The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the podcast author or individuals participating in the podcast, and do not represent those of iHeartRadio or their employees. This podcast also contains subject matter which may not be suitable for everyone listening to.
Discretion is advised. Radical is released every Tuesday and brought to you absolutely free, but if you want to add free listening and early access to next week's episode, subscribe to tenderfoot Plus. For more information, check out tenderfootplus dot com. Enjoy the episode Campsite Media. At a court hearing less than a week after September eleventh, the judge overseeing a Ma'am Jamil Alamine's case gave both sides a chance to
speak at length. Reading the transcript of the hearing, the lofty lefelanguage that we often hear in court rooms, it seemed even more elevated that day, like everyone was speaking for posterity, calling on their deepest beliefs to make sense of the events. Jack Martin, the lead defense attorney for a Ma'am Jamil, he stepped up to the podium facing
the judge. He noted for the record that in the aftermath of nine to eleven, there had been a tacks on Muslim Americans and that maschids across the country had been desecrated and defiled. As lawyers, Martin said, we must be realists. We must recognize that our judicial system is far from perfect, hardly immune from the temper of the times.
He asked that the trial be postponed. In court, a Maam Jamil usually wore a white thobe and a coofe, but at this hearing he chose to wear his jail clothes, apparently so he wouldn't attract threats and his Muslim garb. He stepped up to the podium. I stand ready and seeking resolution of an unjust situation. He said, I am innocent of all of your charges. A Maam Jamille said he wanted the trial to move forward despite the Islamophobic fervor in America, but he would submit to his lawyer's
recommendations that it be postponed. Then he used the moment to speak his mind. He had been silent from addressing the public by a gag order, but the judge let him talk over the prosecutor's objections. His remarks were grandiose and prophetic at times. He seemed to be talking about himself like a martyr. I am told that a trial
at this time is not wise. He said that fear of silenced reason, that the cry for vengeance is too loud, that the thirst for blood must be quenched, that the orgy of murder must be played out, that all the people must be made to eat and drink of it. If your trying and killing me satisfies your taste for the Muslim blood and spares the life of Muslim women and children. Though I do not complain about my situation, I'm advised that because of patriotism in this country, I
am unable to have a fair trial. Shouldn't it be the opposite in a land that has said that freedom is the pinnacle of its moral argument, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is its banner of moral authority, that justice is its master virtue, the scales upon which is weighed its law and order. Or is that just a dream speech. At one point, AmAm Jamil apparently turned away from the judge and faced the prosecutor's table as if speaking to them. The judge told a manage Meil
to face her. He continued, justice in law marches to two different drummers. Justice in law are two different in distinct conversations. I'm reminded that freedom is not free. I'm reminded of a quote from Huey P. Long, who was once governor of Louisiana, when he was asked would fascism come to America, and he replied, yes, fascism will come
to America, but it will be called patriotism. Imagine a kind of justice built on a divine awareness that knows people's true intentions and sees the causes and effects of people's actions across vast histories. AmAm Jamil evoked the justice like this that day in court, with all of its religious overtones. He seemed to say, if it is justice in this grander, all knowing sense, that I be executed even though I am innocent, I accept my faith. Not only that, hurry up and get on with it. But
there was also a contradiction. He believed that a court of law could set him free if only people would consider the facts as he saw them. From Camside Media, Tenderfoot TV, and iHeart podcasts, This is Radical, I'm Mostly Secret Episode four, Look a Man in his Eyes. The prosecution like a Ma'am Damiel's defense team didn't think a fair trial would be possible. The judge agreed, and she postponed the case until January of two thousand and two.
A Mam Jamil's trial was scheduled to begin nearly two years after the shootout in the West End. When people are charged with crimes, most eventually plead guilty. I watched this play out countless times when I was covering the courts for the New York Times. But in death penalty cases like a Ma'am jimials, the option of negotiating a
pleading was essentially taken off the table. Even defendants who knew they fucked up and were inclined to take responsibility, they could still be sentenced to death, so they would end up in court defending their lives, working with their lawyers to pull some kind of story together for the jury. Who has the winning story? That's not necessarily the same question as whose story is the most true? I wonder if seeking the death penalty if it can actually hide
more truth than it reveals. The lead prosecutor for the Fulton County District Attorney's Office was a man named Robert McBurney. A man who had devoted his working life to the criminal court system.
It's not perfect. Their biases and plenty of examples where because of someone's race or lack of means or gender that things went horribly wrong, and we need to stay focused on those and do what we can to correct them. But by and large, once you get into court, so it's not saying on the policing side say, once you get into court, we've got a system that works pretty well.
Not long after he finished law school back in the nineties, McBurnie took a job with the Fulton County DA. A few years later, he left to join a private law firm, but he realized it wasn't his thing.
And I got a call from the lead investigator on the Olamine case in the District Attorney's office and said, hey, would you come back if I could get you on the Olamine case. And I thought that I'd be interesting the fascinating case, lots of moving parts. Fbis involved this and that, and so I kicked it around for a little bit, and I missed being a prosecutor. I like being a prosecutor, And so I returned to the DA's office and picked that up.
AmAm Jamil's case was the biggest of mcburney's relatively young career. Prosecuting a single case became his full time job. He could hardly have stepped into a role with higher stakes. There would be two phases to the trial. In the first phase, a jury would decide if mam Jamil was innocent or guilty, and if they convicted him, then in a second phase, the same jury would choose whether he should spend the rest of his life in prison or
if the State of Georgia should execute him. A mam Jamil's lead attorney, Jack Martin, He said that because it was a death penalty trial, he and the defense team they had to adjust their strategy.
Do you have to worry not only about what he can do to gain a client acquitted, but also what happens if he gets convicted? How do we make sure you don't get the death penalty?
If the defense were to take a big risk, like putting forward a theory that was too outlandish or a witness who wasn't totally credible, they might lose the trust of the jury. And then if a man Jamil got convicted, the jury might not believe defense lawyers When they argue that a Mam Jamil should keep his life. Let me set the scene for you a little. The courtroom was a modern looking one, tan carpeted floors, brown theater style seats in the gallery, not the old Hartwood benches, computer
monitors on the tables. A Maam Jamil and his white thob and coofy sat at a table next to his legal team. The lawyers wore suits and ties. A man Jamil's wife Karema and their young son Kyrie. They sat close to each other behind the defense table. Members of the Weston Mass Gifts showed up two. The courtroom was full. You knew court was officially in session each day When the bailiffs commanded all rise, everyone in the courtroom was expected to stand up and share respect when the judge entered.
Same thing when the jury walked in. But a Mam Jamil wouldn't do it.
He said, this is contrary to my religion. Don't stand for anybody but Dalla. And the judge was spuried accommodating about that. She said, that's no big deal, you don't have to stand.
The courtroom was tense, even more so than a typical trial nine eleven wasn't that far off. The gallery was full of people from a community that was wary of law enforcement, and the Sheriff's office responsible for security in the court building. It was the same office that Deputy Kinchen had worked for and Deputy English was still working for. The judge must have sensed this. She ordered that if law enforcement came to the trial of Spectators, they couldn't
wear their uniforms. But that didn't stop the new Black Panther Party from showing up one day wearing all black fatigues, and so when it was time for opening statements, this was how the courtroom felt when Robert mcfernie and his team laid out their case.
For the jury.
The prosecution argument began with a recitation of some of what English called out as he lay in the field next to the mast it please don't shoot me anymore. Don't shoot me anymore. From there their argument went like this. Kenchin and English were just doing their job. They went to the West End with a warrant to arrest them, Ma'am Jamil, And when Kenchin pulled her car up in front of Amm Jamil's black Mercedes and the deputies got
out a Mam Jamil fired at the deputies. Here's the prosecutor, Robert McBurney.
He produced not a small gun but an assault rifle, killed one deputy and severely injured another. We know where Kinchin was. He didn't get very far and English was able to testify as to where he started and then he collapsed in the field over by the mass.
Jit At the hospital, English had idea to Mam Jamil in a photo lineup and that was still his story. Then there was the state's physical evidence. Dozens of shell casings and bullets were recovered from the scene in the West End, and after AmAm Jamil was arrested in Loudon County, Alabama, FBI agents found guns in the woods, presumably that AmAm
Jamil had dropped while fleeing federal agents. Ballistics analysts found that those guns matched bullets that killed Kenchin and wounded English, and there was more physical evidence from Lowndes County.
He fled in a Mercedes that was found in Alabama with bullet holes that were consistent with his gun as well as the deputy's guns.
So for McBurnie and his prosecution team, the physical evidence clearly matched English's testimony.
Based on the entrance wounds for Kinschin, the entrance wounds for English, all of the bullet holes in the Mercedes. It really wasn't all that controversial as to who was standing where. What was controversial was who was the person standing next to the Mercedes, And I don't think that was controversial. That was Alaman.
It was a strong case, but there were still opportunities for the defense to create doubt in the minds.
Of the jury.
AmAm Dmil's defense team. Their strategy was to point out all the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case to show their evidence was flawed. I hardly need to remind you in this trial episode of the podcast that the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a Maam Jamil shot Deputy Kenchin and Deputy English, and that a Maam Jamil's lawyers they didn't need to prove he was innocent. They just needed to create enough doubt in the minds
of the jury. Really, even one juror to pull off that argument. It required a good amount of skepticism, especially of law enforcement. A Maam Jamil's lawyers they were defense attorneys, so sure they were inclined to be skeptical of official accounts. But the defense team's investigator, wa Tani tahimba his skepticism. It was on a whole another level. Whata Tani and a Maam Jamil are around the same age. Watani spent time in Los Angeles when he was young.
I was directly impacted by the Watch rebellion. You know, the National Guard was like an occupying army for us. Became very obvious that we were oppressed. Put guns on ers and tell us to go back in the house with dusted don curfew. All those kind of things raised your consciousness. And so I was a young man coming up into my consciousness. In the nineteen.
Sixties, Whatatani joined the Black Power movement, and like a Ma'am Jamil, he was surveilled by the FBI. That didn't inspire a lot of trust and law enforcement. Watani and a Maam Jamil knew each other before this case. In the late eighties, Whatatani moved to Atlanta started working as a criminal investigator, always on the defense side, the side against the state. He worked a lot for my dad. Actually,
most if not all, of Watani's clients were black. They called him unk and he built relationships with them, talked about novels with them on occasion. It was sort of a continuation of his work in the movement. Months before the trial began, whata Tani was doing his thing, interviewing potential witnesses and gathering new evidence. He knew that testimony
from English would be key to the prosecution's case. Remember that it was the morning after the shootout, when English was still in the hospital recovering from surgery, that a detective from the Atlanta Police Department first interviewed him. Watani learned that English had received the total of ten milligrams of morphine and during the prior twenty four hours he had also lost a lot of blood. An expert said
his mental faculties would have been impaired. But the morning after surgery, the detective he decided English was ready to tell him what happened the night before an English id to man Jamil in the photo lineup. Watani looked for any outside information that might have influenced English's id between the night he was shot in the West End and that morning in the hospital. Almost immediately after the shootout, Atlanta's local TV stations they were all over the story.
The English in the hospital watching the news, and so they are talking about Jamil, and he sees the one news. So I went to talk to the doctors and people in the staff there, and they said they confirmed he was watching into television. And then I came back and the guy retracted. He says, well, I really can't, can't. I don't really.
Remember now the doctor retracted, Yes.
Doctor retracted it. One of the sheriffs took the stand to testify. She said that when she acad in it, she unplugged the television so he would not be able to see and and misidentify anybody. So, you know, like what gives her the presence of mind? I said, let me just unplug this television.
But Tani didn't tell me the name of the doctor who attracted his statement. And I'm not sure that I would have gotten a conclusive answer to this question all these years later. So it's hard for me to make much of this one way or the other, except that with Tani, he really did not trust English's identification of a man Jamil. At the trial, after both sides gave their winning arguments, the prosecution called English to the stand
their first witness. He sat to the right of the judge wearing his tan uniform in a dark brown tie. The lead prosecutor, Robert McBurney examined his witness. English rehashed his account of that night he and Kinchin were in the West End.
With a warrant.
They pulled up on a black Mercedes and English asked the man getting out of the car to show his right hand. Then the man pulled out a rifle and started firing. McBurney asked English, what went through your mind when you saw that assault rifle pointed at you. English lost his composure, started crying, wiped tears from his eyes with his thumb in one of his fingers. He took a deep breath, um that I was about to die
when he started shooting. I thought about my kids, thought about my wife, and I asked myself as I was running, what have I done to deserve this? Holding a clipboard, McBurney moved to stand behind the defense table, not far from what Tani and behind a Ma'am Jamial who sat almost perfectly still expressionless. Is this the man who had the assault rifle that night? McBurney asked, as English looked at a Mam Jamial. Yes it is, Sir, said English,
did you see anyone else that night with an assault rifle? No, sir, is this the man who fired the assault rifle at you? Yes, it is, said English. Jack Martin did the cross examination methodically. Martin had English recount his memories of the shootout, but Martin tried to undermine his credibility. He read back to English inconsistencies between his testimony and statements he had made
to law enforcement. One of the inconsistencies was that English said he prided himself on his marksmanship, and he was sure he shot a man Jamial. But remember when a man Jamial was arrested in Alabama, he was uninjured. And then in an interview with a detective, English said this about his encounter with the shooter. Quote, my mom always told me, look a man in his eye, Always look a man in his eyes. I looked him in his eyes. I remember them, gray eyes. I remember that face, that
cold face. So I couldn't forget that. But a man Jamil didn't have gray eyes. His eyes were brown. English stood to reenact the details of his encounter with the shooter. When Martin asked about the shooter's eye color, English insisted that Mamjamial was wearing yellow glasses, suggesting that was the reason he thought of Mam Jamial's eyes were gray. Martin pointed out that and the statements English gave to detectives
he didn't mention anything about yellow glasses. Martin kept pressing the point, and the prosecutor mcburniey he objected, claiming Martin was being argumentative. Eventually, Martin moved on. Wa Tani watched English's testimony from the defense table.
Did the English.
Testimony is that memorable to you at all? Or do you remember how you were feeling about that?
Yeah?
I thought he was lying, but that was my good feeling. Yeah, I mean he saw him on television and he looked at this stuff, and they say, I'll never forget those gray eyes. I believe that's what happened. And they use the gray eyes to try to emphasize, Oh, yeah.
It's him, because it's so unique that a black person would have great because it's unforgettable.
On the paper.
But that thing, what you saw ful the paper, what Tani is talking about. He means the warrant. On the warrant, a man Jamil's eye color was listed incorrectly, as so English's whole story about his mama telling him to look a man in the eyes sounds kind of funny. It created a suspicion that he might have been trying to pin the shooting on a man Jamial. After English's testimony later in the trial, the prosecution called the ballistics analyst
from George's crime lab to the witness stand. McBurney questioned the analyst he held up the nine milimeters pistol and the Ruger Many fourteen semi automatic rifle found close to where a Mam Jamial was captured. The rifle was a unique and powerful gun. Even though it was semi automatic, it could still be fired rapidly, and it had a retractable stock so it could be compact fired from the hip or extended and fired like a rifle typically is
from the shoulder. The analyst said that a bullet from the rifle must have hit Kinchin with the caveat that if there was another ruger Many fourteen at the scene, she couldn't tell the difference between the two, and the analyst testified that a bullet from the pistol the same one Bernie held up in the courtroom, that it hit Deputy Kenchin.
Period.
Here's the defense attorney Jack Martin.
The gun evidence was very problematic for us. It was a difficult thing for us to overcome. But you know, we had some explanations for it, but it was more difficult, including why would he take it all the way to Alabama.
Ama Jimil's defense team had argued before the trial that the ballistics evidence shouldn't be included at all, but the judge decided to allow it. Now, all they could do was cross examine the analysts. It got really technical about gas projection and surface markings, that type of stuff. But the thing is, there are serious questions about the veracity of the kinds of ballistics evidence that was presented.
To say that this gun is the gud who fired this book is very, very difficult. There were questions about whether this was a valid conclusion from a scientific point of view.
Ballistics just happens to be something I know a little bit about. When I was an investigative reporter at Pro Publica, I worked on a team looking into the validity of the so called forensic sciences. The project eventually ran under the headline The Real CSI, which was meant to be a corrective to how CSI and other crime dramas hold out ballistics analysis and other methods as infallible truth. The work was inspired by a huge report put out by
the National Academy of Sciences on ballistics analysis. The Academy concluded, quote, the decision of the tool mark examiner remains a subjective decision based on unarticulated standards and no statistical foundation. The report went on to say that it has never been conclusively proven that a particular gun leaves unique markings on the bullets at fires. But according to Jack Martin, it was always going to be tough to convince the jury
that this evidence wasn't reliable. Do you think from your experiences as a lawyer, do juries tend to believe ballistics evidence?
Yeah, and they shouldn't.
This kind of ballistics evidence matching a bullet or a shell casing to a particular gun. It's still widely admissible in US courts. But after three weeks of testimony and cross examinations and objections and squabbling over evidence, there was almost time to turn the case over to the jury. In my reporting on this story, I swung back and forth between thinking maybe a Mama Jemil didn't shoot those
deputies and yes, he definitely did. One bit of information would lead me one way, and then another would turn me around in the uncertainty. And when I was thinking I'd never get to the bottom of what happened, I figured that maybe the story I was supposed to tell was more about a Maam Jimil himself. Who was this man who I encountered as a kid, who people believed
was even capable of shooting two cops. But then I would get sucked back into an obsessive and maybe even a foolish desire to figure out what actually happened that night. We all know that the facts at any trial are subject to dispute, but it's also the case that so many facts are never even considered. Prosecutors and defense lawyers construct narratives out of little slivers of life. As the trial neared its climax, there were still unanswered questions on
both sides. That's a big part of why I got sucked into this case. So much had been left off the table. When I interviewed Watani Tahimba about his work as an investigator and about a Ma'am Jamil's trial, it was the first time in my reporting that I felt close to hearing for myself some straight up truth about that night, not close enough to actually uncover the information itself. I just detected that something real was there. It was
a little jolt that said keep on digging. But Tani and I were talking about how as an investigator he works closely, almost intimately, with truth that goes unsaid.
I don't know who I was talking to about this recently, but it was I think maybe it was my wife actually, and she was saying, do you think that defendants tell the truth to their lawyers? And it's the same kind of thing. Do they tell the truth to their investigators?
My answer to her was not all the time, Like.
I don't know in fact, and I don't always ask them, see I don't. I don't ever ask them did you do this? I never asked that, you know, say that's what the police say, that's what the state was saying, we got some problems here. This is the area that we definitely got some issues here, you know, so we do it like that. But I've had can't say give me a whole story, say what do you think about that?
Said?
What do I think about that?
Said?
What do you think about that? That kind of intue me, it's your story. I'm not help you to do this. You tell me your story. I'll show you where your stuff is bad. You know, we tighten it up. But yeah, so yeah, it's interesting in it. It's it's none of them are there saying? You know?
It would have been that same kind of scenario with the Mam Jamil. It wouldn't have been like, did you do this?
Well, I mean we have a relationship. I could ask me to, but I wouldn't do that.
Ma'am Jamil had pleaded not guilty. He said he was innocent, but he didn't have an alibi. So if he didn't shoot the deputies, then who did? It would have had to be someone else, someone who with Tani would have wanted to talk to as an investigator. Would you have been previous conversations with the Mam Jamil the client himself, to kind of give you guidance about where you should go or not.
Go as an investigator? You know, yeah, we have privileged conversations with our client as well as with the other attorneys.
And did he point you in one way or the other.
We have privileged conversations.
I can't say.
Right that right there, that's it there's something there. Who knows Maybe wa Tani doesn't even know what it is. There's some truth there, even if it's unset. The prosecution left some big questions out there too. Robert McBurnie and his team, they decided not to explain why they thought a man Jimial shot the deputies. They had no obligation to describe a motive.
Certainly, it was a topic of interest amongst those of us on the prosecution team of why someone who at that point in his life had become a community icon and was revered or feared pick your term in the West End, why not simply go with these deputies to deal with a stolen car allegation and be done with it.
Mcburnie's theory was that a Mam Jamil had something in the trunk of the Mercedes guns, maybe that he didn't want English and kinsin to find when they pulled up on him.
That's as good as it got. It was senseless regardless. It really doesn't matter what was in the trunk to shoot to kill two deputies who are simply doing their job. And there was nothing in this case about you know, these deputies were approaching him aggressively or he was defending himself that that was never the defense, because of course he didn't do it was the defense.
But those are all things that did not come up at the trial. As the time approached for closing arguments and the defense was finishing with their witnesses, a man Jamil and his lawyers had to decide if he should testify. Based on the Constitution the Fifth Amendment, it was his right to refuse to take the stand, and if he decided not to McBurney in the prosecution, they weren't allowed
to bring it up. Jack Martin worried that if a Mam Jamial testified, the armed robbery conviction he caught in New York in the seventies would come up and the jury would hold it against him. So in the end, a Mam Jamil didn't take the stand. McBurney gave his closing argument. First, he ran through the case the prosecution had laid out during testimony, and then McBurney said to the jury, I want to leave you with a few
questions you should have for the defendant. He was using a PowerPoint presentation and he put up a slide.
The label of the slide was questions for the Defendant and It was basically, how can you explain all these things? And then it rattled off some questions, how do you explain the shellcasing on the Mercedes? How do you explain the bullet taken out a Deputy Kinchin that matches this gun. It basically thinks that you cannot explain.
I was amazed and it just troubled me, and it sort of the thought crossed my mind, said they must be fairly desperate to be making that type of argument.
Jack Martin objected. He asked for a mistrial because of Mamjamial's Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The judge said no, and McBurney changed the title of that slide. Then the judge explained to the jury that a Mam Jamial had no obligation to testify, that the jury shouldn't draw any conclusion from a man Jamial's choice not to take the stand. McBurney finished the first part of his argument, and then
it was the defense's turn. They said that English's idea of a Mammed Meal didn't hold up, that a Mam Jamil didn't have gray eyes and he wasn't shot like English said he was. And the defense pointed out the link between the bullets, the guns, and a man demial. It wasn't as convincing as it might seem. Then McBurney had a chance to deliver a final closing speech. He rebutted the defense arguments point by point, and he approached the climax of his argument. You watched what happened in
this courtroom. Who wouldn't stand up for you? Don't stand for him. The defendant is guilty of the murder of Deputy Ricky Kinchin. McBurney said, he's guilty of each and every count in the indictment, and you need to hold him accountable. Don't stand for him. Remember that a Ma'am Jamil, unlike many others in the courtroom, hadn't risen. When the judge and jury entered for religious reasons, Martin objected to
mcburney's language and again asked for a mistrial. The judge denied the request, but she did tell the jury that a Maam Jamial's beliefs shouldn't be held against him. The jury was sent away to deliberate. These days, McBurney is one of the most well known judges in Georgia. He oversaw a special grand jury's investigation and to alleged election interference by former President Donald Trump. I asked McBurnie whether
he went too far in his closing argument. A district court judge went as far as saying that it was a I think serious and repeated constitutional violation the argument that you made. And I don't think that you've had the opportunity to kind of state publicly what you were thinking and your thoughts about how it went down, But we would love to hear that.
Sure, So my friends like to bring this one up all the time. I made a mistake. It was an honest, good faith mistake, and I own it, and I have been owning it for many years now. But it was a mistake as opposed to an attempt to get the jury to think about Wait a minute, Alameine didn't testify. They knew that that would have been the most fascinating part of the trial is to have this very charismatic, silent,
brooding person testify, and he didn't. But I didn't talk about that in my closing I shouldn't have talked about it. And that was a very long answer, but it's just to emphasize how I think in the grand scheme of things, minor my mistake was.
The defense team and the district court judge. I mentioned they didn't consider the mistake to be so minor. I also asked mc bernie about his reference to a man Jamil not standing during the trial. That wasn't a mistake, he said, not at all.
I don't owe him respect. I treated him as I ought to, and he got a phenomenal defense team, great judge, and a very very fair trial. The fact that I didn't hold his hand and tell him I thought he was a swell guy. I don't lose sleep over that one.
After less than a day of deliberation, the jury found a man Jamil guilty on all accounts. But the trial, it wasn't over yet. A man Jamil and his defense team, they still had to fight to keep him alive.
And now you have to come in front of that same jury and say, Okay, let's assume you got it right. Let's assume you made the correct decision. I have a second argument for you. He should live.
That on the next episode of Radical. Radical is a production of Camside Media, Tenderfoot TV, and iHeart Podcasts. Radical was reported and written by Johnnykauffman and me Mosey's Secret Johnnykaufman is our senior producer. Sheba Joseph is our associate producer. Editing by Eric Benson, Johnny Kaufman, Emily Martinez and Matt Cher. Fact checking by Sophie Hurwitz, Kayln Lynch and Layla Dos. Original music by Kyle Murdoch and by Ray Murray of
Organized Noise. Sound design and mixing by Kevin Seaman. Recording by Ewan led trom Ewen and Sheba Joseph. Campside Media's operations team is Doug Slaywan, Ashley Warren, Elijah Papes, Destiny Dingle, and Sabina Mera. The executive producers at Campside Media are Josh Dean Vanessa, Gregoriatis, Adam Hoff, and Matt Cher. For Tenderfoot TV, executive producers are Donald Albright and Paine Lindsay.
The executive producers at iHeart Podcasts are Matt Frederick and Alex Williams, with additional support from Trevor Young,