she made, right? This is the one, I think this is the guy born out of a traumatic recall marked a pivotal moment in the investigation. You think that's the guy Sully asked?
It's him, Jennifer clarified. You're sure? Asked Golden. And to that, Jennifer said, positive. Jennifer initialed and dated the back of the chosen photo, her actions marking a very definitive choice. She then turned to the detective seeking reassurance with the simple question of, did I do okay? And with that, she exited the precinct. The entire process took five minutes. Wow.
11 days after Jennifer's assault on August 8th, 1984, she was asked to identify her attacker in a physical lineup now at the Burlington police station at precisely 2 p.m. Which is another horrible scenario to have to be put in. Big time. And wait until you hear, I'm going to describe the room. When she arrived...
the men were standing before her. Okay. So there were seven black men standing before her, somewhat matching the description. And one of them exactly matching the description of the man she identified in the photo lineup. Each man was instructed to individually step forward, say something out loud, and then step back in line. If Jennifer did not see her attacker, she was advised to indicate accordingly, right? Tell the detectives that he wasn't there.
Now, incredibly, all of the men in the lineup were able to see Jennifer. What? Yep, because apparently this identification process was taking place in a transitional building as the new Burlington Police Station was being built. Figure out another way. Figure it out, man. All that separated Jennifer from the men in that lineup was a conference table.
There was maybe six feet of space between them. That is fucking horrific. Inexcusable. And Jennifer was understandably sick with fear.
Her attacker knew her name, knew what she looked like, and of course knew where she lived. Yeah. She knew that if she got this wrong and didn't identify the man who raped her, he could easily come back. No pressure. Right. After each man in the lineup stepped forward and recited the lines, which included the very chilling words you may recall me saying, shut up or I'll cut you, Jennifer found herself torn between identifying number four or number five as her attacker.
However, a sudden conviction struck her. It was number five, the same individual she had previously selected from the photo lineup. In that moment, a sense of resolution washed over her as she thought, we got him. The man she identified was named Ronald Cotton. And with her identification, he was promptly placed under arrest.
Can you imagine being one of the other six men in that room also? Holding your breath, thinking like, if she misidentifies me, which, spoiler, she did. What the implications are, spoiler, horrific. Can I ask you a question? Of course. Was the guy in that room? No. Oh, he wasn't even there at all? No. Mm-mm. Wow. Following the arrest, Sully, who was the detective I mentioned, briefed Jennifer on Ronald Cotton's background. Wow.
Wow, this guy's a pilot and a detective? Sully? Oh my God. Ronald had grown up in the Pate projects around Burlington and Glen Raven and was one of eight siblings. He was employed at Summer's Seafood, located near Jennifer's apartment in Brookwood Gardens. During the investigation of Jennifer's assault, a witness reported seeing Ronald on his bicycle near Front Street wearing white gloves similar to those described in the assault. Hmm.
Ronald's history with the law was marked by previous encounters for breaking and entering with an intent to commit rape when he was just 16. These past incidents painted a challenging backdrop as he now faced new accusations. We're going to circle back to these previous charges, by the way.
At his arraignment held at the Alamance County Superior Court in Graham, North Carolina, Ronald Cotton confronted these fresh charges. Standing before the court, he pleaded not guilty to all of them, steadfast in his assertion of innocence despite his complicated past. So remember, the charges were for rape and for burglary. Yeah, I mean, listen, it doesn't look good for him. No, it doesn't. He was held on $150,000 bond and his mother went to prison to bring him deodorant and
M&Ms, and a legal pad. The Burlington Assistant District Attorney, James Roberson, notified Jennifer that Ronald Cotton would have a probable cause hearing next. So he had his arraignment and he was going to have his probable cause hearing, which is also known as a preliminary hearing. And it was going to take place on August 28th, which was just 31 days after
after Jennifer's assault took place. Swift justice down there. Yeah. Well, yes, in this part of it. Yeah. And the purpose of a preliminary hearing is to ensure that the prosecution has a case...
against the defendant. So Roberson, who's the DA, reassured Jennifer that she had nothing to worry about. But since the second victim involved here, Mary Reynolds, had not identified Ronald Cotton during her lineup, it would be crucial for Jennifer to take the stand to tell the judge what Ronald had done to her. This would be the prosecution's best shot at being able to eventually nab this guy. And certainly Jennifer did not want him back on the street. Jennifer was acutely aware that Mary, along with everyone
every other innocent woman in the vicinity was depending on her to ensure that this predator was put away for good. I wonder why Mary didn't know what he looked like. I don't think it's that she didn't know what he looked like. I think she wasn't confident that she'd be able to successfully identify him. So what's interesting is that she didn't look at the photo lineup. And then later it said that she did look at the physical lineup but couldn't make an identification. So maybe...
That identification with all the adrenaline running through her veins informed her choice to choose that guy in the room. Well, Mary did not make an identification. No, no, I'm talking about Jennifer. Oh, okay, got it. Yeah. So at this point in the case, Jennifer has agreed to testify. Then on January 7th, 1985, the trial in the case of the state of North Carolina v. Ronald Jr. Cotton commenced. And before long, Jennifer was called to the stand to testify.
For Jennifer, a survivor of sexual assault, this act of testifying was as remarkable as it was re-traumatizing. On the stand, defense attorney Phil Mosley questioned her about the nature of the oral sex that was perpetrated against her. What the fuck? Why? Because he was getting the details. You're going to find out why, and it's going to enrage you. I can't wait. So Jennifer's father was in the courtroom, and he was struggling to hold back tears because
Every time Jennifer responded to questions of that nature, it was excruciating for him, of course, and certainly for her as well. Yeah. But nevertheless, Jennifer managed to answer each question despite her teeth chattering from the emotional strain. This woman is unbelievable. Phil Mosley's next questions, remember he's the defense attorney, was if she could identify the man who had, this is in quotes,
had sexual intercourse with her on July 29th, which is freezing that I find infuriating.
But with conviction, Jennifer pointed her finger towards Ronald Cotton, who was in the courtroom, and she said, yes. So reading about the defense's line of questioning can only be described as appalling, and you're seeing why. I recognize that defense attorneys often face challenging roles. However, Phil Mosley's follow-up question to Jennifer felt particularly insensitive. He inquired if she had ever harbored fears of being attacked in her sleep.
And after she said yes, he proceeded to ask, if you have a fear of someone standing over your bed watching you, would it not seem more appropriate for you to go to bed with some kind of nightgown on or something, Ms. Thompson? Public defender, I'm assuming? Yeah. Okay. He ended up doing right by his client. Yeah. But the way that he's treating Jennifer in his examination, cross-examination of her, is disgusting. It
It not only reflects insensitivity, but it also obviously seems to imply blame. Like she was somehow responsible for what happened to her because she was wearing underwear to sleep rather than a nightgown. And it also just illustrates the challenges that low-income people face when they do wind up in the judicial system. That this is who they get. Like this is who fucking represents these people who can't afford a big fancy...
attorney without big brown pants that go over the shoes? And enormous suitcases that... How did you not even acknowledge what I just said? Well, I'm going off on it. I'm saying a big brown suitcase and the buckle's broken. Oh, yeah. And yeah, I'm vibing. I'm vibing with your example. If your lawyer looks like this, you're going to jail. Yeah.
which is every public defender on Law & Order, by the way. It's like they had one costume for everyone. But the point is, right, obviously, is that this attorney, in his language, is victim-blaming, and it's disgusting. Yeah, that's beyond incompetence. Absolutely. The only thing that I was thinking, because I was trying to wrap my head around this, was it was 1985, so I think there was less awareness around the proper way to treat survivors. Yeah.
Well, why didn't you wear a full tuxedo to bed if you didn't want to get raped? Why didn't you wear a chastity belt? I mean, fuck off, you motherfucker. Yeah, I'm in my bed, dude. I can sleep however the fuck I want, and you do not have a right to rape me. Meanwhile, Jennifer's answers to these despicable questions were badass and spot on. She was ahead of her time. So she rose to the occasion. Oh, fuck yeah. Jennifer stated the following.
I don't know that it makes any difference what I would have worn that night. I think if I had on blue jeans and a sweatshirt, that would not have made any difference in the world. And if I walk outside my bedroom stark naked, that doesn't give anybody the right to take what's not theirs. Did this woman start feminism? I wouldn't be surprised. I am just so impressed. She's paving the way without realizing she's paving the way. Yeah. She's a very, very strong, admirable survivor.
Phil Mosley then said, that's your answer? Yep. And without missing a beat, Jennifer said, that's my answer. Fuck. Mic drop. This guy's like coming to a battle of wits unarmed. He's coming to a gunfight with a knife. Yeah. Pen to a test.
Fine, you win. Testing the line of fire with that thin-ass vest. I'm bringing the boys to man. How them boys gonna win? This is grown man Biatch. Get you rolled in the triage, Biatch. Continue. May I? Yeah.
Each day of the trial, Ronald's large family filled the courtroom and showed their unwavering support for him. Throughout the trial, Ronald Cotton's defense team called upon numerous members of his extensive family to provide alibi testimony. Initially, Ronald informed the police that he was at the Candlelight Club until 2.30 a.m. on the night of the incident.
I thought you were going to say candlelight diner. Oh. Oh, Mac. Man, that's where we'd be at 2.30 in the morning back in high school. Yep. Did you get kicked out of there more than once? I was banned from there four times. Really? Yeah, like legitimately banned. Yeah, you strike me as the type that I'd be like, fucking idiot. I know. As I ate my pasta salad. I think we gave that guy a heart attack. Legitimately. He did. He had two heart attacks. I know. I think it was from the stress of us. The maitre d' or... Steve. Yeah, Steve. Smoking or not smoking? Smoking.
Extra pots of salad, $1.25. You remember that? We can go on, Tank. We gotta stop. Shout out to Steve. So the police quickly discredited Ronald's alibi. They were able to quickly prove that he was not at the candlelight club when he said he was.
Shifting their story, the defense then claimed that Ronald was actually at home asleep on the couch that night and that he got his dates mixed up when initially asked by the detectives where he was on the night in question. Which we've talked about before. And it's terrifying to be asked, where were you last night? I don't know. I don't know where I was on Monday. Today is Thursday. I am not even kidding you. Yeah. Where were you on April 17th, 2021? I don't know. I think I had kids by then.
You tell me. Right. One after another, though, Ronald's family members took the stand, affirming under oath that Ronald was indeed home that night. They recounted details of watching television and going to the kitchen where they all saw Ronald asleep on the couch, dressed in a light shirt and blue jeans.
A different defense attorney named Dan Monroe also emphasized another key point on Ronald's behalf. There was no physical evidence linking Ronald Cotton to Jennifer's apartment or to the assault. Now, it's important to remember that in 1985, DNA evidence technology was still in its infancy and wasn't commonly used in U.S. courts until later. Pop quiz. All right. When was DNA evidence first used in court to secure a conviction? A.
A, 1987. B, 1991. C, 1994. Aren't those all the same year? No, Tank. They are not. 1987, 1991, or 1994? Mm-hmm. Um...
Can I phone a friend? You may not. Okay. 19... But I'll give you a fiver if you get it right. 1987. Yes, but... You know how I know that? I do know how you know that. Okay. You know that because what our listeners did not hear because we're taking it out because I fucked up is I said DNA evidence came out like right after, right after 1985. No, no, no. You didn't say that. You said not until much later and you said it wasn't much later. Same thing. I gave away the timeline. You did. You did.
So I've eaten one pop quiz, destroyed another. Well, you're not getting a fiver on that one. I don't need a fiver. Okay, fine. So the first U.S. case to admit DNA evidence in court was in 1987 in Orange County, Florida. And that case utilized something called R.
RFLP analysis which stands for restriction fragment length polymorphism and it's a method of comparing length What the fuck does that mean? I'm going to tell you it's a method of comparing lengths of DNA fragments to establish a genetic match. That's some cool shit. Pretty vague though, right? Vague? They're matching DNA. Using length of the fragments? What about the letters? I'm just kidding. Do you think I have any idea what I'm talking about right now? You a little bit sound like you do and it's weird. No, I don't. Faking it.
With respect to Monroe's closing statement, okay, again, he's one of the defense attorneys for Ronald. Yep. He drilled home the fact that no physical evidence had been found, specifically no fuzzies, meaning fibers from Jennifer's shag rug were found on Ronald Cotton's shoes. He said fuzzies? He said fuzzies. He sure did.
If your lawyer says fuzzies, you're going to jail. Yeah. But he had a team? Because you said he was one of... Multiple public defenders. Yeah. Just all working to fucking ruin this guy's life? Listen, I don't like their questioning of Jennifer, but I don't think that they were trying to sabotage Ronald Cotton at all. Finally, the defense rested on the following argument, that Jennifer's identification of Ronald Cotton was a clear instance of mystique and identity.
The defense argued that in the aftermath of the assault, Jennifer was unable to accurately identify her attacker. As evidence of this, they pointed out inconsistencies such as Ronald's scars, which Jennifer had not mentioned at any stage of the identification process, from the initial composite sketch to the photo to the in-person lineup.
At no point did she mention something that they deemed to be a physical characteristic that she likely would have remembered if she was able to remember all of these other features. Yeah. Now, this argument was central to the defense's strategy, seeking to cast doubt on the reliability of Jennifer's identification and suggesting the possibility of an error in her recollection. Which there was. Which there was.
What about hair? No. Okay, because hair is DNA. They don't use hair to, like, identify, saying, like, oh, this is... They can use hair to visually, like...
Like, his hair looks like that hair, but not to genetically test it. That's not good enough. And let's not forget about the witness who claimed to have seen Ronald riding his bike near Jennifer's neighborhood at around four in the morning, or that night, however you want to say it. Additionally, they indicated that a piece of rubber from Ronald's shoes was indeed discovered in Jennifer's apartment.
Apparently, Ronald had recently washed his World Cup black canvas shoes that he wore to mop the floors at Summer Seafood, and when he did that, part of the insoles started to come apart. Ronald maintained, when initially questioned about the piece of rubber discovered at Jennifer's apartment, that someone must have planted it there, as he had never been inside her apartment. Not on the night of the attack. Not ever.
He also maintained during police questioning that the girl he was accused of attempting to rape when he was 16 years old was the 14-year-old sister of one of his friends, a girl he had actually been dating. And her mother caught them one night fooling around after he let himself into their house. She pointed a shotgun at him and she said, I can shoot you now or we can let the police deal with you.
So they called the police and he was charged with breaking and entering as well as intent to commit rape. Ronald Cotton. Right. Okay. So this was like, remember I said we would circle back to like his earlier charge, but it's important to note that all those charges were actually dropped. Really? Yep.
During his initial interrogation with police, Sully apparently attempted to suggest that Ronald had a penchant for attacking young white girls. In fact, at the time of Ronald's arrest, Sully said the following, quote, saw your girlfriend, and he was referring to Jennifer, you think you're Mr. Big Shot going around town screwing white women, don't you? Who said that? We got your ass. Sully, the detective. The good detective? Not the compassionate one. Oh, okay. The other one. Gotcha. The pilot.
The pilot, yes. Prior to the conclusion of the trial, the defense requested to inform the jury about how there was actually a second victim of sexual assault on the night of Jennifer's rape named Mary Reynolds, who had not identified Ronald during her lineup.
But the judge denied their request to include this information at trial. The defense also requested to put a memory expert in front of the jury to testify about how someone may think he or she can see something and be so certain about it, but still be wrong. But the judge denied this request too.
At the conclusion of a two-day trial, the jury wound up deliberating for just four hours. And before they rendered their verdict, Phil Mosley approached his client, Ronald, and encouraged him to accept a plea deal because he knew that it was not looking good for him. When reflecting upon that moment in time, when faced with that decision about taking a plea bargain or letting the jury decide, Ronald later indicated the following.
because he was being held on bond, right? Yeah. Despite the bars all around me, I was an innocent man. God knew it and I knew it and I would rather die incarcerated than admit to being the rapist they claimed I was. So he allowed the jury to determine his fate and when they returned after their four-hour deliberation, the courtroom fell completely silent as the foreman stood up and delivered the following verdict. Ronald Jr. Cotton was guilty on all charges. Mm-hmm.
Ronald sat completely blank-faced in total silence. When Judge Henry A. McKinnon Jr. asked him if he wanted to say anything, all Ronald said was, no, sir.
On January 18th, 1985, Ronald Cotton, who the judge referred to as a menace to society, was sentenced to life in prison plus 50 years. As Ronald was taken to central prison just past downtown Raleigh, Jennifer and her family went back to the DA's office, popped open a bottle of champagne, and celebrated the fact that justice had been served.
Except that justice had not been served. In fact, it had been grievously miscarried because it turned out, of course, that Ronald Jr. Cotton had not raped Jennifer Thompson or Mary Reynolds. And Jennifer's identification of Ronald as being her attacker, however much she may have truly believed it was him, was mistaken.
Every day inside central prison was a nightmare for Ronald Cotton. As a rapist? Yeah. Determined to defend... Sorry, convicted rapist. He's not a rapist, but... Right, exactly. Perceived rapist. Determined to defend himself against assaults and targeting due to his mixed African-American and Native American heritage, which made him an absolute target inside, he rigorously worked out to build muscle on his otherwise very lanky 6'4 frame.
Constant vigilance was necessary to avoid attacks in the rec room or stabbings in the yard. And outside prison, his world was also crumbling. His mother suffered a debilitating stroke, a tragedy that Ronald agonizingly attributed to the stress of his trial and conviction. Life and the trajectory of the rest of it was looking very grim. But then...
Three months into his sentence, Ronald noticed a new inmate walking by with a corrections officer. Who looked like him? And for two days, yes, Ronald could not shake the feeling that he had seen that man before or that he somehow knew him. Then he realized where he recognized him from. He looked exactly like the composite sketch of the man that Jennifer Thompson...
indicated had raped her back in July. Wow. His name. So it was a good composite sketch. It was. Yeah. His name was Bobby Leon Poole. And he was, in fact, from Burlington. And he was, in fact, in prison for rape.
Bobby and Ronald looked so similar to each other that even the guards inside the prison had a difficult time telling them apart. Wow. Yep. It's like you. It's like every bald guy with a beard and now glasses. Yeah. Is Tank Sinatra. Yeah. Everybody who's ever played a cop on TV in the past 30 years, basically. Yeah. Yeah. You should play a cop. We got to get you like on Law and Order or something. I actually went to an acting agent once. He goes, you could be a cop or a prisoner. That's it. Okay.
I should just do both. Yeah. Get you a guy who could do both.
So the only real difference between the men, between Bobby and Ronald, is that Bobby always had on this bizarre Cheshire cat-like smile and always looked as if he was smirking because of it. Recognizing a potential breakthrough, though, Ronald feverishly wrote to his public defender, urging him to investigate Bobby Poole and to pursue an appeal. However, his pleas were going unheard by his defense attorney.
until the beginning of his second year in prison when he received a return letter from Phil Mosley indicating that the North Carolina Supreme Court had overturned his conviction and granted him a new trial. Incredibly, though, it had nothing
to do with this Bobby Poole character. Really? Yes. Rather, the court had agreed that evidence about Mary Reynolds' rape and her inability to identify Ronald in a lineup should have been allowed to have been presented at the original trial. Obviously. Because remember how the judge struck down both? Yeah. Oh, it's going to make it too confusing. I don't want to hear that. I got a golf game coming up. We got to just close this out. People fucking suck sometimes.
But still, Ronald's attorney intended to introduce Bobby Poole as a new suspect in this retrial. So now a new trial was set for November 1987 and Ronald, for the first time, had hope.
But much like my wonderful co-host tends to do with me, the court giveth and then taketh. No, they tanketh? They tanketh. Because in February 1987, which was nine months before his scheduled retrial, Ronald received... Why did it take nine months to get a retrial when he's fucking sitting in prison when they did it so fast the first time? The wheels of justice are painfully slow. Selectively slow? Perhaps, yes.
Ronald received another letter from his attorney delivering the following news. Mary Reynolds had now, after three years, identified Ronald as her attacker. What? And claimed that she always knew it was him, but that she was too afraid to speak up. So now, instead of just having the chance to re-argue the original case, Ronald Cotton now faced an additional rape charge. What about Bobby Poole? Well, we're going to
totally bring in Bobby Poole actually right now. Great. The only glimmer of hope left at this point was the fact that in addition to Bobby Poole looking like the guy in the composite sketch and being a convicted rapist from Burlington, was that another inmate named Kenny told Ronald that Bobby Poole had confessed to the crime for which Cotton was wrongfully convicted. That must be so hard to hear. Oh, yeah. It almost makes it more like...
oof, you know? Somebody listen to me. Right. That's what my intro was. I'm screaming and nobody hears me. I'm drowning and nobody sees the water. Yeah. And this confession could be and was crucial as Kenny testified on Ronald's behalf at the second trial. Additionally, during the second trial, Ronald's attorney, Phil Mosley, highlighted another critical piece of evidence and that was a speck of blood type A
found on Mary's doorframe, which was the same blood type as Bobby Poole and crucially not the same blood type as Ronald, Mary, or Mary's husband. Yeah. Right? Yeah. This is such cool shit. She is so pumped. I know. I love this stuff. She's standing up. It's weird. It's making me uncomfortable. I'm still the same size. Relax. She's levitating. This was very,
very compelling evidence, indeed. Yet, yet, in spite of this compelling evidence, the judge ruled against allowing the prosecution to introduce Bobby Poole as another potential suspect. Why? This ruling meant that the jury remained unaware of the existence of another suspect who not only matched the physical description and blood type found at one of the scenes...
but also confessed to the crimes as per Kenny's account. Why would the judge do that? I don't know. I'm trying to make sense of it and I'm trying to go back into my research to think if I came across why he would have rejected it, but it's so baffling. I don't know. Additionally, it was also revealed that Bobby Poole had also confessed to another inmate as well. A man named Dennis Bass who even signed an affidavit confirming that
This confession. Well, now he's not confessing. He's bragging. Yes. Yes, he is. Nevertheless, the second trial, which lasted eight days, culminated in Ronald Jr. Cotton being convicted of a second rape charge, resulting in two life sentences plus an additional 180 years. Ronald was bounced around to multiple prisons in various states like a pinball, he said.
barely surviving the harrowing existence of a prisoner serving life. Yeah. But then another fucking twist in the case occurred in early September 1992. So, so many years later at this point, but still. Yeah. When Ronald received a letter from a law professor named Richard Rosen indicating that he intended to reopen Ronald's case, sort of unofficially.
Right? And he's a law professor? He's a law professor. So Richard was a full-time professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. And along with his students, decided to reinvestigate Ronald's case from the very beginning.
beginning. I love this part of the case. I have such admiration for Richard Rosen and just people like him who dedicate their skills, their time, their expertise, their compassion to tirelessly advocate for those desperately in need of help. Right, that guy in the Larry David case. Yes, exactly right. Yeah. All in the name of justice. I love it. No one forced Richard to do this, right? But he took it on and he gave it everything he had.
First, he arranged for a new DNA test to be conducted now that DNA technology was more advanced. So for context, it's now 1995 in the case, which is 10 years after Ronald's initial conviction. And the type A spot of blood that was discovered at Mary's home not only very clearly did not match type O, which was Ronald's,
which we already knew, but according to the State Bureau of Investigation's DNA database, it conclusively matched Bobby Poole's DNA, going beyond just blood type compatibility. So, in a significant turn of events, and just five hours into an interrogation, Bobby Poole ultimately and
and finally wound up confessing to the rapes of Jennifer Thompson and Mary Reynolds. Yeah. Does the judge get put on trial at any point? I mean... On June 30th, 1995, a day etched in the annals of justice...
Thank God. Yeah.
He had weathered the relentless passage of time marked by the poignant absence from countless family events, the miscelebrations that shaped the tapestry of life, the tragedies that test the human spirit. He missed it all. He was deprived of witnessing the gentle aging of his parents. Each day, a precious moment lost and the joyous expansion of his siblings' families. As he stepped beyond the prison walls, the floodgates of emotion opened. A
a complex blend of relief, sorrow for the years lost, and a cautious embrace of newfound freedom. Ronald Cotton's release was more than a legal exoneration. It was a testament to the resilience of the human spirit in the face of unimaginable adversity. Following his exoneration, Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina signed Ronald's official pardon of innocence, which was announced when Ronald went on the Larry King live show.
And on the show, Larry King asked Ronald if he was angry about losing 10 years of his life and being wrongfully accused, convicted, and imprisoned, to which Ronald replied, no, I'm not angry. Then...
It just keeps getting wilder. In 1997, a producer named Ben Lorterman with PBS aired a documentary called What Jennifer Saw, which delved into the issues surrounding eyewitness identification and the wrongful conviction of Ronald Cotton for a crime he did not commit.
What Jennifer saw explored how Jennifer's certainty in her identification was misplaced, a phenomenon not uncommon in eyewitness testimony, and highlighted the broader implications and challenges in the criminal justice system regarding reliance on eyewitness accounts.
The documentary was significant in bringing national attention to the problems of eyewitness misidentification and how it's affecting convictions and wrongful convictions and how it contributes to the ongoing discussion about the need for reform in police and legal procedures related to eyewitness identification. Now, I want to be very, very clear about something, okay? And I want to be very careful not to escalate
ever dissuade anyone from attempting to identify their assailant. God forbid, I would never, ever do that. Eyewitness misidentification, while a significant factor in wrongful convictions, is not a failing of the victims or survivors. It's a reflection of procedural inadequacies within the criminal justice system.
Human memory is inherently fallible and can be easily influenced by a variety of factors, including what you mentioned, the stress of a traumatic event, the
the way the lineups are conducted, or the nature of the questioning by law enforcement. This issue calls for a careful examination and reform of the procedures used in eyewitness identification to ensure accuracy and reliability and to safeguard the integrity of the justice system. It's essential to recognize that the victims of crimes in their very, very brave efforts to assist with the, you know, identification of perpetrators are
are navigating a very complex and often challenging psychological process. Right? Jennifer was 24 hours out of the worst moment of her life and in five minutes made an identification. This is not on her. No.
The focus needs to therefore be on improving the systemic procedures that guide eyewitness testimony rather than placing the burden of accuracy solely on the shoulders of the victims or survivors. Yeah. So I just wanted to get that out there.
According to the Innocence Project, which you know I love and support, the contributing factors to eyewitness misidentification can be grouped into two broad categories, estimator variables and system variables.
Estimator variables are those outside the control of the criminal legal system and include gaps in the eyewitness's memory, right? How far away they are from the scene of the crime, the level of stress or trauma that the eyewitness experienced while observing or experiencing the crime, visibility conditions, and other challenges. Yeah. Like the ones you mentioned, right? Like this guy wanted attention and he inserted himself in and made a wrongful identification, right? Yep.
System variables are those controlled by the criminal legal system, such as law enforcement procedures related to recording an eyewitness's memory, the administration of lineups and photo arrays, and more. System variables have impacted a very, very large amount of our misidentification cases to date. What is a photo array called? A six-pack? Oh my God. You are blowing me away. Yes. Yes, it is. All right. All right.
In the LAPD, anyway. And you remembered it was the LAPD. Oh, yeah, of course. Yo, you're fucking smart. I know. You don't look it. What? I have glasses on. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. You look it now. Nationally, eyewitness misidentification has played a role in... Ready for this?
71% of wrongful convictions that were later overturned with DNA in the United States. Wow. And research by the National Registry of Exonerations shows that more than half of the 3,300 people who were exonerated between 1989 and 2022 were black, despite the fact that black people account for less than 15% of the U.S. population. Wow. A
A 2022 report from the registry found that innocent black people were seven times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder. How many times more likely? Seven than innocent white people. The racial disproportionality and wrongful conviction cases clearly reflects persistent biases in our system. Yeah. Okay.
Here are ways in which to improve reliability of eyewitness identification based on my research. I'm not an expert, y'all, but this is based on my research. Using double-blind or blinded administration, meaning the official conducting the procedure is also unaware of the suspect's identity to prevent suggestiveness.
Seems so simple. Yeah. So brilliant. Yeah. The next thing, instructing the eyewitness that the perpetrator may or may not be present in the lineup. Yeah.
And selecting non-suspect fillers to place in the lineup who match the eyewitness's description of the perpetrator. This we know. Like you don't have to choose one of these people. Exactly. Yeah. The last thing is documenting the eyewitnesses, and this is important, level of confidence immediately after an identification is made. Yeah. Right? I think this is the guy. Did I do okay? Yeah. Things like that are very telling. Yeah.
25 states presently have implemented these practices to reduce wrongful convictions and increase public safety. So in the documentary that I mentioned earlier, What Jennifer Saw,
Ronald mentioned that he wanted to meet Jennifer. So he'd obviously seen her during his trial, multiple trials, but he wanted to sit down with her. Pop quiz. What happened? A, Jennifer refused and stuck to her guns about Ronald being guilty. No way. B, Jennifer agreed, but then Ronald rescinded. C, Jennifer agreed, they met, and ultimately became good friends. C. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Believe it or not,
A little bit of hope, a little bit of humanity, a little bit of, I don't know what, feel good for this case because there's not much of it. After much consideration, Jennifer Thompson decided that she too wanted to sit down with Ronald.
A secret location was chosen, so to throw off the scent of the media, and the initial meeting took place at the First Baptist Church of Elon College. Jennifer was understandably a nervous wreck. When she arrived at the church, now 13 years older from when Ronald had last seen her and a mother to five-year-old triplets. Wow. Jennifer said the following. I'm going to get choked up. Seriously. Do it. Mr. Cotton...
I don't even know what to call you. Ron? Ronald? Mr. Cotton? If I spent the rest of my life telling you how sorry I am, it wouldn't come close to how I feel. Can you ever forgive me? And Ronald said...
I forgive you. I'm not angry at you. I don't want you to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder thinking I'm out to get you or to harm your family. If you look, I'm not going to be there. All I want is for us all to go on and have a happy life. That's wild. Jennifer's eyes welled up and for the first time, Ronald did not see any heat in her eyes when she looked back at him. Ronald, who was also crying by this point, reached for Jennifer's hands and
And then the two of them hugged. Following that first meeting, Jennifer and Ronald did a bunch of interviews together and actually became pretty good friends. She introduced her children to him at the church and their families entwined from there. Ronald went on to marry a woman named Robin the day he turned 35 and to have a daughter of his own that he named Raven. Did they do karate together in the garage? Trying to figure out what the karate comment is about. Do we just become best friends? Yep. Yep.
Ronald was also awarded $109,150.69 from the state for the 11 years he spent in prison for crimes he did not commit. And he had a fight for that, P.S., but that's another story. Ronald and his wife built a ranch house with beige siding and red shutters. He often sits outside in a chair looking at all the trees on his property, including an apple, mulberry, and persimmon tree.
enjoying his much-deserved freedom. Jennifer indicated the following in a book titled Picking Cotton, which I read in preparation for this case. She said, I don't think until I stood weak-kneed in front of Ronald that I had any idea what forgiveness was, nor
nor how powerful it could be. Ronald gave me something that eluded me in the 13 years since that sweltering summer night, the gift of forgiveness, not because I deserved it, but because that's what grace is about. It was the real beginning of my journey back. Wow. And that's the case. That's the end? Yeah. Oh, I didn't want it to stop.
Really? Yeah. Because this case is, I feel like we haven't really covered a case like this before. We should have Jason Flom on the podcast. Please make that happen, Tank Sinatra. Yeah. Make it happen. Okay, I will. That easy, you think? Yeah, I'll text him. What? Really? Oh my God. He did my old podcast. Really? Think Tank, yeah.
Which doesn't exist anymore. But this one very much exists. Oh, yeah. And this one he fits on. Right. Yeah. Oh, yes. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Especially after today.
So many parts of this case that were like, I don't know, I felt a lot of things when I was researching this case. Obviously, I felt terrified and horrified and heartbroken for Jennifer and Mary and every other survivor and victim of sexual assault. Then I was in awe of her bravery. Then I was angry, not at her, but by the system that allowed for Ronald not once but twice to be convicted.
of crimes he didn't commit. Yeah. Thinking about how many years he spent behind bars and then learning about how often this actually happens. Yeah. I had all the feels with this one. Yeah. It was good. It was very good. Well-researched. Thank you, sir. Thoughtfully put together, expertly written. Keep going. I'm out. All right. I'll take it. Thank you. You did excellent with your contributions per usual, and you impressed the shit out of me with no
knowing things from past cases. I can't believe I beat you to a pop quiz and then had the right answer. Yeah. I actually can't believe that. I'm incredibly intelligent. I have glasses now, so I'm sinking into my new identity. Yeah. Yeah. Well, if you made it this far, Megs, you're a real one. I can't wait till we have a, if you made it this far, Megs, John or something. Right, right, right, right, right. Well, I'm just tickled pink that you're still here if you're listening to this podcast. Freak. Freak.
And I hope you like this case. Please let us know what you think, whether via email, DM, Spotify. You can leave a little review or something or a question and we'll publish it if it's nice. If it's nice. You can leave a review on Apple, but only if it's nice. Yeah. And whatever. You can do whatever. Just kidding. Of course. We're out for the truth. And we will see you guys next week. Thank you for listening. Bye. Bye.