Speaker 1: Years ago, I decided the best way to launch a
Speaker 1: new season of Trace Evidence was by answering a bunch
Speaker 1: of questions as submitted by listeners. It turned out that
Speaker 1: was a pretty popular choice, and so we've done it
Speaker 1: every year since. This year, I was flooded with a
Speaker 1: larger amount of questions than normal, but I think I
Speaker 1: managed to get the list down to a solid twenty
Speaker 1: or so questions, which covers a wide array of topics
Speaker 1: and interesting points. So welcome to this special Trace Evidence
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five wrap up twenty twenty six preview Q
Speaker 1: and A special episode And yeah, that was a mouthful.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Trace Evidence. I'm your host, Steven Pacheco. Today
Speaker 1: we turn our attention to emails in social media, where
Speaker 1: I'll be answering all of your questions. The Q and
Speaker 1: A episode is always slightly divisive. While a lot of
Speaker 1: listeners love it, I do get some who aren't fans,
Speaker 1: but hey, we got to try and give a little
Speaker 1: something for everyone, don't we. Afterwards, I'll briefly discuss some
Speaker 1: plans for the podcast in twenty twenty six, and then
Speaker 1: later this week I'll be dropping episode two fifty four.
Speaker 1: So without further ado. Let's dive right in This is
Speaker 1: the Trace Evidence twenty twenty five wrap up Q and
Speaker 1: a special all right. Question Number one comes from Cheryl,
Speaker 1: who asks, I was wondering what your thoughts were about
Speaker 1: Diamond and Tianda Bradley's mother. Do you think she had
Speaker 1: anything to do with their disappearance? Her actions just seem
Speaker 1: odd Well, Cheryl, thanks for the question. I don't know
Speaker 1: if I would go far enough to blatantly say that
Speaker 1: I think Tracy could have been involved in the disappearance
Speaker 1: of her daughters, at least to the extent of actually
Speaker 1: being directly involved in it. I do think it's possible
Speaker 1: that she has more information that could help the investigation
Speaker 1: than she's revealed, and I also think it's possible that
Speaker 1: she might have a pretty good idea of who was
Speaker 1: involved and why things went the way that they did.
Speaker 1: A lot of people over the years have accused her
Speaker 1: of being directly involved, like setting it up or allowing
Speaker 1: it to happen, or looking the other way, And I
Speaker 1: don't know if I would go that far based on
Speaker 1: what I've seen. There's some inconsistencies in her statements over
Speaker 1: the years. There's certain things in the timeline that don't
Speaker 1: match up in terms of her phone calls and her
Speaker 1: call logs. Whether or not Tracy was directly involved that,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Whether or not she knows a little
Speaker 1: bit more or has suspicions that haven't been shared that
Speaker 1: I think is probably likely, But again, you're kind of
Speaker 1: arguing semantics with it. If she does know more than
Speaker 1: she shared, then I guess she kind of would be
Speaker 1: involved in the disappearance. So it comes down to how
Speaker 1: you view it and why she was or wasn't sharing information.
Speaker 1: It's possible she didn't share certain things because she thought
Speaker 1: she would get in trouble or she thought something would
Speaker 1: go wrong. I don't really know. At the end of
Speaker 1: the day, I do think there is something suss about
Speaker 1: the way that Tracy behaved in the aftermath of the disappearance.
Speaker 1: And I will say this, to date, the disappearance of
Speaker 1: Diamond and Tianda Bradley is the only episode I have
Speaker 1: ever done where a family member reached out to me
Speaker 1: after the episode was released and was angry with me
Speaker 1: for covering it. This person wasn't angry at me for
Speaker 1: getting information wrong. This person wasn't angry at me for
Speaker 1: inaccuracies or the way I depicted something. They were specifically
Speaker 1: mad at me for covering this case because, in their words,
Speaker 1: they control the names Diamond and Tianda Bradley and people
Speaker 1: are not allowed to make anything about them without their approval.
Speaker 1: Obviously that's not true, but it kind of blew my
Speaker 1: mind afterwards, and I couldn't help but feel like there's
Speaker 1: definitely something strange going on in terms of the family,
Speaker 1: because why else would you be mad about someone bringing
Speaker 1: attention to a missing person's case. Really never made any
Speaker 1: sense to me, So yeah, I can't say that Tracy
Speaker 1: was involved. I can't say that she knows what happened here.
Speaker 1: I can't really say much with any certainty about that case,
Speaker 1: but I will say that the way she behaved in
Speaker 1: the aftermath and certain inconsistencies have raised questions at a minimum.
Speaker 1: Our next question comes from Stacy, who wants to know
Speaker 1: are you still planning on doing another podcast or a
Speaker 1: project for different topics that you're interested in. Yes, I
Speaker 1: do still plan to do that, and I have a
Speaker 1: bunch of different ideas, but considering what's gone on in
Speaker 1: the last few years, trace evidence currently takes precedence, so
Speaker 1: I don't want to work on any other projects until
Speaker 1: I get that back on track, which I'll talk about
Speaker 1: more at the end of the episode. In terms of
Speaker 1: other podcasts, I have one that I'd like to do
Speaker 1: because I constantly get private messages and emails from people
Speaker 1: telling me that they love my voice and that they
Speaker 1: often fall asleep to it. So I was planning to
Speaker 1: do a pod specifically designed for that purpose. There's also
Speaker 1: a history podcast I'd like to do. It would be
Speaker 1: shorter form and seasonal, so like ten episodes per topic.
Speaker 1: But there is another true crime podcast that I'm planning
Speaker 1: to contribute to as a co host, but you'll hear
Speaker 1: about that one more later this year. Next up, we
Speaker 1: have a question from Trace Evidence discussion group rising star
Speaker 1: Adam Miles, who asked, have you ever recorded a case
Speaker 1: involving someone with Down syndrome. I don't believe I have.
Speaker 1: Off the top of my head, nothing comes to mind.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure i'd remember if I had. I'm not
Speaker 1: opposed to doing that at all. I don't think I've
Speaker 1: ever received a request for a case that involves someone
Speaker 1: with Down syndrome, whether it was the victim, the suspect,
Speaker 1: or anything in between. I don't really have any limitations
Speaker 1: to the types and styles of cases that I'll accept
Speaker 1: as suggestions. I just have a giant spreadsheet that's got
Speaker 1: thousands of cases on it, and when I get a request,
Speaker 1: it goes on there. I don't necessarily work the spreadsheet
Speaker 1: in the order that I receive case requests. It depends
Speaker 1: on a lot of different factors. How many sources are
Speaker 1: available when the case occurred, how many other podcasts, if any,
Speaker 1: have covered it, are their major documentaries. These are all
Speaker 1: things that I take into consideration because generally I don't
Speaker 1: like to focus too much on a case that has
Speaker 1: received an overwhelming amount of coverage. I'll do cases from
Speaker 1: time to time that other pods have done. I'll do
Speaker 1: cases from time to time that have documentaries or movies
Speaker 1: about them, But I don't like to do that if
Speaker 1: in the span, say the last six to eight months,
Speaker 1: like six podcasts released an episode on it. At that point,
Speaker 1: I feel like, what can I really contribute to it. So,
Speaker 1: to get back to your original question, No, I haven't
Speaker 1: done any cases with anyone who has Down syndrome, but
Speaker 1: I'd be more than willing to so if you or
Speaker 1: anyone else has any suggestions or any cases that they'd
Speaker 1: like me to look at, always feel free to send
Speaker 1: those over to me, because even if I don't respond
Speaker 1: to your email, I get a lot of them. I
Speaker 1: can't respond to all of them. I do always add
Speaker 1: those cases to my spreadsheet. Our next question comes from Jesus,
Speaker 1: who asks when will you cover the case of Joseph
Speaker 1: Newton Chandler the Third Well, I've looked at that case
Speaker 1: a couple of times, and it's on my spreadsheet. But
Speaker 1: I feel like at this point, the vast majority of
Speaker 1: the mystery surrounding him is why he changed his name
Speaker 1: and what he was running from or hiding from, or
Speaker 1: trying to conceal. There's theories all over the place on
Speaker 1: that that he was involved in some violent crimes, that
Speaker 1: he had been involved in some kind of a robbery,
Speaker 1: that he had a bunch of debts he was trying
Speaker 1: to get away from. I've even seen in a couple
Speaker 1: of places that people think he could have been the
Speaker 1: Zodiac Killer, which doesn't really make a lot of sense
Speaker 1: to me, but I guess people will come up with anything.
Speaker 1: Then there's the idea that maybe he was involved in
Speaker 1: World War two and it was on the run from
Speaker 1: that because he might have been in the Nazi regime.
Speaker 1: I really don't know, so I don't have a timeline
Speaker 1: on when I'll cover that. I guess that one always
Speaker 1: gets back burnard for me because if I'm looking at
Speaker 1: a different slate of cases, say three different cases I'm
Speaker 1: looking at, and it's like, all right, I'm gonna do
Speaker 1: one of these. You got, you know, a missing person,
Speaker 1: an unsolved murder, and then a guy who hit his
Speaker 1: identity for some reason. Generally speaking, the missing person or
Speaker 1: the unsolved murder is gonna be more important in my
Speaker 1: mind than that. Maybe Joseph Newton Chandler would be an
Speaker 1: interesting case to do for the Patreon or something like that.
Speaker 1: So maybe I'll look into that. But thanks for your question,
Speaker 1: and I'll see what I can get done for you.
Speaker 1: Sarah Asks. Of course, I'm a fan of true crime,
Speaker 1: but I also love fiction. Do you have any crime
Speaker 1: fiction books or stories you've read that you would recommend.
Speaker 1: I recently read The Last House on Needless Street, which
Speaker 1: I don't want to say too much about because I
Speaker 1: don't want to spoil anything, but that's really a fantastic read.
Speaker 1: Normally I don't read a ton of true crime fiction,
Speaker 1: but I admit I have a soft spot or maybe
Speaker 1: just a weird interest in old school pulp novels. I
Speaker 1: bought a bunch of old Mickey Spallane books from eBay
Speaker 1: a few years back and really just had a good
Speaker 1: time running through how over the top and melodramatic they are.
Speaker 1: But hey, you're talking to a guy who watches General Hospital,
Speaker 1: so I'm a sucker for a fun storyline, whether it's
Speaker 1: well executed or not. While it's not a fiction book,
Speaker 1: the next book I'm planning to dive into is called Karen,
Speaker 1: and it's written by Kelsey Grammer from Fraser and it's
Speaker 1: about his sister who was murdered back in the seventies
Speaker 1: I believe, so not a fiction book, but one I'm
Speaker 1: looking to dig into. Next up, we have Haley, who
Speaker 1: has two questions for me. One what is one case
Speaker 1: you constantly think about? And two what is one famous
Speaker 1: cold case you believe will be solved in our lifetime.
Speaker 1: The case that I constantly think about is the Zodiac Killer.
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know why I think about the Zodiac
Speaker 1: Killer all the time, but I do, and I have
Speaker 1: since I was young. It's always been a case that's
Speaker 1: been at the forefront of my mind. I watch everything
Speaker 1: I can about it, I read almost everything I can
Speaker 1: about it. But to be honest with you, there's been
Speaker 1: so much stuff written about that case that's horrible or
Speaker 1: ridiculous or out of this world that I avoid a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff now as well. That's one of those
Speaker 1: cases where, for whatever reason, every year, somebody knew comes
Speaker 1: forward and it was their uncle, their father, their cousin,
Speaker 1: their brother, their boyfriend. There's always some new Zodiac person,
Speaker 1: there's always some new suspect, and it never gets any
Speaker 1: closer to being solved. Unfortunately, considering the time when all
Speaker 1: this stuff happened, the way evidence was handled, the lack
Speaker 1: of DNA and all that, I don't know that that
Speaker 1: case is ever going to get solved, but I do
Speaker 1: find it fascinating. At the end of the day, however,
Speaker 1: I have to confront the fact that it may be
Speaker 1: fascinating because it is not solved. Frankly, I think if
Speaker 1: the Zodiac killer had been captured in say nineteen eighty,
Speaker 1: it would have been a really big story for a
Speaker 1: month or two, and today no one would ever be
Speaker 1: talking about it. Now onto your second question. One case.
Speaker 1: One famous cold case that I think could be solved
Speaker 1: in our lifetimes is the Lane Bryant massacre. So for
Speaker 1: those of you who haven't heard of it, which I
Speaker 1: can't imagine is a lot of you. In February of
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, four customers, one part time employee,
Speaker 1: and the store manager of Elaine Bryant in Tinley Park,
Speaker 1: Illinois were shot during a robbery. All five victims were women,
Speaker 1: and four of them died at the scene, with the
Speaker 1: part time employee surviving. I never believed the Austin yogurt
Speaker 1: shop murders would be solved, but I was so excited
Speaker 1: to see when they were. I think there's a good
Speaker 1: chance that the Lane Bryant massacre could be solved in
Speaker 1: our lifetime. Honestly, I think there's some folks out there
Speaker 1: right now who know who it was, but for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: they haven't come forward yet. That's certainly a case that
Speaker 1: I think has a chance of finding some answers in
Speaker 1: the next twenty to forty years. I guess we'll have
Speaker 1: to see. In general, though, as technology continues to advance
Speaker 1: and groups like authorm are out there doing amazing work
Speaker 1: in genetic genealogy, I would say that within our lifetime,
Speaker 1: the odds of someone ever becoming a j or Jane
Speaker 1: Doe will be greatly reduced. I know that's not a
Speaker 1: specific case, but in general, moving forward, I think we're
Speaker 1: going to see Doe designations becoming more and more rare,
Speaker 1: which is definitely a good thing. There's far too many
Speaker 1: of them for any of you whoever perused the Dough
Speaker 1: Network or name us. It's just so sad to see
Speaker 1: how many lists there are of people that they just
Speaker 1: have no idea who they are, let alone what happened
Speaker 1: to them. Wesley Ray asks if you were a professional wrestler,
Speaker 1: what name or gimmick would you go by and what
Speaker 1: would your walk out entrance music be. That's a really
Speaker 1: challenging question. I've been watching wrestling since I was a
Speaker 1: little kid, and for a period of time when I
Speaker 1: was really young, I imagined and fantasized about what it
Speaker 1: would be like to get another ring. Given that I'm
Speaker 1: not the biggest guy on the planet, I'd probably have
Speaker 1: to go with some kind of a high flying gimmick
Speaker 1: akin to a Ray Mysterio or Dean Malanko. I definitely
Speaker 1: have been in the cruiserweight division back then. All that
Speaker 1: being said, I think it would have been cool to
Speaker 1: have some kind of a dark or evil gimmick. I
Speaker 1: always imagined myself as a heel. Obviously the Undertaker set
Speaker 1: the bar for that, although I was always a bigger
Speaker 1: fan of the outfit and look of WCW's Mortis, and
Speaker 1: I'm a huge fan of Laparca, So maybe some kind
Speaker 1: of an evil wizard, druid, undead thing would have been fun,
Speaker 1: like a high flying ghoul of sorts. In terms of
Speaker 1: entrance music, the answer to that question depends what day
Speaker 1: of the week it is, as my musical tastes and
Speaker 1: interest shift constantly. It has to be something that fits
Speaker 1: the character, makes the crowd pop, and is something you
Speaker 1: won't ever get tired of listening to as you make
Speaker 1: your entrance thousands of times. I don't know, maybe something
Speaker 1: like Metallica's for Whom the Bell tolls. Wes also asks
Speaker 1: if I'm still collecting physical media, and if so, what
Speaker 1: are some recent Blu rays, DVDs, four K pickups. I
Speaker 1: do still collect movies and all that, but I haven't
Speaker 1: been buying as much stuff as I used to. For
Speaker 1: the most part, they haven't put out a lot of
Speaker 1: new movies that I'm into, and the list of older
Speaker 1: movies that i'd love to see them released on four
Speaker 1: K keeps growing, but nothing's happening. We keep hearing all
Speaker 1: this talk about how physical media is dying and these
Speaker 1: companies don't want to make it anymore. But at least
Speaker 1: in my opinion, streaming movies is fine if you're not
Speaker 1: super into the look. If you want it to be
Speaker 1: sharp and clear and four K, then physical is the
Speaker 1: only way to go. There's nothing I've ever streamed four
Speaker 1: K that's looked half as good as it does when
Speaker 1: I just throw the disk in anyway. I haven't bought
Speaker 1: a ton of stuff this year, but recent four K
Speaker 1: pickups include Cloak and Dagger, the one from the eighties, Clue,
Speaker 1: which is one of my favorite movies, the Criterion collection
Speaker 1: of The Breakfast Club, which looks fantastic, and then I
Speaker 1: picked up some older films as well, like Donovan's Reef
Speaker 1: and The Searchers. I'm still waiting for my favorite old
Speaker 1: school Western El Dorado, to get the four K treatment,
Speaker 1: and maybe someone can finally show some love to Iron Eagle.
Speaker 1: That would be fantastic. What are your thoughts on AI
Speaker 1: in the field of criminology. Do you think it will
Speaker 1: help solve some cold cases or be more of a
Speaker 1: hindrance than a help. That question was asked by Mark.
Speaker 1: AI is such a question mark for me right now
Speaker 1: in terms of everything. I've used it for a couple
Speaker 1: of things, mostly graphic design since I'm not an artist,
Speaker 1: so it helps fill in my lack of ability there.
Speaker 1: But for the most part, I don't like a lot
Speaker 1: of what AI generates. Some of the memes are funny,
Speaker 1: some of the goofy little videos I've seen are fun,
Speaker 1: but I don't want to watch a movie that's full
Speaker 1: of AI people. I don't want to listen to a
Speaker 1: podcast that's an AI voice. To this day, if I'm
Speaker 1: watching something on YouTube and I hear what is clearly
Speaker 1: an AI voice, I just turn it off and go
Speaker 1: somewhere else. I'm not interested in that at all. So
Speaker 1: in terms of entertainment applications and all that, I'm not
Speaker 1: a fan. But your question was specifically about criminology. I
Speaker 1: do think there is probably some application for AI. They
Speaker 1: haven't figured it out yet, whatever that's gonna be. And
Speaker 1: the problem is with everything AI, when they first start
Speaker 1: doing it, it's just so flawed and full of errors,
Speaker 1: and you have to spend so much time correcting it
Speaker 1: and teaching it and giving it things to learn, And
Speaker 1: even then you can't guarantee that it's accurate, whether it's Google, Gemini, Chat, GPT,
Speaker 1: grock or whatever the hell Windows version is, which really stinks.
Speaker 1: I've asked them questions and gotten accurate answers, I've asked
Speaker 1: them questions and gotten completely wrong answers, and I've asked
Speaker 1: them questions and gotten everything in between. So when it
Speaker 1: comes to criminology in general, I don't know how helpful
Speaker 1: it could really be. At the same time, as seems
Speaker 1: to be the case with everything AI these days, whether
Speaker 1: or not it's going to work, they're sure as hell
Speaker 1: going to give it a shot. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 1: to find out if the FBI were, say, working with
Speaker 1: some kind of an AI to create some kind of
Speaker 1: a profiling system so that they can feed in information
Speaker 1: about suspects and get a general profile. But again, the
Speaker 1: question is going to be accuracy and how reliable it is. Also,
Speaker 1: it would be really interesting to see a case go
Speaker 1: to trial in which AI was somehow involved in the
Speaker 1: investigation would that stand up in court. Would a good
Speaker 1: defense attorney be able to find a way around it that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it would be pretty interesting. I would say.
Speaker 1: Useful applications for AI and criminology would probably be related
Speaker 1: to data analysis and putting lists of information together, comparing
Speaker 1: different cases that maybe aren't thought to be connected, but
Speaker 1: after the AI examines all the information might find something
Speaker 1: that links them. Clusters and stuff like that. When you
Speaker 1: look at states where a lot of bodies are showing
Speaker 1: up and the local police are saying, oh, there's no
Speaker 1: serial killer here, AI might be able to look at
Speaker 1: something like that and say, okay, well, based on this
Speaker 1: specific standard, you probably do have a serial killer there.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's going to be a really kind
Speaker 1: of a slippery slope kind of a situation. I think
Speaker 1: there are certain ways it could apply. Well. I think
Speaker 1: there are other ways that it could be a problem
Speaker 1: and a hindrance. Gonna depend on the way it's done
Speaker 1: and how accurate or reliable the information is that the
Speaker 1: AI is coming up with. Either way, I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna see it happen. So probably over the course of
Speaker 1: the next couple of years, you're gonna see law enforcement
Speaker 1: start talking about how they can deploy AI because it
Speaker 1: seems today AI is this magic answer to any problem.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's gonna end up being the case.
Speaker 1: I guess we'll see how it goes in terms of
Speaker 1: law enforcement investigations criminology in general. So I hope that
Speaker 1: it can help. I hope that it can open some
Speaker 1: new doorways and lead police down new avenues to investigate cases.
Speaker 1: But I don't have a lot of faith in that
Speaker 1: quite frankly. Also, I think there's another side to that question,
Speaker 1: which is how might AI be used by criminals to
Speaker 1: help thwart law enforcement or to get away. That's one
Speaker 1: that I don't think has been looked at too much,
Speaker 1: but is certainly a possibility, whether it's people cloning their
Speaker 1: voices or using AI to develop schemes or like to examine.
Speaker 1: Say someone wants to commit a crime in a specific
Speaker 1: location and they feed all that data into an AI
Speaker 1: and ask the AI to help them develop the proper
Speaker 1: plan to do that, or what the best way is
Speaker 1: to execute this crime to not get caught, or in general,
Speaker 1: they just ask it, Hey, here's my plan. Can you
Speaker 1: look at it and tell me any holes I might
Speaker 1: have left in there or not. And I know that
Speaker 1: ais are supposed to be trained to not do illegal
Speaker 1: things and all that, but everybody finds ways around everything,
Speaker 1: and criminals are certainly good at that. So I think
Speaker 1: there's a couple of different angles to this. At the
Speaker 1: end of the day, I think we're probably not gonna
Speaker 1: be able to go anywhere in our lives five years
Speaker 1: from now without encountering some kind of an AI somewhere.
Speaker 1: One of my favorite people, Katery, has a couple of
Speaker 1: questions here. She asks what case would you like to
Speaker 1: cover in the new year? Also, what advice would you
Speaker 1: give to someone who wants to start a true crime podcast.
Speaker 1: I'll start with the second question first. If you want
Speaker 1: to start a true crime podcast, my advice currently would be,
Speaker 1: do not get into it thinking that it's going to
Speaker 1: become a money maker for you. The field is so
Speaker 1: saturated right now that it's going to take a long
Speaker 1: time to create a show and build it up and
Speaker 1: get it pushed, unless you've got some kind of media
Speaker 1: marketing promotion machine behind you, like a lot of new
Speaker 1: pods do. But if you're just trying to do it,
Speaker 1: you know, like I and some others did straight out
Speaker 1: of you know, your extra guest room or whatever. Get
Speaker 1: into it because you love it. Get into it because
Speaker 1: you want to do it. Get into it because you
Speaker 1: have a passion for it, not because you want to
Speaker 1: make money or you want to replace your job. That
Speaker 1: might happen down the road, but it's not going to
Speaker 1: happen day one. Ninety percent of podcasts don't make it
Speaker 1: past like ten episodes. People give up because they have
Speaker 1: this idea in mind that, oh, I'll start a podcast
Speaker 1: and by episode three I'll have advertisers pitching me rates
Speaker 1: and by episode eight I'll be pulling in ten thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a month and I'll be on Discovery TV or where.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really work that way. I've been doing Trace Evidence.
Speaker 1: This year will be nine years that I've been doing it.
Speaker 1: It took me a while to build up, and still
Speaker 1: today it's not like I make so much money doing
Speaker 1: this that I can just forgo everything else. I still
Speaker 1: have bills that I got to cover and debts that
Speaker 1: I have to get out of, and things that take time.
Speaker 1: This is not a million dollar scheme for me. For
Speaker 1: some people it is. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: do it because you're passionate about it. Do it because
Speaker 1: you love it, Do it because you care and have
Speaker 1: the mindset that you would do it even if nobody
Speaker 1: was listening. That I feel like is the most important thing.
Speaker 1: If you would do this podcast even if you knew
Speaker 1: there was you know, five people listening out there and
Speaker 1: you never heard from them, then do it. But if
Speaker 1: you have a specific thing in mind. You want to
Speaker 1: become some kind of an influencer, you want one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand followers on Instagram, you want to be getting throwing
Speaker 1: all these advertising things, don't do it for that reason.
Speaker 1: On top of that, I would say, if you do
Speaker 1: make the decision to do it, don't go out and
Speaker 1: buy a bunch of super expensive equipment to start. I
Speaker 1: started this podcast with a twenty dollars microphone and a laptop.
Speaker 1: Now I have more expensive equipment. But that's something I've
Speaker 1: recrued over time based on need, and not something that
Speaker 1: you just rush out and do. I see so many
Speaker 1: people who are like, hey, cause I belong to some
Speaker 1: Facebook groups and stuff that are for podcasters, and I'll
Speaker 1: see people come in there and say, hey, I'm really
Speaker 1: looking forward to start a podcast. I went out today
Speaker 1: and I bought this four hundred dollars microphone and the
Speaker 1: six hundred dollar interface in this twelve hundred dollars computer.
Speaker 1: Does anybody have any advice for me? And it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: the advice is, don't buy that stuff yet. You don't
Speaker 1: know what it's going to become, so don't waste that
Speaker 1: kind of mondy. Start off with simple things. Obviously, you
Speaker 1: want your audio quality to be good. You don't need
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars microphone and an eight hundred dollars processor
Speaker 1: to do it. Like I said, I had a twenty
Speaker 1: dollars microphone when I started. You just learned to do
Speaker 1: the audio. I'm not that great at it, but my
Speaker 1: audio sounded all right back then. So my advice would be,
Speaker 1: really think about it, be sure you want to do it,
Speaker 1: make sure you have the time to commit to it.
Speaker 1: Make make sure that it's something you're passionate about and
Speaker 1: you're gonna stick with no matter what happens. And don't
Speaker 1: go out and blow a bunch of money acquiring stuff.
Speaker 1: In order to do one last final piece of advice,
Speaker 1: I hear a lot of people all the time looking
Speaker 1: for where should I host my podcast from? Should it
Speaker 1: be on you know, Speaker or Spotify or whatever, anchor
Speaker 1: or riverside or whatever. All the things are there today.
Speaker 1: For me, that's a very specific question. People look at
Speaker 1: that like there's just general answers, but I don't. What
Speaker 1: is your podcast about, what is your audience, and what
Speaker 1: are you planning to do with it? All of those
Speaker 1: things should inform where exactly you're going. I personally host
Speaker 1: on Spreaker. I like hosting on Speaker a lot. You
Speaker 1: can monetize from day one, which I think is a
Speaker 1: really helpful thing. Some places have requirements before you can monetize.
Speaker 1: Some places have requirements before you can share links properly
Speaker 1: or build a little site. There's all these different rules.
Speaker 1: Make sure you look into different places. Don't just take
Speaker 1: someone's advice and go, oh, they said this place is great,
Speaker 1: that's where I'll go. Do your own research. Reach out
Speaker 1: to these hosting sites because a lot of them are
Speaker 1: very responsive and can answer questions for you that maybe
Speaker 1: you couldn't find the answers to online. So do your research,
Speaker 1: be sure of what you want to do, and make
Speaker 1: sure you're of the mindset that you would do it
Speaker 1: no matter what I think. If you follow those three keys,
Speaker 1: you'll be successful, depending upon how you define success. Sorry
Speaker 1: about rambling there a little bit, but obviously, when it
Speaker 1: comes to advice about creating a podcast is just something
Speaker 1: that I have a lot of thoughts on. Back to
Speaker 1: Kitterry's first question, which was what case would you like
Speaker 1: to cover in the new year, that's hard to answer.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of different cases I'd like to cover.
Speaker 1: See I'll talk about this a little more at the
Speaker 1: end of this episode, but something that I've been thinking
Speaker 1: about a lot lately is I need to get back
Speaker 1: into the state of mind of doing episodes that I
Speaker 1: want to do rather than feeling compelled to do them.
Speaker 1: And again i'll explain this a little more later, but
Speaker 1: one case that comes to mind. I have wanted to
Speaker 1: do this case since before I started the podcast, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if a lot of people care about
Speaker 1: it out there. I know some people do. It's an
Speaker 1: older case. It's one where I know when I do it,
Speaker 1: I'll get the emails I always get on older cases,
Speaker 1: which is like this case will never be solved, or
Speaker 1: why are you doing this case that's so old? But
Speaker 1: I would absolutely love to do an episode about the
Speaker 1: escape from Alcatraz. That is just a true crime mystery
Speaker 1: that I find deeply fascinating. And I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people make the argument that, oh, they probably drown
Speaker 1: in the bay, they never actually made it out and
Speaker 1: all that. I don't know, but it's something that I
Speaker 1: would personally love to cover. I've dug into it because
Speaker 1: I'm interested in it. I've watched documentaries, I've looked at files,
Speaker 1: I've gone through a lot of FBI files on it.
Speaker 1: I find it fascinating. Hey, do me a favor. Actually,
Speaker 1: if you're listening to this right now and you would
Speaker 1: like to hear me cover the escape from Alcatraz, send
Speaker 1: me an email or shoot me a message online and
Speaker 1: tell me you'd like to hear that. Because, frankly, I
Speaker 1: get a lot of negative response when I do cases
Speaker 1: that are that old. So if there's a couple of
Speaker 1: you out there who would actually be interested in want
Speaker 1: to hear this case, I would be more than happy
Speaker 1: to do it. So maybe you could help give me
Speaker 1: the shot in the arm to get moving on that.
Speaker 1: Next up, we've got Deirdre who asks, Hey, Stephen, I
Speaker 1: first met you back at the Southern True Crime Podcast
Speaker 1: meet up in Atlanta, which I'm now realizing was much
Speaker 1: longer ago than I thought. Don't get old too late.
Speaker 1: How come I never see you in the meetups like
Speaker 1: that anymore. The Atlanta meetup was the first one I
Speaker 1: ever did, I think because it was after Crime Con
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, I believe, and I had a lot of
Speaker 1: fun doing it, hanging out with listeners talking crime and
Speaker 1: about life in general. I remember getting a little day
Speaker 1: drunk and cooked in the Atlanta sun, which was a
Speaker 1: fun experience to say the least. I've done a few
Speaker 1: other meetups after that, but frankly it all sort of
Speaker 1: fell off with COVID. Since twenty twenty, I haven't been
Speaker 1: asked or invited to attend another one. Also, a lot
Speaker 1: of the people I did those early meet with have
Speaker 1: either moved on from podcasting in general, or we're just
Speaker 1: not in touch anymore. I'd love to do more meetups,
Speaker 1: maybe even live events with other podcasters, and I've discussed
Speaker 1: it with a few different people, so maybe it's something
Speaker 1: we can put together for this year if everyone would
Speaker 1: be interested in that. So if you are interested in
Speaker 1: attending a meetup or you'd attend a live event, reach
Speaker 1: out and let me know and also make sure you
Speaker 1: let me know who else you would like to see there,
Speaker 1: because we could certainly try to put that together. I've
Speaker 1: had these conversations with a couple of other podcasters over
Speaker 1: the course of the last year, so the interest is
Speaker 1: definitely there. I suppose there's just a hesitity on our
Speaker 1: side as to whether or not anybody would actually show up,
Speaker 1: so if you would let me know. Our next question
Speaker 1: comes from Kevin, who wants to know do you still
Speaker 1: listen to a lot of true crime or have you
Speaker 1: moved away from it? I myself haven't been enjoying a
Speaker 1: lot of the newer, shorter form style shows. Frankly, no,
Speaker 1: I don't really listen any new true crime podcasts. Anything
Speaker 1: I listened to is something I've been listening to for
Speaker 1: a while. Trail Went Cold, Criminology, Once Upon a Crime,
Speaker 1: Defense Diaries. These are all shows that I still listen to.
Speaker 1: I don't really dig a lot of the newer ones either.
Speaker 1: That's not to say they're not good. Some of them
Speaker 1: are fantastic. Some of them just aren't my style. I'm
Speaker 1: not a fan of short form. I'm not a fan
Speaker 1: of throwing a bunch of information at me. Really fast,
Speaker 1: but not filling in the gaps in between. Based on
Speaker 1: the way I do the show, you know, I do
Speaker 1: trace evidence the way I like a show to be done.
Speaker 1: A lot of background information, a lot of detail about
Speaker 1: the crime, a little bit of discussion about the theories,
Speaker 1: but not too much. Some podcasts that I listened to
Speaker 1: that were newer that I gave shots to were a
Speaker 1: lot of chatter back and forth, a lot of laughing,
Speaker 1: a lot of goofing off, a lot of holes in
Speaker 1: the information that they're telling you. If you start digging
Speaker 1: into cases that are covered by some of the newer shows,
Speaker 1: you're gonna find that they're not very accurate. That's not
Speaker 1: to say that they're all bad, it's just be careful
Speaker 1: what you're selecting and verify. What I always do when
Speaker 1: it comes to listening to a new true crime podcast
Speaker 1: is I choose a case they've done that I know
Speaker 1: really well, and then after listening to the show, I
Speaker 1: can tell whether or not they do their research right,
Speaker 1: if they've got enough of the right information, or if
Speaker 1: they're making stuff up or filling in gaps. And that's
Speaker 1: been a real problem I've encountered a lot lately. People
Speaker 1: just flat out making up scenarios. Oh, this situation went
Speaker 1: like this, and then this happened, and it went this way,
Speaker 1: and we know that because of this, and then when
Speaker 1: you look into it, nobody was there when it happens,
Speaker 1: so nobody actually knows how it went. Things like that
Speaker 1: drive me nuts when information is presented as fact when
Speaker 1: it's purely speculation. I try really hard on the show
Speaker 1: to always divide that line and tell you, like, this
Speaker 1: is my opinion, these are my thoughts. That's pure speculation.
Speaker 1: A lot of podcasts, I feel like, don't do that
Speaker 1: these days. It's all about clickbait or some kind of
Speaker 1: a big headline, and then once you listen to the show,
Speaker 1: the meat of that headline actually isn't there. So I
Speaker 1: don't know for right now. A lot of true crime
Speaker 1: podcasts have gone in a direction that just isn't for me. Obviously,
Speaker 1: they must have an audience, people are enjoying it, and
Speaker 1: you know what, more power to them. But when I
Speaker 1: listened to a true crime podcast, I wanted to feel
Speaker 1: a little more in depth, and I wanted to have
Speaker 1: a little more integrity than a random TikTok video. Next up,
Speaker 1: Evan asks why do your first ninety nine episodes have
Speaker 1: background music, and then there's none again until episode two hundred. Well,
Speaker 1: to make a long story short, through episodes one through
Speaker 1: ninety nine, I always used background music because this show
Speaker 1: was in part inspired by Unsolved Mysteries, and I feel
Speaker 1: like the music was another character on Unsolved Mysteries. It
Speaker 1: added an atmosphere, whether it was one of the lost
Speaker 1: loves with sort of lighthearted or somber music, or it
Speaker 1: was a murder or a missing persons and it had
Speaker 1: a bit of that eerie, creepy music. Or when they
Speaker 1: would do you know, the UFO cases or the weird ones,
Speaker 1: like the guy who walks and it's always raining on him,
Speaker 1: they would have like creepier music. That music did something
Speaker 1: for me. I think if you watch those episodes and
Speaker 1: you cut the background music out, it hurts the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: It takes away from what you feel. So to me,
Speaker 1: at least, I always wanted that background music in there.
Speaker 1: It adds a little something extra. I tried to choose
Speaker 1: background music that is as uninvasive as possible. It's mostly
Speaker 1: just kind of sounds. You know, it's got like a
Speaker 1: creepy factor to it, but it's not loud. And in
Speaker 1: your face. So, to make a long story short, Episode
Speaker 1: one through ninety nine was the way I wanted to
Speaker 1: do the show. I wanted that background music there, but
Speaker 1: I got so many emails and comments from people saying
Speaker 1: they hated it that I decided, you know what, let
Speaker 1: me pull the background music out. So I did episode
Speaker 1: one hundred, which was Kurt Cobain, without background music, and
Speaker 1: I did that all the way to episode one ninety nine,
Speaker 1: and then when I got to two hundred, I decided
Speaker 1: to put some musical flourishes back in. And then ever
Speaker 1: since then, I've just been including the background music again.
Speaker 1: To me, the background music makes the show better, and
Speaker 1: I know there's a lot of people who don't like it,
Speaker 1: in fairness to them. For some people, it's not that
Speaker 1: they don't like background music. It's they have hearing difficulty
Speaker 1: and the music muddies things up, or it doesn't sound
Speaker 1: right to them, or you know, one thing you have
Speaker 1: to consider with this show which people don't consider, And
Speaker 1: in fairness, I don't know why you would. It wouldn't
Speaker 1: be something that occurs to you. How you were listening
Speaker 1: to the show makes a really big difference in terms
Speaker 1: of how it sounds. I record this podcast specifically designed
Speaker 1: for headphones because most people listen to podcasts with headphones.
Speaker 1: So if you listen through your car stereo, or you've
Speaker 1: got it on your phone but your phone's on speaker,
Speaker 1: or you are using headphones that are you know, from
Speaker 1: the ninety nine cent store, it might not sound that
Speaker 1: good to you. If you have decent headphones or a
Speaker 1: good sound system or a great stereo, then it probably
Speaker 1: says sounds really good. It all depends on those factors.
Speaker 1: I will often get messages from people who are like, hey,
Speaker 1: I couldn't really understand what you were saying, and then
Speaker 1: I asked them what they're listening on, and you know,
Speaker 1: they're listening on a phone from twenty years ago with speakerphone.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, yeah, nothing's going to sound good on there.
Speaker 1: But back to the background music. I put it back in.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that it's back in. I'm not planning to
Speaker 1: take it back out again. I think I'm locked and
Speaker 1: it's going to stay there. I might change it from
Speaker 1: time to time. I get a little bored of the
Speaker 1: same song. And I've also been thought about doing background
Speaker 1: music in different ways. You know, right now, the way
Speaker 1: I do it, the background music starts to fade up
Speaker 1: once we start getting into the case. So when I'm
Speaker 1: doing the victim's background and lead up, there's nothing there.
Speaker 1: Once you start getting into the case, that music fades up,
Speaker 1: and then you hear it all throughout the evidence section,
Speaker 1: and then it cuts off when we go to theories
Speaker 1: and there's no music for theories. I've thought about having
Speaker 1: a different song that i could use for the background section,
Speaker 1: and I've played with the idea of inserting music on
Speaker 1: the theories. I'm not sure if I'll end up doing that.
Speaker 1: I'll probably experiment and see what people say. It's funny.
Speaker 1: As much as people complain about background music, when I
Speaker 1: take it in or put it out, almost nobody notices,
Speaker 1: which is kind of funny to me. So yeah, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, I prefer the background music.
Speaker 1: I think most people do. For those who don't like
Speaker 1: the background music, what I've been doing for the last
Speaker 1: five or so episodes is when I post the AD
Speaker 1: free versions on Patreon, I'm posting two versions. One that
Speaker 1: is just the regular episode AD free and one that
Speaker 1: is the regular episode AD free with no background music
Speaker 1: in it at all. No intro music, no evidence music,
Speaker 1: no closing music, nothing, And I've gotten a lot of
Speaker 1: people that have said that they appreciate that. So if
Speaker 1: you are someone who listens to the show and you
Speaker 1: don't like the background music, but you still want to
Speaker 1: hear these episodes, you can sign up for the Patreon
Speaker 1: and hear the no background music versions of them. I
Speaker 1: try and keep the money really low there. If you
Speaker 1: sign up for Patreon for three ninety nine a month
Speaker 1: or more, you will get access to the ad free,
Speaker 1: end music free episodes. So at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I like the background music. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: other people like the background music, And if you don't,
Speaker 1: I now have an option where you can hear new
Speaker 1: cases without having to deal with it. Debis will you
Speaker 1: be attending crime Con this year? Also? What's it like
Speaker 1: from a podcaster's perspective? Yeah, I will be attending crime
Speaker 1: Con this year. I'm actually signing the contract a little
Speaker 1: later this afternoon, So if you haven't bought your ticket
Speaker 1: to crime Con yet, use promo code trace to save
Speaker 1: ten percent. However, what is it like from a podcaster's perspective? NonStop?
Speaker 1: It is a weekend of NonStop chaos. For me, I arrive,
Speaker 1: check in, put my stuff in my hotel room, go
Speaker 1: down to Podcast Row, set up the table, and spend
Speaker 1: the next couple of hours at the table meeting people
Speaker 1: and giving away stickers and pins and whatever. The next day, Saturday,
Speaker 1: is the first full day of it. You're pretty much
Speaker 1: at your table meeting people and giving stuff away from
Speaker 1: eight or nine in the morning until like six or
Speaker 1: seven at night, with a short break in the middle.
Speaker 1: So it's a lot Sundays pretty much the same. You
Speaker 1: get up, you're there early in the morning, and you're
Speaker 1: there until they start closing Podcast Row down. So for me,
Speaker 1: at least, I can't get a lot done besides meeting people.
Speaker 1: I can't go really to any of the different speakers
Speaker 1: that they have. I can't go and see any of
Speaker 1: the presentations. I'm working. You know, I'm not exactly there
Speaker 1: for the fun side of it, So I'm very tied
Speaker 1: up doing a lot of different things at the same
Speaker 1: time for a lot of people. That sounds bad. I
Speaker 1: love it. I love being so involved. I love meeting everybody.
Speaker 1: I love being at that table. You know, you get
Speaker 1: to go around a little bit talk to other podcasters.
Speaker 1: We usually do meetups there Friday night Saturday night. Last year, Well,
Speaker 1: I couldn't go to crime Con last year unfortunately, but
Speaker 1: the year before, you know, you go and you do
Speaker 1: meetups with other podcasters, You meet different people in the bar,
Speaker 1: you go to a bar in town oftentimes and see
Speaker 1: a little bit of the city. So I love crime Con,
Speaker 1: but it is very chaotic from a podcaster's perspective. That
Speaker 1: being said, I live for chaos, so when it's all
Speaker 1: over the place like that, I absolutely love it. Next up,
Speaker 1: we've got a question from Jay Dog, who wants to
Speaker 1: know have you ever been contacted by law enforcement about
Speaker 1: a case you covered? Has it happened recently recently? No,
Speaker 1: it's been several months since I last spoke to police
Speaker 1: about a case that I covered. But yeah, it does happen.
Speaker 1: I've had email exchanges with detectives. I've had phone calls
Speaker 1: with detectives, prosecutors, chiefs of police, sheriff's departments, all that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. And I've had regular communicat like handwritten
Speaker 1: letters and that kind of stuff. So yeah, it does happen.
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, when I am contacted by law enforcement, they
Speaker 1: usually want to know how I got a certain piece
Speaker 1: of information. I guess maybe there's not the greatest method
Speaker 1: for police of keeping track of what exactly has and
Speaker 1: hasn't been said in interviews or said to reporters in
Speaker 1: the past, because in a lot of cases where I've
Speaker 1: spoken to them, they have asked me, how did you
Speaker 1: know them? You know the caliber or the bullet, how
Speaker 1: did you know about this blood spot in this place?
Speaker 1: Or it's because I did a bunch of research. I
Speaker 1: know in one instance, they asked me a ton of
Speaker 1: questions and actually went so far as to ask me
Speaker 1: to send them an email with the answer to each
Speaker 1: of those questions and then a linked citation to where
Speaker 1: I got that answer from. So I guess maybe sometimes
Speaker 1: people talk about stuff they shouldn't be talking about, and
Speaker 1: then other people don't know that it's been talked about,
Speaker 1: and then you bring it up and they wonder how
Speaker 1: you found out about it. It's all kind of a
Speaker 1: weird situation. You would think maybe there'd be some better
Speaker 1: way to organize what can and cannot be said during
Speaker 1: an investigation. So, yeah, I do get contacted by law
Speaker 1: enforcement agencies. Actually recently, this isn't a law enforcement agency,
Speaker 1: I suppose, but I've been in communication with a lawyer
Speaker 1: about a case I covered in the first year of
Speaker 1: Trace Evidence, and I've been in touch with this lawyer
Speaker 1: on and off over these past nine years about this case,
Speaker 1: which still remains unsolved, and they just recently sent me
Speaker 1: some files that I need to examine about what might
Speaker 1: have actually happened in that case. So once I go
Speaker 1: through those files, it's possible I could be releasing an update.
Speaker 1: But to answer your broader question, yes, I do speak
Speaker 1: to law enforcement about cases that I've covered. I also
Speaker 1: offer them the option if they want for me to
Speaker 1: put information into the episode that maybe isn't true or
Speaker 1: accurate if they are looking to get a certain reaction
Speaker 1: from a certain person. So sometimes in an episode I
Speaker 1: may say something that's a little out of the blue
Speaker 1: or never been mentioned before, and it may be because
Speaker 1: I was specifically requested to do so, just something to
Speaker 1: keep in mind. We got a short question from Jen here,
Speaker 1: who wants to know are you friends with any other
Speaker 1: true crime podcasters? Yeah, I've got a couple of friends
Speaker 1: who do other podcasts. I would consider more from Criminology,
Speaker 1: a friend Bob and Ali from Defense Diaries, Friends Robin
Speaker 1: from trailwend Cold is certainly somebody I would consider friendly
Speaker 1: on friendly terms with me esther from Once upon a Crime,
Speaker 1: But in general, I wouldn't say that I have friends
Speaker 1: in true crime in the way that you might imagine.
Speaker 1: I don't really hang out or do a lot with them.
Speaker 1: It's not like a tight relationship. We don't call each
Speaker 1: other up for advice. We just kind of support each other.
Speaker 1: If I've got an episode coming out and one of
Speaker 1: them can lend a hand in some way, or vice versa,
Speaker 1: that's what we do. And we do promo swaps and
Speaker 1: we keep up to date with each other about different
Speaker 1: cases that we've covered. If I come across something one
Speaker 1: of them covered that they're unaware of, I'll share it
Speaker 1: and vice versa. So yeah, I have people I am
Speaker 1: friendly with in the true crime podcasting world, and I
Speaker 1: have a few people that I would consider close to me,
Speaker 1: But for the most part, it's all very surface level.
Speaker 1: In fairness, I am not the largest extrovert in the world,
Speaker 1: and it can be somewhat difficult to get into me
Speaker 1: in a way. I mean, my own family and friends
Speaker 1: have difficulty keeping in touch with me sometimes because when
Speaker 1: I get focused on something I just kind of drop
Speaker 1: out and do that one thing that I'm focused on.
Speaker 1: So I'm certainly open to having more friends in this world,
Speaker 1: and I would love to be able to do stuff
Speaker 1: like live streams with other people or work together on
Speaker 1: a case or something. But as of yet, that hasn't
Speaker 1: really developed, so I guess we'll see down the road.
Speaker 1: Damon wants to know You've been at this for almost
Speaker 1: a decade now, how have things changed over that time, Like,
Speaker 1: is research easier, other more sources now or is it
Speaker 1: pretty much the same overall? It's mostly the same. I
Speaker 1: use a lot of newspaper archives and stuff like that
Speaker 1: for researching cases, so as more time goes on, more
Speaker 1: newspapers are added and more archives are created, so in
Speaker 1: a way, some information is more readily available. I always
Speaker 1: double check cases. There'll be a case that I go
Speaker 1: to cover and it's like I can only find like
Speaker 1: ten primary sources for this. Five years later you check
Speaker 1: it now there's ninety five primary sources. So things like
Speaker 1: that have changed. Overall. Doing this podcast isn't all that
Speaker 1: different today than it was when I started. I know
Speaker 1: a little bit more about what I'm doing, so that
Speaker 1: makes a difference, but the genres kind of remain the same.
Speaker 1: I feel like there are certain changes that have been made.
Speaker 1: There's a lot more what they call now like law tubers,
Speaker 1: where it's a lot of lawyers looking at specific like
Speaker 1: trials and different cases and talking about that from a
Speaker 1: legal side, which didn't really exist back when I started.
Speaker 1: There's also, you know, with the rise of TikTok and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, just a lot of people out there
Speaker 1: doing a lot of short form stuff. So rather than oh,
Speaker 1: listen to this forty five minute episode about this case,
Speaker 1: you can watch this TikTok video where somebody throws you know,
Speaker 1: sixty different facts about it at you in like four minutes.
Speaker 1: So I guess that's changed a little bit. The one
Speaker 1: major change I would say I've noticed in nearly ten
Speaker 1: years is the saturation has grown a lot. When I
Speaker 1: first got into it, yeah there were podcasts for true
Speaker 1: crime and they were growing, but now it's like they're
Speaker 1: all over the place. But what I find frustrating about
Speaker 1: that is a lot of them come in it's a
Speaker 1: brand new podcast, and you're like, all right, cool, let's
Speaker 1: see what they might be doing, and then they announced,
Speaker 1: you know, our first episode is Ted Bundy or our
Speaker 1: first AA it's some case that you've heard a million times, Like,
Speaker 1: if you want to break in and get my attention
Speaker 1: as a new podcast, maybe do a case that I
Speaker 1: haven't heard before, or one that not everyone in the
Speaker 1: world has already done life five times. So that can
Speaker 1: be a little challenging as well, though, because with all
Speaker 1: these podcasts out there, some cases I look at and go, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do this case, and then I look
Speaker 1: in you know, twelve podcasts in the last year have
Speaker 1: done it, and maybe I've not heard of any of
Speaker 1: those twelve. But still that gives me pause, like should
Speaker 1: I bother doing it? Or have people heard enough about it?
Speaker 1: Or should I wait? So it's always some kind of
Speaker 1: a debate like that. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I think for the most part, improvement over the last
Speaker 1: nine years has been good. More articles, more sources, more avenues,
Speaker 1: more ways of doing things. At the same time, different
Speaker 1: approaches to things, and the open availability to do this
Speaker 1: a little more without it costing as much money has
Speaker 1: caused a lot more people to come into it, and
Speaker 1: that's got its good and it's bad. So at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, I would say, there's more sources
Speaker 1: and there's more information, and there's more avenues to go down,
Speaker 1: but there might be a little bit less in terms
Speaker 1: of the credibility, reliability, and dependability of the people behind
Speaker 1: those shows. Next up a question from Sammy, who asks
Speaker 1: have you watched Netflix's version of Unsolved Mysteries? If so,
Speaker 1: what do you think. Yeah, I've checked it out. I'm
Speaker 1: not big fan of it. To be quite honest with you,
Speaker 1: I don't like the change in format from four or
Speaker 1: five cases per episode to just one, because in some
Speaker 1: episodes it's very clear they really had to stretch to
Speaker 1: make this go forty five minutes to an hour, so
Speaker 1: that feels kind of like a waste of time to me.
Speaker 1: I think the idea of not having a narrator is
Speaker 1: incredibly stupid. I understand it. I think they were afraid
Speaker 1: whoever we pick is just going to get compared to
Speaker 1: Robert Stack and people are gonna feel like, oh, he's
Speaker 1: no Robert Stack or she's no Robert Stack. But that's
Speaker 1: kind of the point, is to change up the style
Speaker 1: of it a little bit. Personally, I would have brought
Speaker 1: in somebody to be a narrator. I would have gone
Speaker 1: with someone who's got a great voice, has a lot
Speaker 1: of gravitas, someone who could control the episode, so to speak,
Speaker 1: and guide us. And I feel like without that, a
Speaker 1: lot of times I turn on an episode and it's
Speaker 1: just like, I don't know, I feel like I'm just
Speaker 1: blowing around in the wind here, like let's go to
Speaker 1: this thing, then let's go to this thing. I can't
Speaker 1: there's no narrative focus to it, so it feels a
Speaker 1: little disjointed and uncomfortable to me. On top of that,
Speaker 1: why the hell did you call it Unsolved Mysteries if
Speaker 1: you were going to do a completely different show. It
Speaker 1: just feels to me like people like the name, and
Speaker 1: if we use that name, they're gonna check it out.
Speaker 1: But let's not have a narrator and let's only play
Speaker 1: our theme song for like eight seconds. I don't understand
Speaker 1: the choices that were made there. It seems like they
Speaker 1: wanted to honor Unsolved Mysteries, but also didn't want to
Speaker 1: directly address the fact that they're not really what Unsolved
Speaker 1: Mysteries was. So some of the cases they've covered, I
Speaker 1: think they've done in a really interesting way. I've done
Speaker 1: at least one case that they later covered after I
Speaker 1: did it, and I thought it was you know, it
Speaker 1: was all right. But if I sitting in my extra
Speaker 1: guest room in my house, can record an episode and
Speaker 1: do the research on something, and you in your studio
Speaker 1: with a lot of money and a lot of writers
Speaker 1: and researchers can't scratch the surface of how much information
Speaker 1: I pulled. I don't know what the hell you're doing.
Speaker 1: So for me, at least, you're much more likely to
Speaker 1: find me on YouTube watching old episodes of Unsolved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: which I love that they've added new updates in there
Speaker 1: so you get a little bit more information. I will
Speaker 1: watch the new Unsolved Mysteries if I've got nothing else
Speaker 1: going on, and I'm kind of bored, I guess, but again,
Speaker 1: not a huge fan of it. And I feel like
Speaker 1: it's a waste of resources. You've got millions of people watching,
Speaker 1: you're on Netflix. You could be hitting on four or
Speaker 1: five different cases per episode, or at least focusing on
Speaker 1: ones that have a chance of being solved or need
Speaker 1: a lot of help right now, and instead you're looking
Speaker 1: at like the Mothman, and I'm just sitting here, like,
Speaker 1: first of all, you did the Mothman and the original
Speaker 1: run of Unsolved Mysteries. And second of all, isn't there
Speaker 1: a missing child somewhere who it might be a little
Speaker 1: better to focus on them. But that's just my opinion.
Speaker 1: A lot of people like it, and you know what,
Speaker 1: if it's your thing, good for you. Our final question
Speaker 1: today comes from Margo, who asked, I love that you
Speaker 1: dedicated your last episode to Adam the Wu. I've noticed
Speaker 1: you dedicated episodes to people from time to time. How
Speaker 1: do you decide when you're going to do that? Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. For the most part, I just know I'm
Speaker 1: gonna do it or not. I don't really decide it.
Speaker 1: Someone passes and I either feel a tremendous impact from
Speaker 1: that or I don't, or I feel a tremendous impact
Speaker 1: from it, but I don't want to address it. So
Speaker 1: it really all depends on who it is. For the
Speaker 1: most part, when I do a this episode is dedicated to,
Speaker 1: it's usually either a celebrity that I liked a lot
Speaker 1: growing up, or that I knew a lot about outside
Speaker 1: of their acting or music or whatever, or it's someone
Speaker 1: that I personally knew. When it came to Adam the Wu,
Speaker 1: I've been watching Adams since God, I don't know, it's
Speaker 1: been a while. I've been watching him since he was
Speaker 1: doing the daily episode's probably somewhere around the five or
Speaker 1: six hundred mark. And he was just somebody who made
Speaker 1: my life seem brighter whatever was going on, whether I
Speaker 1: was sad or dealing with stressful situations, I could come
Speaker 1: home and turn him on, and he was just such
Speaker 1: a ball of energy and joy and light that he
Speaker 1: made everything feel all right. It was like you were
Speaker 1: hanging out with a friend, even if you never met him.
Speaker 1: So I absolutely wanted to do something in dedication to him,
Speaker 1: because while I didn't know Adam, I was deeply devastated
Speaker 1: by his passing and I still think about it. I've
Speaker 1: been watching his videos on almost a NonStop loop since
Speaker 1: he passed away. So that was when I wanted to
Speaker 1: address other people I've addressed. Usually it's someone who dies young,
Speaker 1: or someone who dies under tragic circumstances, or just somebody
Speaker 1: who impacted me directly a lot. So I would say,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I don't really make
Speaker 1: a choice. When I learned someone has passed, I either
Speaker 1: decide okay, like the episode's getting dedicated to them, or
Speaker 1: that thought doesn't occur to me. A lot of what
Speaker 1: I do in terms of this show comes down to
Speaker 1: my own gut instinct or reaction to something, so it
Speaker 1: seems to make sense to do that with the dedications
Speaker 1: as well. I also don't want to do too many
Speaker 1: of them, and some people consider it weird to dedicate
Speaker 1: you know, I'm about to do an episode about an
Speaker 1: unsolved murder. I'm going to dedicate it to this person
Speaker 1: that just passed away. Some people think that's a little strange,
Speaker 1: and they could be right. I don't know, but this
Speaker 1: is the best way I have to pay tribute to
Speaker 1: anybody at any different time. So that's really the selection process.
Speaker 1: There's not a whole lot to it. I think there
Speaker 1: were some really good questions in there, and in general,
Speaker 1: I just love answering questions from you awesome folks. There's
Speaker 1: always a few questions that I've never been hit with before,
Speaker 1: and I like the way you get me thinking about
Speaker 1: things differently than I normally would. So I want to
Speaker 1: give a huge thank you to everyone who sent in questions.
Speaker 1: I didn't answer all of them because if I did,
Speaker 1: this episode would be five hours long. But maybe I
Speaker 1: can do another Q and a down the road if
Speaker 1: that's something you'd be interested in. Before closing up the
Speaker 1: show today, there was one question I got asked a lot,
Speaker 1: and rather than put it into the main part of
Speaker 1: the show, I thought I'd answer it here at the end.
Speaker 1: As we're discussing the future, A ton of people asked
Speaker 1: if Trace Evidence would be getting back to weekly releases.
Speaker 1: I know the schedule has been all over the place
Speaker 1: the last few years. It's been a rough time for me.
Speaker 1: From the loss of family members, to health issues, to
Speaker 1: friends and families health issues, crazy weather and problems with
Speaker 1: the house and problems with the car. I've just been
Speaker 1: pulled in a million different directions. Factor and depression, anxiety
Speaker 1: and cyclothymic tendencies, and you've got a real recipe for
Speaker 1: disaster when it comes to maintaining a schedule of any kind.
Speaker 1: Add in my own add on top of that, and
Speaker 1: it's just a nightmare. At the same time, t'm it
Speaker 1: all comes down to me in doing what needs to
Speaker 1: be done, and frankly, I haven't been reaching that goal.
Speaker 1: I haven't pushed as hard as I should, I haven't
Speaker 1: been as driven and focused. I've allowed things to slide
Speaker 1: and I'm not happy with myself about it. However, it's
Speaker 1: not too late to turn it around, and that's what
Speaker 1: I'm focused on in twenty twenty six. So to answer
Speaker 1: that question, yes, I am absolutely planning to get trace
Speaker 1: Evidence back to weekly releases. I'm going to give myself
Speaker 1: a little grace with it at first, with the goal
Speaker 1: being over the course of the next few months to
Speaker 1: get three episodes out per month. That'll allow me time
Speaker 1: to begin building a backlog, and once I've got a
Speaker 1: few in the tank, I can increase to four episodes
Speaker 1: a month and be right back to where I used
Speaker 1: to be. Look, I love doing this podcast. I love
Speaker 1: interacting with all of you, digging into these cases, and
Speaker 1: delivering the story to the best of my ability with
Speaker 1: as much tact and in as possible. One major barrier
Speaker 1: I've dealt with has been entirely in my own head.
Speaker 1: I found myself reading too much into comments and emails,
Speaker 1: thinking I needed to make changes or adjustments to grow
Speaker 1: the show or keep new listeners. I started doing the
Speaker 1: show in a way that I didn't enjoy, and it
Speaker 1: became a task rather than a passion, and it took
Speaker 1: me a long time to realize that now I see
Speaker 1: it clearly, and in order to get back to weekly releases,
Speaker 1: I'm going to have to go back to the way
Speaker 1: things were. I have to choose cases I want to do,
Speaker 1: ones that I'm interested in and passionate about, not just
Speaker 1: selecting a case because it might be popular or if
Speaker 1: it's a theme or something recent is happening with it.
Speaker 1: This is not an excuse, don't get me wrong. This
Speaker 1: is all on me. But I found myself in a
Speaker 1: place where I was second guessing every choice and just
Speaker 1: staring at my list of cases, trying to figure out
Speaker 1: which one might hit or which one might get the
Speaker 1: best response. It's time to throw all of that out
Speaker 1: the window and get back to basics, doing the show
Speaker 1: the way I want and covering cases that get me invested.
Speaker 1: I also admit, in terms of my research, I found
Speaker 1: myself just spiraling down this hole where I couldn't do
Speaker 1: enough of it. Every time I started looking at a case.
Speaker 1: Rather than putting the story together to the best of
Speaker 1: my ability, I just kept asking questions and searching and
Speaker 1: searching and searching to try and find answers that I
Speaker 1: don't think actually exists out there. My obsession became worse,
Speaker 1: and I would find myself spending entire weeks at a
Speaker 1: time researching one case hours a day trying to find
Speaker 1: the answer to one specific question. And I can't do
Speaker 1: that anymore either. So what we're gonna do is get
Speaker 1: back to basics. Twenty twenty six will be a year
Speaker 1: of revitalization of getting trace evidence back on track. I'm
Speaker 1: already off to a pretty good start. Two fifty four
Speaker 1: is nearly done being edited, two fifty five is completely researched,
Speaker 1: and two fifty six has been selected, as has two
Speaker 1: fifty seven. I plan to drop two fifty four at
Speaker 1: the end of this week, and then two fifty five
Speaker 1: the end of next week. I know it's been frustrating.
Speaker 1: Hell it's been frustrating for me too, and I apologize
Speaker 1: for my failure to keep you properly informed and updated.
Speaker 1: You deserve better than that, and so I'm gonna make
Speaker 1: sure you get it. So again, thank you all so
Speaker 1: very much for your kindness and support. I deeply appreciate
Speaker 1: your emails, messages, and comments of encouragement, and to those
Speaker 1: of you who have reached out and offered a kind
Speaker 1: ear or a helping hand, it truly means the world
Speaker 1: to me. I couldn't do this show without all of
Speaker 1: you amazing folks, and I'm not ready to throw the
Speaker 1: towel in just yet. I've got big plans for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. Besides getting back to weekly episodes, I'm aiming
Speaker 1: to start doing live streams on a weekly basis across
Speaker 1: multiple platforms, because honestly, that seems to be the way
Speaker 1: things are going in I like the live interactivity of it.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I'll hang out in chat. Other times I'll be
Speaker 1: doing research and answering questions or discussing a case I've
Speaker 1: previously covered, or maybe what I want to cover. What
Speaker 1: would you like to see me discuss or do on
Speaker 1: a stream? Email me or comment let me know. Beyond that,
Speaker 1: I'd like to engage with all of you a little more,
Speaker 1: maybe run some polls for new episodes, or find a
Speaker 1: way to get some listeners into episodes, whether it's reading
Speaker 1: the intro or using different voices for quotes. I'm open
Speaker 1: to ideas. In addition, I've been trying to develop our
Speaker 1: merch to be a little more interesting and cool. So
Speaker 1: if you're an artist or you've got some graphic design skills,
Speaker 1: reach out and let me know if you want to
Speaker 1: do something. This show was made by the listeners, it
Speaker 1: only makes sense for you to take a stronger role
Speaker 1: in its progress. So again, I want to thank all
Speaker 1: of you so much for your questions, for your support,
Speaker 1: and for listening to the show for all these years.
Speaker 1: Whether it's sharing episodes, posting links, mentioning the show on
Speaker 1: social media, or just sending emails, you have no idea
Speaker 1: how much impact you have on me and the show.
Speaker 1: So I'll take the reins and get Trace Evidence back
Speaker 1: on top of the mountain, and I hope you'll come
Speaker 1: along and help out if you're so inclined. You can
Speaker 1: find all of my social media and contact information at
Speaker 1: follow tepod dot com or by visiting our website at
Speaker 1: Tracedashevidence dot com. The links, as always will be in
Speaker 1: the show notes. Thank you all again for listening to
Speaker 1: this Q and A, for being involved in it, for
Speaker 1: supporting me, and for supporting Trace Evidence. And I hope
Speaker 1: you'll join me later this week for another unsolved case
Speaker 1: on the next episode of Trace Evidence. Have you ever
Speaker 1: listened to an episode of Trace Evidence and you get
Speaker 1: to the end and there's this long gap of silence
Speaker 1: and then you hear me say something weird. There is
Speaker 1: a reason for that. The hosting service that I use
Speaker 1: has these suggestions about how many ads should be in
Speaker 1: a particular episode. So what I like to do is
Speaker 1: I put in ads, but I don't want them to
Speaker 1: be annoying and obtrusive like YouTube does, where there's an
Speaker 1: ad like every four minutes. I try and space them
Speaker 1: out fifteen to twenty minutes apiece. I think that's a
Speaker 1: fair amount. You can also always go to our Patreon
Speaker 1: and get the episodisodes ad free. But the reason there
Speaker 1: are sometimes random comments or quotes or little clicking sounds
Speaker 1: at the end of an episode six minutes after the
Speaker 1: silence is so that I can stick a bunch of
Speaker 1: ads in between the end of the episode and that
Speaker 1: little statement. That way, I can get the ads in
Speaker 1: that my hosting service requires. But if you don't want
Speaker 1: to listen to them, you don't have to. They're at
Speaker 1: the end of the show and they're not going to
Speaker 1: interfere in the telling of the story. So that's why
Speaker 1: I do it. If you were ever curious, and yeah,
Speaker 1: if you got this far and you weren't listening on Patreon,
Speaker 1: You probably just heard a bunch of ads, didn't you.