The Intersection of Digital Crime, Historical Assassinations, and Riots

[00:00:00] Welcome to Crime Time Inc, our daily podcast where we bring a true crime story every single day of the week with an overview and review with Tom Wood and myself every Sunday. And here is today's episode. Hello Tom, how are you?

[00:00:24] I'm very well. It's the middle afternoon with us, a grey day in Scotland, but where are you and how are you? What are you up to now? We're in Singapore, overlooking Marina Bay. It's absolutely phenomenal, Tom. It's beautiful, yeah. I was there once, but Simon, I've got to tell you, and I'm going to say this quietly, you're going to have to be careful because you're displaying ostentatious signs of wealth.

[00:00:49] Honestly, you'll have the revenue and customs down on you, the National Crime Agency. Simon, peg it back, you know. It's not them I'm worried about, it's the police, because I'm doing a run-up when I'm out of here. Singapore is very expensive. Oh, aye, it's expensive, it's lovely though. Thing is, Simon, over here, you put on a good front, you dress scruffily, always look a bit down at heel, but here you are, seven weeks living in the lap of luxury.

[00:01:17] Simon, one question you've got to ask yourself, just one question is, is there a statute of limitations on fraudulent overtime claims? That's the question. It's the only question. There better be. Simon, it's the only question, sir. Let's crack on with last week's episode on Monday that our Deep Dive team had a look at.

[00:01:39] Tom, you and I were speaking about digital crime, about online crime, about all that kind of stuff that we were going to make a point of having a look at over the course of this year, because we think it's the biggest growth industry as far as crime is concerned. And it's the biggest danger probably to crime time listeners and the general public at large is their online presence and the fraudsters and scammers that are out there. So that's where our first item was this week, Pegasus spyware.

[00:02:08] I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about it. And I know that you'll be the same as me, that your knowledge of it will be limited to what you've picked up here and there, because we're not tech savvy, you and I by any stretch of the imagination. But that's probably better, Tom, that we can look at these things without the expertise, without the jargon, without the baggage, because whenever I ask my kids to help me, for example, I'm none the wiser when they fix it and go away. Are you the same as me? Yeah, very much so, Simon.

[00:02:37] I mean, I think it's just a generational thing. We have bought in very late to the whole online world. If you don't mind me saying so, I think we've adapted quite well. I don't think our producer Chris would say that. But since he doesn't have a voice here, I think we have adapted pretty well. What struck me about all of this was that it's all in your own hands, really, because I know an awful lot of people who all the minutia of their life is online.

[00:03:07] Yes. On Facebook, on Snapchat and all these things, and where they've been, what they've had for lunch and all the rest of it. Now, all of that may seem trivial, but it's all given little pieces of information. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in what people had for lunch, and I don't assume that people are interested in what I had for lunch, and therefore I've got a pretty low online profile. It's really down to what we do and my writing, but I don't put anything personal on it at all,

[00:03:37] and that's quite deliberate. You'll not be concerned then. I was at Raffles for lunch this afternoon. I've been at Raffles. Did you have a, what was the famous one, the gin sling? Did you have one of them? It's a famous drink which you must have at Raffles. What was it again? Of course, of course. I had one of them. Very interesting, isn't it? It's lovely. Yeah, and it's a nice crowd. The history's fantastic, isn't it? All the tributes on the walls and all the rest of it. It's really been maintained beautifully.

[00:04:03] And I had a wee chat with the doorman, you know, the Indian doorman that they've always had at the door with the turban on and whatnot. Stories are fantastic. Yeah, it is. Tom, the online stuff, what I was thinking about this was really just to reiterate how valuable our data is and whether you're tech savvy or not. Some of the things that they're talking about, you're saying it's in your own hands. I think it's just an attitude. It's like locking your door or setting your alarm when you go out in the morning.

[00:04:33] And it's hackers that we're talking about here who are trying to get your data. A couple of things stuck out at me, two-step verification. And you will be familiar with that because our IT is starting to make us do these things on our phones, computers and all our devices. It's just to simply put in a two-step that you either need a fingerprint or facial recognition and then they send you a message that you have to respond to. That's a simple security device.

[00:05:04] And it's laziness not to do it. I think that's what our listeners need to hear. The other thing was the VPN, the virtual private network. I'm hearing it more and more. And I don't think it's that complicated, Tom. Maybe we could get someone on that could explain how everybody could set up their own VPN and make themselves a bit more secure. That would be a service we could provide. I think that would be a good idea, Simon. I agree with you, absolutely. I think I would like to get somebody on who can explain these things in layman's terms,

[00:05:33] in terms that we'll understand. Tom, that goes without say. The layman's terms goes without say. We could idiot-proof it by getting them to explain it to you. And if you understood it, well, we'll be all right. That's what I said to small-town dicks, Tom. And they were trying to talk me through the equipment that they'd sent me to do the podcast that I did. Like, you've done a few with them. They said to me, do you think you'll handle the equipment okay? And my response was, did Tom Wood manage it? And they said, yes, Tom.

[00:06:02] I said, there's no problem then, is there? And you were right. There was no problem. So all of these things, Tom. And I know that there's some very simple things that people fall into all the time. They think that their WhatsApp groups are safe. They wish each other happy birthday, giving away people's dates of birth. All these things we'll cover in a separate episode, because it's our focus this year. And we'll get Chris, our producer in, because he's familiar with all these things.

[00:06:32] And we'll have a list of things to go through that will help people. There's too much to cover just now. But our deep dive team did a good job, again, of alerting people to these issues, didn't it? Very much so. And again, it's down to passwords. I'm very reluctant to have dozens of passwords because I forget them. And then I have to write them down. If you have to write them down, you're defeating the object.

[00:06:55] An awful lot of people have got technology that they do not really understand and that they only use a tiny bit of its capability. I think that's an important point, Tom, for all of us. I bet our phones, our Apple phones we use. I only use what Chris has taught me to use. It's a bit like our brains. We use about 8% of it in our lifetime. I think it's the same with the technology, Tom. You speak for yourself.

[00:07:23] I hope I use more than 8%. But OK, let's just let that slide, shall we? The point is this, that if we want to really do a job on this, and this is our year's priority, we've got to get Chris on and really try and spread the message about basic common sense safety precautions that you can take to reduce your risk of becoming a victim. Using password managers and all that technology that's available will cover all of that. Good, Tom.

[00:07:52] Let's move on to our second item and our third because, as you pointed out to me, really this was an assassination decade. And what we had first was Martin Luther King Jr. But only a few months later, Robert F. Kennedy was also assassinated. So we'll go through the two of them but realise that the issues involved were very much the same. And it's the issues that you and I discuss on here.

[00:08:16] Martin Luther King Jr., Memphis, the death threats beforehand and all the rest of it. What struck me as an issue here, Tom, was that Martin Luther King and all his entourage, you can imagine the amount of people that he had as part of his security, part of his family were with him regularly. And they used this hotel all the time, the Lorraine Hotel.

[00:08:42] The point I was going to make was that routine is the biggest enemy of security, isn't it? Very much. But coming back to the introduction you were saying, I think you've actually got to take a step back and start to look at this. You've got to start with John F. Kennedy in Dallas. And then you've got to talk about Martin Luther King and then RFK because actually, although they were very different crimes and crime types, they are all related.

[00:09:10] Now, Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, what it's about is this tremendous upsurge of civil rights, of discontent, people feeling disenfranchised, of riots. And we're going to talk about a riot later in this as well. It's also against the context of the Vietnam War, which was ongoing. It really was a decade of tremendous turbulence.

[00:09:36] And in that decade were these three very high profile political assassinations, which really changed the world as we knew it. I was a teenager when all these things were happening. I wasn't quite a teenager when John Kennedy was killed. Even I was aware of just this enormous change. There was in the world through these assassinations. But James Earl Ray, in some senses, it was absolutely predictable. Martin Luther King Jr. was going to be there or thereabouts at that hotel. It was a long rifle job.

[00:10:05] So it was planned. It was well rehearsed. There was no question about that. And of course, he confessed. But what intrigues me about it, all these cases, there's always been conspiracy theories about all of them, which indicated that there was a greater conspiracy and that the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, the mafia and Cuba. It's usually they drag old Fidel Castro into it. He was involved in it.

[00:10:35] Many years ago, I read an excellent book by William Manchester. It's called Death of the President. It's about the John Kennedy assassination. And I think he put his finger on it. He says that the enormity of these crimes is such that people are reluctant to accept it was just one man and a gun because the consequences are so large.

[00:10:57] And he says in the very early stages, just minutes after John Kennedy was shot in Dallas, somebody was saying they've killed him. They've killed the president. And it's like Lockerbie and a lot of other of these things we've discussed is they just people can't accept a simple explanation. And of course, it's food and drink and ammunition for the conspiracists who, you know, I think some of them are mentally disturbed, frankly.

[00:11:24] But a lot of them have made a fortune out of all these half-baked theories about the assassination of all these three assassinations. We had it with the Twin Towers, Tom, the same thing, still going on to this day. And the one that always sticks in my mind was Diana Spencer, Lady Diana. And we're still arguing about that today. There's still people convinced that there's always alternatives. The Twin Towers was the cracker, all the stuff that came out after that. It didn't happen at all. It was all a Hollywood.

[00:11:54] I've been in New York. I've seen the whole. It happened. Same with the landing on the moon, Tom. We're still discussing whether that is. Oh, I know, I know. But again, these enormous things that happened, people can't quite accept that. There's always got to be an alternative to it. Let me ask you a question then, Tom. Because if we swing the pendulum too far and say that all these theories, any of these theories are just flat, we must believe the authorities without question.

[00:12:23] Are we saying that our security services, or in particular MI6, are incapable of contriving situations and manipulating things to suit themselves for the greater goodness they would see it? No, absolutely not. We've got to follow the evidence. We've got to be sceptical. But we should follow the evidence. You and your evidence. You and your evidence. I know. I know it's an alien concept to you. I understand that. But really, follow the evidence.

[00:12:51] In the case of John Kennedy, the Warren Commission sat for years and produced an excellent report, which I read during my studies in America. There's no question, the ballistics evidence and everything else. There's no question that Lee Harvey O'Dooghue was responsible for the death of John Kennedy. Now, what factors acted upon him? He was earlier in Russia. What influences were upon him? It's a different matter altogether.

[00:13:21] But in terms of the actual killing, no, I don't think we should blindly accept. We've got to be sceptical. We've got to test. But once we've seen the evidence, then, you know, we should accept it. And of course, in the Luther King case, he was eventually arrested at Heathrow Airport, having travelled to Portugal, trying to get away. But he was captured by the Met. I didn't know that. I had read a lot about Martin Luther King.

[00:13:48] And of course, there was a real concern that the whole of the East Coast and a lot of the South would go up in flames following the King assassination because he had such a personal charisma and a huge following. I didn't know he'd been arrested in London. That was something new to me.

[00:14:06] Tom, one of the things that doesn't help with these conspiracy theories, and that was the Luther King case, was that this high profile mafioser came out with a whole different story about how the King family had been targeted by the mafia for different reasons. The King family, and I didn't know this, but our deep dive team told us that the King family took a civil action against him and won it.

[00:14:34] They won a civil case implying that he had been responsible for the assassination. The civil and criminal thing is something that comes up now and again, but it's always worthwhile reminding our listeners about that level of proof that's required for both scenarios and how a criminal case, you talk about evidence. The standard of evidence and the rules around the evidence in a criminal case are much, much higher. The bar is set much, much higher in a civil case.

[00:15:03] Would you explain that to our listeners? Yeah, of course, in this country, the criminal burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas the civil burden of proof is the balance of probability. So it's a big difference beyond all reasonable doubt because all that a good defence lawyer has got to do is sow a seed of doubt. Yeah. And he can stand up at the end of the trial and say, look, we've got all this evidence. However, there is a seed of doubt.

[00:15:32] And if there is a seed of doubt, then you must find this person not guilty. So there's a big difference. It's maybe one of the dangers of the conspiracy theories, Tom, as it comes to mind now. A feature of the Martin Luther King case was that he was under surveillance. He was him and his family. There was a lot of criminals associated with his movement. There was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, not implying for a minute that he had anything to do with that.

[00:16:00] But that's what you get whenever you get someone who's high profile. There's people trying to make money from it. There's people trying to use that to their advantage. So the FBI were apparently keeping tabs on King, but the files have always been locked away and no one's ever been able to see them. And that kind of feeds the conspiracy theorists, doesn't it? It feeds right into their ballpark and maybe so is that seed of doubt that you're talking about. Well, that's right.

[00:16:27] The recent example of that, of course, is over here with the Southport, terrible Southport murders. Yeah. Where I think more information could have been given out at the time and might have prevented all the misinformation which led to the riots and the public disorder that followed. And you see it all the time on television and news. They say, for legal reasons, so-and-so can't be identified. And I always ask the question, what legal reasons? That's a very convenient term. Yeah.

[00:16:57] Yeah. The funny thing is, or the irony is, of course, that Martin Luther King's influence was on the slides when he was killed. Because, I mean, really, Martin Luther King's influence rode on the back of President Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's successor, the Civil Rights Act. There's no question that Martin Luther King was hugely influential in the Johnson presidency. But, of course, Johnson's presidency finished in 1968, just a few months after Martin Luther King was killed.

[00:17:26] And thereafter, Martin Luther King would not have been as influential as he had been in the Johnson years. So it's interesting. And, of course, he becomes a martyr immediately. Absolutely. His legacy goes on because of that. But, mind you, he was an incredible orator. I mean, if you listen to his I Have a Dream speech, I mean, it's a masterpiece of oratory. Yeah. He really was. Of course, he was a preacher and he was used to that. But he was a very effective communicator.

[00:17:56] Yeah. Even back then, he was outstanding. He really was. And Robert F. Kennedy? That's interesting because you talked about the plan and the predictable movements. And you're absolutely right about that. John Kennedy, President Kennedy in Dallas, and Martin Luther King fall into that category. Their movements were known so somebody could plan to lie in wait.

[00:18:20] With the RFK assassination, it was completely different because, first of all, there was no great security profile around RFK. But secondly, when he was assassinated, he was in the wrong place. He shouldn't have been where he was because he'd taken a shortcut through the kitchen. And Sirhan Sirhan, what's interesting about him, of course, he was a Palestinian. And we're still having big problems over the Palestinian issue as we speak.

[00:18:48] Way back then, Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian. And it was all about the support of Israel by Robert Kennedy that drove him to commit the crimes he did. But again, we come to this, it's the crowded hall. He's got a tiny little pocket pistol, a 2-2 pistol, which is not a guaranteed killing. And he just so happens to confront him when Kennedy's coming through the back door.

[00:19:12] Although these three crimes are linked by time and by the whole mood of the 1960s, they are very different crimes. And Sirhan Sirhan was much more of a cook-up than a conspiracy, if I can put it that way. And he ended up getting life in prison. He escaped the death penalty. Yeah, but he's still in prison. Life has meant life for him. He's still in prison.

[00:19:39] I remember that, perhaps because I was five years older, I remember the Robert Kennedy assassination better. It was quite affecting because it really was the end of a dream. John Kennedy was a young, flamboyant, handsome president, the birth of a new era, post-war, and he faced down Khrushchev over Cuba and all the rest of it. There was an enormous, glamorous aura surrounding John Kennedy. When he was killed, there was just terrible depression.

[00:20:07] But Bobby Kennedy, RFK, was seen as his natural successor, just as handsome, just as articulate. He was seen as the next in line. And there was a tremendous hope around about Bobby Kennedy. And, of course, when he also was killed, I remember there was a huge depression because it was the day when hope and youth died when Bobby Kennedy was killed. I remember that quite distinctly. There was a real mood around it. This was a dreadful thing.

[00:20:37] A real sadness. Yes, it was the death of a dream. Any idea why he had no detail around him, why he had no secret service around him at all? Because he was only a candidate. He had won two big primaries, but he probably just didn't qualify. He didn't have any personal protection around about him. Although why that was the case, I don't know. He's a very rich man. Having had his brother killed a few years before, I find it odd. But maybe he was just like that. But obviously, the whole thing got out of hand.

[00:21:07] The crowd was much bigger than he thought. He couldn't go down the main staircase, so he had to go through the kitchens. And so I dare say, Simon, that many people thereafter recalculated the whole thing about personal security. And now, if you notice, and you will notice because you were in the game yourself, you see various people going about it, whether they be VIPs, businessmen, and certainly politicians. If they're high profile at all, there's one or two people walking with them.

[00:21:36] It may not be a full security phalanx like the President of the States or the Prime Minister, but there's a security detail there. It's a game of mine, Tom, spotting them, even for rock stars and whatnot. I can't help but spot them because that's what you're trained to do. It's interesting what you were saying about the effect it had on the American public and the worldwide public, for that matter. Yeah.

[00:22:01] But there was two million people who watched the procession to the Arlington Cemetery, where he was laid to rest. So it really was quite profound. It's back to that. You'll always remember where you were. Let's have a wee break there for an advert, Tom. The drink you were talking about in Raffles was the Singapore sling, of course. That's the one. That's the one, yes. That's the one. Good, Tom. We'll move on from assassination. I think that was very interesting what our deep dive team dug out there.

[00:22:29] And it's interesting that they brought them both out in the same week together because they obviously realised the links that were there that you've nicely brought about. We'll move on to our fourth case this week, which was Ennis Stewart. And it was given as a suicide in a London car park. Scottish interest, of course, because he's from Inverness. They had a job in Munich all set for life. Great job, ready to start work over there when he was found dead in this car park. Did you buy the suicide thing for a minute, Tom?

[00:22:58] No, I didn't fancy the suicide story at all. There was a whole lot of things wrong with that. But there's pieces missing from this story. There was a lot of very strange behaviour. A lot of the things he did, he emptied the bank account. He cleans his computer. He establishes a false legend. There's something very funny going on there. As cynical as I am, I wondered when he was found dead, his phone, his watch and his cash were missing.

[00:23:28] I would have been taking a long, hard look at the first people on the scene just to make sure that there was no one. Now, call me cynical if you like. But there was a lot missing. And look, no disfavour to the deep dive team. I think they did all they could with what they had. But there's a whole lot of questions.

[00:23:49] And as you know, when I left the police service, I did a number of cold case reviews and cold case examinations in the north of England. When I was reading this and listening to the deep divers, I thought, gosh, I'd like to get my hands on that one. I would like to have done a cold case review on this because there's much more missing from this story. Yeah. And the deep dive team came up against that wall, didn't it? And we don't know why it's missing. For me, I had a hint of security services about it.

[00:24:17] But as you say, you have to start at the beginning. And it would be the guys that attended, the first responders that were there in the first instance. You would need to clarify just what went on. And did they not say there was video footage missing? There was CCTV video footage missing. That does not make me as suspicious as it might do because you and I both know that CCTV, particularly back then, I mean, you're talking about 2001. It was nothing like as good. It was not digitized. It was nothing like as good as yesterday.

[00:24:47] A lot of tapes, they're over-recorded. And some of the tapes are of such poor quality that you couldn't decipher what was in them. But coming back to your security services thing, the only problem I have with that idea is that he gave himself away and so often emptying the bank account. All of that stuff, that strange behavior. And, you know, in terms of the security service, if they're running anything, everything's got to appear absolutely normal. That's the point. It's got to appear absolutely normal. So I don't know.

[00:25:17] And I wouldn't want, if somebody said to me, what's your theory about this case? I wouldn't be prepared to say because I think there's so many pieces of that jigsaw that are missing. It's a shame for each family and whatnot, isn't it? That you never get any closure or something like that. It's a dreadful thing. It's a terrible thing. There could have been blackmail involved. It could have been a woman. Maybe it was gay or whatever. Yeah, I suspected it was something to do with personal behavior. And maybe he'd come across to meet someone, some sort of assignation.

[00:25:46] He'd carried out a sort of a basic anti-surveillance exercise before. So there was always something. Maybe he'd been duped into some liaison. And then the person had simply robbed him or killed him for some other reason. But I didn't buy the suicide thing. Not at all. There's much easier ways of doing it than that. That's for sure. We're not going to be running any courses here.

[00:26:12] Tom, before we go into our next case, number five, I just wanted to ask you a question. And it's not out of the quiz book or anything. It's just something that I've learned recently. We're talking about the digital problems that people have got, online presence, fraudsters, scammers, all the rest of it. And what we're going to come on to in our sixth case this week is the criminal fraternity and organized crime using the Internet in those ways and communication, phones, etc.

[00:26:41] We'll come on to that in a minute. What I wanted to say to you was I became aware of a scheme, a global scheme by law enforcement, no less than Interpol, who are pulling together resources from all over the world. Law enforcement, commercial and local authorities all over the world are helping set this up.

[00:27:06] It's based in one building where a thousand people work and their sole job is to defeat the scammers and fraudsters that are out there using the Internet. And do you know where it's based? No, where? It's the third question in a row that you've got wrong. When is your birthday, Tom? You need a new book. That's because these are what's termed as closed questions, Simon. And you know and I know. Why don't you give me some options? Closed questions. What is it? Glasgow, is it? Is it based in Glasgow?

[00:27:34] The only reason I know it is because we passed it yesterday here in Singapore. Oh, it's based in Singapore. Wow. Which you can imagine is a hub. You know, it's a trading hub, a financial hub. It's the perfect place to have it. Absolutely. Good to know that they're taking things seriously. And it's a global resource that's financed. The Americans are in on it and all the rest of it. So it's well financed. A bespoke building. We're fighting back, hopefully. Good to know. Good, Tom.

[00:28:00] Our first case was the Watts Rebellion in Los Angeles, 1965. A wee bit early for me and you, actually, around the August. But we're well aware of incidents like this. And you will be too, because it's a big part of policing over there, is that racial tension that exists in a lot of communities. None more so than Los Angeles itself. Yeah, I think what interested me about this is, I have always known about this incident as the Watts Riots.

[00:28:30] Now, when does a riot become in a rebellion? A rebellion has a different tone to it. A rebellion suggests that it's people rebelling against a state or something like that, like the Jacobite Rebellion and the Slave Rebellion in Haiti. I don't think this was a rebellion. It was a riot. But it's what it was. And there were many other riots, but the Watts Riots was probably the daddy of them all. It was the first in a long series.

[00:29:00] We're talking about that decade again, the 1960s, which we spoke about earlier with the assassinations. The Vietnam War, racial tensions, the civil rights movement, all bubbling away. Prohibition, yeah. Yeah, that's right. All of that was coming on stream. But it was a riot because one of the principal things that happened was looting. It was the looting and burning away. It was crime, Simon. That's what it was.

[00:29:26] And I would take issue, and I don't take issue often with our deep divers, but to call it a rebellion, it was a riot. It was a good old-fashioned riot. And by goodness, it was a big one. 34 dead. Huge areas of the city burnt out and destroyed. A thousand fires, apparently. A thousand buildings set on fire. And we've seen it over and over again, Tom. You're absolutely right. We've seen it with violence here in the UK as well. Misinformation is key to it.

[00:29:56] You get one incident, an arrest, and misinformation about somebody being hurt, a pregnant woman being injured or whatever it is, now ten times worse, a million times worse because of social media. That can trigger unrest. Immediately, 99% of the people involved are just Neds, as you and I would know them. They're taking total advantage of a situation to be mob-handed, start smashing windows, stealing stuff out of shops,

[00:30:24] and in this case, setting buildings on fire within their own communities. That's right. If you look at what happened in Southport last summer in our own country, there's a trigger incident, there's a flash, there's misinformation, and then people pile in for their own agendas for either to create disorder or for robbery and for theft. And the same happened at Watts.

[00:30:50] It was also about a very bad relationship with the police service and a distrust that nobody could communicate. This comes back to what we've been talking about, the necessity of a robust community policing model. Community cops can spot these things as they bubble up, de-escalate them before they reach flashpoints. By the time you get the riots going, helicopters and water cannon, you've actually lost. You've actually lost the game.

[00:31:18] It's all about that communication on the ground, isn't it? Yeah. And being part of the communities that we police. I thought it was interesting here as well, and I know you've got strong views on this, it's worth reiterating because it's come up in previous episodes of Crime Time Inc. about crowd control and rioting, was that the National Guard, the military, were brought in very quickly here to try and put a lid on it. That's right, and that's the thing we wouldn't do. It's called military aid to civil authority, and it's a last resort,

[00:31:48] and we have not called for it for a public order situation in the UK, not since the general strike of 1926, when the army were out on the streets. The only time we've ever brought MACA, they call it. Now, this is not MACA as in your MACA. This is MACA with one C, military aid to civil authority, was during the floods. I should explain the MACA line. Yes. I think anybody who's listening to Crime Time Inc.,

[00:32:17] Simon, will know what we're talking about. Oh, I don't know about that. Interestingly, interestingly, I know, I tell you, I learned something last night. I'll tell you about before we leave. It's an interesting Paul McCartney connection. So, anyway. But, no, I mean, they had to because the city was burning and they had to re-establish some sort of civil order. And that's what the National Guard in America are there for. They were called out. But calling out the National Guard, sometimes it's led to trouble.

[00:32:45] There was a dreadful problem on that campus where all these people were shot, remember, during the anti-Vietnam area. Yeah, but the Watts riots, not rebellion, Simon. It was the team that called it, that wasn't? The rebellion. I wondered whether that had come into general usage. Yeah. I wondered whether it would be one of these things that had crept in, a retitlement, as it were. It makes it sound much more compelling, much more official, much more organised, doesn't it? A rebellion.

[00:33:14] We're rising up in a rebellion. A lot of nonsense, actually. It sounds noble. Yes, that's the one. That's what it sounds, Simon. It sounds noble, which it wasn't. So our last episode yesterday of Crime Time Inc. with our deep dive team, are you going to tell me the Paul McCartney connection before we go on to the last? My favourite artist probably is James Taylor. And I only found out yesterday, when I was watching an old programme on television,

[00:33:41] actually it was Paul McCartney who very much promoted the career of James Taylor. He recognised him and promoted him and advanced his musical career back in the late 60s. Paul McCartney. That's interesting because he's promoting my career now as an author and podcaster. He doesn't know anything about it, that's the only thing. That's right, and I can only hope that you're half as successful as James Taylor. So our last case this week, and it's gone full circle for us,

[00:34:10] was the theme for this week, if you like, was our deep dive team. They had a look at IncroChat, which as we know was the criminal network, the organised crime and any Tom, Dick or Harry. Not really any Tom, Dick or Harry because it was quite expensive to get in. They had to buy a contract to get in for about £1,500 or something. There was no SIM card involved, who knows how it worked. But we managed to crack it. The security services and police managed to crack it using the Investigatory Powers Act.

[00:34:40] And it opened up a whole tin of worms, didn't it? It solved a lot of problems, a lot of crimes, a lot of drugs were seized. But it also opened up a whole lot of national security, procedural problems, law problems for us about... There were legal issues. Yes, it's interesting because for me, IncroChat was a glimpse into the future and into the dark web. And a couple of weeks ago, I wrote a piece about the Pellico case.

[00:35:09] This is the rape of Madame Pellico in France, where 0.50 odd men made contact through the dark web through a site called Coco. It was the equivalent of IncroChat. Somebody said it was 75% sex and 25% drugs, but there was murder as well and all the rest of it on the site. It was the Coco site which drew the offenders in the Pellico case together.

[00:35:35] It made me wonder, when you're looking at the Pellico case and IncroChat, just how many more of these sites are out there. It comes back to your point about this huge establishment in Singapore and the absolute importance of law enforcement to stay ahead of this. In my article in The Scotsman, I said that the new world of social media can either be a wonderful servant or a very cruel master,

[00:36:03] and it's really up to us to decide which it is. And I thought the IncroChat and the Coco examples were very good. The truth of the matter is, that's just the tip of the iceberg, and there may be hundreds more of these. I'm glad your building in Singapore is up and running. There you know why I'm here. Not an expensive thing. So it's interesting that any advancements in technology, and let's face it, in the world of medicine, communications, everything that we look at, we're moving ahead so quickly.

[00:36:33] But there's always those amongst us who are looking to use it to subvert everything and steal and commit fraud and cut corners, isn't there? Absolutely. And there always will be. But coming back to IncroChat, the Deep Dive team did a super job and they were talking about all the legal problems. I remember an old boss of me, and he used to say about all the legal difficulties of solving crime. He said, it's terrible. We're like a one-legged man in a bum-kicking contest. Have you ever come up with that? I don't know, but that's what he said.

[00:37:02] And it paints a picture, doesn't it? It really does. So much so that I think we've just got the title for this week's episode. Tom, that's fascinating. Brilliant. We went full circle there. And I suppose that's the last to leave it on, as we'll come back to it again in Crime Climbing. There's no question we've touched on it before. This balance that we're always trying to strike in so many different ways.

[00:37:29] And here we have one, the invasion of people's rights, people's privacy, and the necessity to do that in order to keep up the criminal fraternity. Always a balance. Tom, fascinating as ever. I'll look forward to speaking. I'll be in Malaysia the next time I speak to you. I'll be in Nkawi, an island just off the coast of Malaysia. So hopefully we get the Wi-Fi working over there. Well, listen, I just say, when you're there, watch out.

[00:37:56] You're coming into the area, watch out for these ladyboys, Simon, because everything is not as it seems, OK? And just to say to you, watch the lifestyle, because people are watching, OK? People are watching. There's probably a wee file with your name on it in that big building in Singapore. You didn't see it, but there's a camera watching you. There he is. A wee file. Ostentatious lifestyle, Simon MacLean. The ladyboys.

[00:38:25] Is that an Edinburgh thing, is it? What, ladyboys? Yeah. Yeah. You'll soon, if you're in that neck of the woods, you'll soon meet the ladyboys. Just be very careful. That's all I'm saying. Why do you think I'm going there? Tom, speak soon. All the best. Safe journey. Bye-bye. Tom, I think these daily episodes are a game-changer for us.

[00:38:55] I'm really enjoying it. They are, Simon, and there's a lot more to come. Looking forward to it. Tune in tomorrow for another exciting True Crime episode.