0:00

Hello Legends, got a little job for you. I

0:02

know nothing in this world is free. I created

0:04

a little short survey along with my friends at

0:06

Acast for us to better understand you guys, what

0:08

you like, what you don't like and how you

0:11

listen to the show. It'll take you less than

0:13

12 minutes to complete and everyone who does it

0:15

will go into the draw to win some OMR

0:17

merch. So, worthwhile I'd say. The link to it

0:19

is in the show notes of the most recent

0:22

two episodes so if you're all the way back

0:24

like episode one you can have to scroll through.

0:26

Alternatively, jump on Facebook and search one minute remaining

0:28

stories from the inmates, join the page and I'll

0:30

put a link on there. Thanks Legends. Quality

0:44

Helps you sleep at a comfortable temperature?

0:47

Sleep Number SmartBeds lets you

0:49

individualize your comfort, so you

0:51

sleep better together. J.D. Power

0:53

Rinks Sleep Number Number 1

0:55

in customer satisfaction with mattresses

0:57

purchased in-store. Shop

0:59

the Sleep Number SmartBed starting at $999 for a limited

1:01

time. at $999 for a limited

1:03

time. Prices higher in Alaska Prices higher in Alaska

1:06

and Hawaii. For J.D. Power

1:08

2023 award information, visit jdpower.com

1:10

slash awards. Only at a Sleep

1:12

Number store or sleepnumber.com. Wow!

1:15

Wow! Nice! Yeah!

1:18

What you're hearing are the sounds of

1:20

people everywhere putting on Bombas socks, underwear,

1:23

and t-shirts made from absurdly soft materials

1:25

that feel like plush clouds. Yeah,

1:28

that plush. And the best

1:30

part? For every item you purchase, Bombas

1:32

donates another to someone facing homelessness. Bombas.

1:35

Big comfort for everyone. Go to

1:37

bombas.com/ACAST and use code ACAST for

1:39

20% off your first

1:42

purchase. That's bombas.com/ACAST. Code

1:44

ACAST. We all belong outside. We're drawn

1:46

to nature. Whether it's the recorded sounds

1:48

of the ocean we doze off to

1:50

or the succulents that adorn our homes,

1:53

nature makes all of our lives, well,

1:55

better. Despite all this, we often

1:57

go about our busy lives for move forward.

2:00

from it. But the outdoors is

2:02

closer than we realize. With AllTrails,

2:04

you can discover trails nearby and

2:06

explore confidently. With offline maps and

2:08

on-trail navigation, download the free app

2:10

today and make the most of

2:13

your summer with AllTrails. If

2:17

his DNA had been anywhere in that

2:20

room or in that house, the prosecutors

2:22

would be yelling from the rooftops that

2:24

he's guilty, see, see? And when his

2:26

DNA is not present at all, you're like, ah,

2:28

don't worry about it. That's not relevant. Come on.

2:31

It's absolutely absurd. Hello

2:45

and welcome back to One Minute Remaining. My name is

2:47

Jack Lawrence, the host and creator of this show. We

2:50

recently wrapped up the story of

2:52

Marcellus Williams, a man

2:54

sentenced to death for a murder

2:56

that DNA proves he didn't commit.

2:59

Yet his date, as this episode goes

3:01

out, is still set for September.

3:05

As always, with all of our cases, once

3:07

we wrap them up, I sit down with

3:09

a man they call the voice of reason,

3:11

Michael Leonard from LenoTrial Lawyers in Chicago, Illinois,

3:14

to discuss the case and get his opinion

3:16

as a man who spent decades as a

3:18

defense attorney working in the United States.

3:25

Here he is. Hey, Jack. How are

3:27

you, mate? How you doing, buddy? I'm good, thank

3:30

you. How was your ride? It was fantastic. I'm

3:32

kind of surprised. I'm kind of surprised to see

3:34

you. You're kind of surprised to

3:36

see me. Why?

3:38

What's happened? Well, I've been hearing you're going to be

3:40

trying to be avoiding me because of our bet. Mate.

3:42

It's not going so well. What are you talking about?

3:44

I was about to break the sad news to you

3:46

that it's not even been 30 days and we've already

3:48

got, uh, over 10

3:50

people and a horse. You

3:54

got a horse listening to you? Well, apparently, make

3:57

a joke about that. Yeah, he was listening to my

3:59

show on. people asked him why the long face. Are

4:02

you really at the 10 to get

4:04

you the victory? Yeah, one of my

4:06

faithful listeners, Alyssa Cook, actually did a

4:08

post in our Facebook group, calling on

4:10

everyone to come forward from Moree. And

4:12

I'll be honest, I was shocked and

4:14

surprised that that happened. Well, my friend,

4:17

I will gladly concede. However, part

4:19

two of the bet was I get to subject these

4:21

people to cross-examine. You see if they really watch it.

4:25

So we just bring one on, we pick one of

4:27

them randomly and we cross-examine them. See

4:29

if they're really listening. See if they're legitimate listeners.

4:31

Well, it shows the reach of Jack. So congratulations.

4:34

No, thank you. I just got to get into

4:36

America now. Let's not do the same thing with

4:38

American towns, can we? Because I will definitely lose

4:40

that one, that's for sure. I think you're

4:42

strong here too, my friend. So don't worry about that. Yeah, well,

4:44

we're getting there. Let's talk about

4:47

the latest case. Of course, this is,

4:50

you know, I think probably the most serious one that

4:52

we've covered, seeing is that the gentleman that I've spoken

4:54

to has been officially given

4:57

his date of execution in

4:59

September. Shop

5:26

the Sleep Number SmartBed starting at $999 for a limited

5:28

time. Prices

5:31

higher in Alaska and Hawaii.

5:33

For J.D. Power 2023 award

5:36

information, visit jdpower.com slash awards.

5:38

Only at a Sleep Number store

5:40

or sleepnumber.com. Hey

5:42

Dave. Yeah Randy? Since we

5:44

founded Bombas, we've always said our

5:46

socks, underwear and t-shirts are super

5:49

soft. Any new ideas? Maybe sublimely

5:51

soft. Or disgustingly cozy. Wait, what?

5:53

I got it. Bombas, absurdly comfortable

5:56

essentials for yourself. And for those

5:58

facing homelessness. One purchase

6:00

equals one donated. Wow, did we just

6:02

write an ad? Yes. Bombas,

6:04

big comfort for everyone. Go to

6:07

bombas.com/acast and use code acast for

6:09

20% off your first purchase.

6:11

What do you do with your old tech? Throw

6:14

it in the trash? Drop it in the junk drawer?

6:17

Why not turn it into cash? With

6:19

Trade In from Back Market, you can

6:21

get paid for your old smartphone, laptop,

6:23

or tablet. Just visit backmarket.com or download

6:25

our app. You'll get an offer in

6:27

as little as two minutes. Ship your

6:29

old device to us for free and

6:31

get your cash within five days. So

6:34

next time you need to upgrade your tech

6:36

or clean out those drawers, make some money

6:38

with Trade In from backmarket.com. And while you're

6:40

there, save up to 70% versus new on

6:44

your next verified refurbished device. St.

6:53

Louis County prosecuting attorney Wesley Bell has filed

6:55

a motion to overturn the conviction of Marcellus

6:57

Williams. Williams has been on death row for

6:59

more than 20 years for the

7:01

murder of Felicia Gale. She was found dead in

7:03

her University City home in 1998. It's

7:06

important for us to get it right. There

7:08

is evidence that the jury at

7:10

the time would not have been

7:12

able to see because we're talking

7:14

about DNA evidence. I

7:17

think it's called contact DNA, which was not

7:20

on the murder weapon, on the knife. On the murder

7:22

weapon. Today, a man convicted of killing a former post-dispatch

7:24

reporter back in 1998 is sentenced to die. But

7:27

the attorneys fighting for his life say he's innocent

7:29

and they have proof. Now,

7:35

death penalty is obviously a controversial one.

7:37

There are obviously people who are for

7:39

the death penalty and believe that certain

7:42

members of society who commit

7:44

certain crimes deserve that ultimate penalty of sort

7:46

of the eye for an eye type situation.

7:48

And obviously, there's many that don't. America is

7:50

still one of the last countries in the

7:53

so-called Western world to still have the death

7:55

penalty in many states. Is the

7:57

death penalty in Chicago? Do you guys have the death

7:59

penalty? there? So yeah, for our state, the

8:01

state of Illinois, we do not. I used

8:03

to have the penalty. And then about

8:06

15 to 20

8:08

years ago, the governor of our state,

8:10

Governor Ryan, who was actually indicted and

8:13

convicted in a federal criminal case, did

8:16

took steps to eliminate the death penalty. And so it's

8:18

been abolished here in Illinois for about a good 15,

8:21

20 years. Sure. There's obviously dangers to

8:23

the death penalty when it comes to, you

8:25

know, giving people the death penalty in instances

8:27

like Marcellus Williams, for me, again, it's just

8:30

looking at the so-called there is no evidence.

8:32

And now there's DNA evidence showing that his

8:34

DNA is not on that murder weapon. It's

8:36

just and no court's willing to look at

8:38

it. I just don't get it. Anyway, your

8:40

thoughts on the case? Yeah, well, I guess

8:42

there is a little hope because there's a

8:44

hearing on July 2nd to determine whether the

8:47

court will allow and consider this new DNA evidence.

8:49

So I don't think we should be given up

8:51

yet, which is a great

8:53

possibility. I think that

8:55

far too often, our procedures get in

8:57

the way of common sense, especially with

9:00

death type cases. You know, really,

9:02

overall, if you as you have discussed on

9:04

several of your shows, the paramount

9:06

consideration should be actual innocence and

9:08

getting to the truth. And

9:11

we set all these hurdles up

9:13

for a defendant to

9:15

have a claim of actual innocence considered, especially

9:17

a case like Mr. Williams, where

9:19

it's just crying out for a

9:21

hearing on the new DNA evidence,

9:23

right? And so far too often, we

9:25

let procedures get in the way of the common sense. And

9:28

this is just an extreme and

9:30

horrible example. But I mean, even

9:32

before we get to the DNA evidence, because of course, that's only

9:34

come in, you know, as I think he said, around 2016,

9:37

around then was when the DNA evidence first sort of came

9:39

forward on the on the murder weapon, if we go back

9:41

to the original crime scene itself,

9:43

and the original case against him, you know,

9:46

we've got these bloody footprints, we've got hair

9:48

that was found on the victim's body and

9:50

near the victim, we've got

9:52

fingerprints, you know, DNA

9:55

from underneath her fingernails, skin

9:57

and, and matter that was found under her finger.

14:00

cases. So I assume that was the case

14:02

in Missouri at that time. Let's

14:04

talk about jury selection for a second because I asked obviously

14:06

Marcellus, I said, you know, was this a jury of your

14:08

peers? And he sort of laughed and said, absolutely not. And

14:11

looking into the case, during the

14:13

whole jury selection, you know, it said

14:15

that the prosecution recused six members of

14:17

the jury, and they all were African

14:19

American. Would they have been just able

14:21

to strike six African Americans and give

14:24

no reason as to why they were

14:26

doing that? Well, here's here's how it works.

14:28

So some of you said it is right on point, some

14:30

of it, I'll argue it's not, Jack.

14:32

But the way the way it works overall

14:34

in our system is that you have an

14:36

overarching decision from the

14:38

United States Supreme Court that affects all of

14:41

these states, whether it's the state court or

14:43

federal court, it applies everywhere. And that case

14:45

is called Batson, B A T S O

14:47

N versus Kentucky, which established

14:50

the rule that you can't make

14:52

race based strikes to

14:54

the potential jury pool. So when jurors

14:56

are coming in, and in our system,

14:58

you might have a group of

15:00

anywhere from 30 to you might even have

15:02

a couple hundred depending upon the notoriety of the

15:05

case, who might be potential jurors are questioned

15:07

by the attorneys, we are

15:09

allowed to strike a certain amount with no

15:11

reason at all. Those are

15:13

called peremptory challenges. And then

15:15

we're able to strike for cause an

15:17

unlimited number of people if we can

15:19

show that they're biased. But

15:21

where this issue of race comes in, is

15:24

in these peremptory challenges where, let's say a

15:26

federal court case, I'm trying, we could strike

15:28

10 of them. And I don't have to

15:30

provide a reason. However,

15:33

if I'm challenged, the prosecutor of the defense

15:35

is challenged on a strike, they say, we

15:37

think it's a violation of Batson, we

15:39

think it was race based, then

15:42

the person that struck them, usually the

15:44

emotions being made against the prosecutor, they

15:47

have to come forward and tell the

15:49

judge and you know, argue that there

15:51

was a race neutral reason for why

15:53

they got rid of that particular juror

15:56

or jurors. And so in

15:58

this case, because I read the a look

16:00

at the appellate court opinion. The attorneys

16:02

actually challenged only three of

16:04

the strikes. They didn't challenge all six

16:06

because there might've been legitimate reasons for

16:08

six, for three of the six,

16:11

but they challenged three and argued

16:13

that the prosecutor was motivated by

16:15

race and striking those three people.

16:18

So then what happened was at trial, the

16:20

prosecutors had to tell the judge, Hey, here's

16:23

our race neutral reason for getting rid of

16:25

this three African-American jurors. It was a little

16:27

sketchy to me. Was it something to do

16:29

with postal service or something? I read something

16:31

about postal service and I didn't understand it.

16:34

Yeah. One of the jurors, they said, well,

16:36

gee, judge, we didn't get rid of him

16:38

because he's black. It's because he's opposed to

16:40

employee to me without further explanation made

16:42

little sense. The other one, they said, well,

16:45

judge, it wasn't race. It was because of

16:47

the earrings they were wearing. And

16:49

we thought that meant the person was

16:51

liberal. Again, to me, sounds kind of

16:53

bogus. And then thirdly, for the

16:56

other one, they said, which was very interesting, they

16:58

said, the juror

17:00

that we struck as African-American, their

17:03

demeanor is kind of like the defendant

17:05

and their appearance is kind of like

17:07

the defendant. To me, that's like saying

17:10

it's race-based, but the court, based

17:13

upon that proffer by the

17:15

attorneys, accepted it and said, okay,

17:17

you've offered me race-based reasons. Then

17:20

the ball goes back to the defense attorney who

17:23

still gets to argue that, hey, I know

17:25

they gave you what they claim to be

17:27

race-based reasons, but those really are protectual. Those

17:29

are bogus reasons, judge. Let's look at what

17:31

they just said. And so

17:33

ultimately the judge said, okay, I'm fine

17:36

with those strikes. Those people are struck

17:38

from the jury. They're not

17:40

going to serve. So ultimately, you know,

17:42

Marcellus tells you that, hey, I

17:44

didn't get a jury of my peers. It's

17:47

totally true, but it's not exactly how

17:50

it works. So really what matters in

17:52

a system at the time, he was

17:54

in St. Louis County in the state

17:56

of Missouri, is that

17:58

the system for selecting those

18:00

jurors is race neutral.

18:03

So unless he was able to attack

18:05

the system for selecting those

18:08

people, you're not guaranteed

18:10

a right to, hey,

18:12

since there's

18:14

40% African Americans in this community, that

18:17

means on my jury panel

18:19

that's seeing the case, I'm entitled to 40%

18:22

African Americans. That's not how

18:24

it works. It's just the process has to

18:26

be race neutral. So you might get a

18:28

panel one day where there's 80% African

18:30

Americans to select from. There might be a

18:32

panel the next day where there's only 20%

18:35

to select from, right? So

18:37

you can still go to trial and

18:39

the court can still consider it fine

18:41

and dandy, even though the

18:43

racial makeup seems extremely skewed, as

18:46

long as the overall process is

18:48

okay to select people to serve.

18:51

And then if the state can

18:53

survive these challenges, we just talked about

18:55

these race-based challenges at the jury selection

18:57

process. So to me, the

19:00

reasons given by the prosecutors seem pretty thin to

19:02

get rid of those African American jurors. And that's

19:04

been an issue in our system

19:06

for a long time. That's why the Supreme Court

19:08

came out with that Batson case. Let's

19:12

look at something else in the case that I

19:14

found interesting was, of course, they had one of

19:16

their witnesses. They had three witnesses really, three main

19:18

witnesses. You know, we had the former partner, we

19:20

had the guy who was in some way related

19:22

to Marcellus somewhere along the line who'd

19:24

spent time with him in prison. But then he

19:27

had the third person who was sold the laptop

19:29

and he was brought to the stand to testify

19:31

that yes, Marcellus brought me the laptop in exchange

19:33

for whatever it was, money or it may have

19:35

been something to do with drugs. But by the by,

19:37

he brought him the laptop. The jury were not allowed

19:40

to hear the part of the testimony where he actually

19:42

said, well, it was actually when I was talking to

19:44

Marcellus, he told me that this came from his girlfriend.

19:46

He got it from his girlfriend and

19:48

that's how he came to

19:50

have that laptop. Now the judge

19:52

cited hearsay and would

19:54

not allow the jury to hear that part of

19:57

the testimony. I thought hearsay was why I heard

19:59

it from someone. heard it sort of that sort of thing. It

20:01

wasn't it was directly from the guy who said this is what he told

20:03

me. Surely that is just

20:05

testimony. Yeah, our hearsay rule

20:08

is very sometimes difficult to

20:10

explain to somebody else and

20:12

also sometimes seems to defy

20:14

logic. But in general, hearsay

20:17

refers to any out of

20:19

court statement that's being offered

20:21

at trial for the truth of what's

20:23

said. Okay, it's a mouthful. But in

20:25

this case, make English to me. Yeah,

20:27

in this case, that's the hearsay rule.

20:29

That's how complicated it is just to

20:31

begin with. And there's like 50 exceptions,

20:34

right? But in this case, they

20:36

offered the testimony of this guy that

20:38

says, Hey, I bought the laptop from

20:40

Williams. And he gave he

20:43

was allowed to talk about some of

20:45

the conversation he had with Marcellus about

20:47

the purchase the laptop. However, he was

20:50

not the defensive attorneys

20:52

were not allowed to introduce the rest

20:55

of the conversation. Because even though here's

20:57

the guy saying I bought the laptop,

21:00

here's what Marcellus was saying to me,

21:02

but there was another part of the

21:04

conversation where Marcellus is saying I'm selling

21:07

it on behalf of my girlfriend, right?

21:09

And so they allowed half the

21:12

conversation, but not the rest. And

21:14

weirdly, you're under the two big issues in

21:16

our system. One, a defendant's

21:19

statements when he's giving

21:21

explanation to explain away his guilt,

21:24

are generally inadmissible, they won't allow

21:27

them unless the defendant testifies, right?

21:30

But if the defendant makes statements that

21:33

implicate him in the crime, they

21:35

do let those come in, even though they're

21:37

not being said by the defendant. So again,

21:39

it seems like one of those situations where

21:42

you're putting procedure and evidentiary

21:44

rules above common sense, because if this

21:46

witness would have been allowed to testify

21:48

to the complete conversation, he

21:51

would have said that, hey, Marcellus told me he

21:53

was selling it for his girlfriend, which

21:55

at the time he uttered that statement, there's

21:58

not really a reason for Williams to be lying

22:00

about it. You know what I mean? He's not talking a

22:02

lot. It would be a weird thing to just bring up

22:04

out of nowhere. Just be, you know, exactly. You know, he's

22:06

not talking to a cop. He's talking to some guy he's

22:08

getting the laptop, giving the laptop to. Yeah.

22:10

So the point about that is since he doesn't

22:12

really have a motive to lie to this guy

22:15

at the time, it would seem that the statement

22:17

that he's making is reliable and some something that

22:19

the jury should hear. But there weren't a lot

22:21

of hear that, which I think is a crucial

22:23

part of the conversation on appeal. The

22:26

attorneys argued, hey, look, you

22:28

know, not only should it not be

22:30

considered hearsay, but it completes the conversation.

22:32

There's a rule of evidence allows you

22:34

to put in the whole conversation when

22:36

the other side tries to introduce half the

22:38

conversation, which of course goes to fairness. I

22:41

would imagine if that man who was buying

22:43

the laptop had turned around and said, and

22:45

then Marcellus told me that he got it

22:47

because he killed this woman, that would have

22:49

been fine to be allowed in. Absolutely no

22:51

problem. It's such a weird rule. We can't

22:53

allow anything that defendants said

22:55

as long as it doesn't help him. Absolutely

22:57

insane. It's a situation where, and I speak

22:59

to a lot of people who are, who

23:01

have been basically given a death sentence in

23:03

prison, they've been given a life without parole

23:05

sentence, but at least they have time to

23:07

prove their innocence. You know, his clock is

23:09

ticking. As you said, you mentioned

23:11

these, there's a hearing coming on July 2nd because when

23:13

I spoke to Marcellus, he was still waiting on hearing

23:16

about any sort of hearing that's going to be had

23:18

on the DNA. So did you read something about second

23:21

of July? It's happening. Is it? Well, it's, it's sort

23:23

of, yes, sort of, no, it's a hearing on July

23:25

2nd to determine whether he'll get a hearing. Oh, right.

23:27

Is it hearing for a hearing? We're

23:30

going to decide whether a court can look

23:32

at this DNA evidence, which is absolutely absurd. I

23:34

think you got into this a little bit on

23:36

the episode, but you had one

23:39

governor of the state say, Hey, what's

23:41

the point of this board of inquiry?

23:43

Exactly. The new evidence, new governor comes

23:45

along and says, ah, you know,

23:47

it's taken too long. But you know, even though

23:49

we now have the DNA, forget about it. We

23:51

don't need to consider it. I mean, how stupid

23:54

is that? It's insane. It comes back to Missouri

23:56

again, you know, and you've again got the state's

23:58

prosecutor coming out. and saying this man is innocent,

24:00

I think he should have his charge overturned and

24:03

all the rest of it. I can't imagine how

24:05

frustrating it is for him to be having to

24:07

fight his own state. Yeah, the county prosecutor in

24:09

St. Louis is saying, look, we've reviewed this evidence.

24:12

It's clear and convincing that he's innocent. And

24:15

then you have the attorney general of the state

24:17

stepping in and stepping on their toes and saying,

24:19

no, no, we don't need to consider this new

24:21

DNA evidence. I wish you could get that

24:23

Missouri AG, the attorney general on

24:25

the phone, to explain to you

24:28

and try to justify how it

24:30

could possibly be that when you have

24:32

a claim of actual innocence supported by forensics,

24:34

which is directly relevant to the crime, that

24:37

it's his business. And it makes common sense for

24:39

him to step in and say, no, let's not

24:41

go that way. Let's not look at that evidence.

24:43

I mean, you won't come on your show. No,

24:46

no chance. There's absolutely no way you'll come on

24:48

and justify that. Because there is no justifying it.

24:50

Apart from that, I know no doubt you'll

24:53

just get the whole thing of a jury

24:55

found him guilty based on the evidence presented.

24:57

And that is how our system works. Yeah,

24:59

which is really unfortunate. Because I mean, you

25:01

can't get evidence that's any

25:03

more directly material or relevant

25:05

to a case than, you know,

25:08

DNA from the fingernails

25:10

of the victim. And that's it was a

25:12

horrific crime. Let's not forget about that. Absolutely.

25:15

Absolutely. It couldn't be any

25:17

more relevant. And every prosecutor

25:19

in the country would be waving the

25:21

DNA results around if it found that

25:23

Marcellus DNA matched that was

25:26

that which was under her finger under

25:28

her fingernails. As always appreciate your insights,

25:30

Mr. Leonard in the the wonderful world

25:32

of the judicial system.

25:35

And we look forward to the next one. Can

25:38

you can we before we leave, can you just answer

25:41

one question, Jack? Always. Really, really

25:43

two questions. What alcohol do I need to

25:45

send you? You

25:48

want to tell me offline and number two, what

25:51

the heck is Earl Grey's porridge? And

25:53

it doesn't look that appetizing. Earl

25:56

Grey's porridge. I've heard of Earl

25:58

Grey tea. Well, your friend. who

26:00

works on your show, who does, I think he

26:02

does the audio. Yeah. Who

26:05

is on the tin. Yeah, Dom. He had

26:07

a picture of himself in another chapel. Oh, yeah,

26:09

I saw that too. We go great forage and

26:11

I looked at it and said, look, real appetizing.

26:13

Yeah, mate, they're from Melbourne. There are different species

26:15

in Melbourne. They're all, you know, ladi da, lattes

26:17

and Earl Grey breakfast. Don't even get me started.

26:19

Dom will be listening to this. So, Dom, come

26:21

on, mate, you know, eat a hearty breakfast, my

26:24

friend. And if you get a volunteer from one

26:26

of those two towns that come on the show.

26:28

Yes, we'll get it. We'll cross-examine them. I'd love

26:30

to talk to them. All right, well, we'll lock that in for sure.

26:33

As always, a huge thank you to

26:35

Michael Lennon for his time and his

26:37

insights into this particular case. Now,

26:40

in the interest of making sure I get this episode out to

26:42

you in time, unfortunately, we still

26:44

don't know at this point in time while

26:46

I'm recording this whether or not Marcellus will

26:48

get that hearing. However, I will have the

26:50

results in our Facebook group. So, make sure

26:52

you, if you are not part of our

26:55

Facebook community, just search one minute remaining on

26:57

Facebook and you'll find out the results there.

27:01

One minute remaining is a mashed pumpkin

27:03

production created, hosted and produced

27:05

by Jack Lawrence. Audio

27:07

and sound design by Jack Lawrence and

27:09

Dom Evans of ESA. ACAS

27:20

powers the world's best podcast.

27:24

Here's a show that we recommend.

27:28

From BBC Radio 4, Britain's

27:30

biggest paranormal podcast is

27:33

going on a road trip. I

27:35

thought in that moment, oh

27:38

my God, we've summoned something from this

27:40

board. This

27:44

is Uncanny USA. He

27:46

says, somebody's in the house and

27:48

I screamed. Listen

27:52

to Uncanny USA wherever you get

27:54

your BBC podcasts. If

27:56

you dare.