69 South
Podcast 69 South is about mystery, true crime, attempting to find the truth in a world full of chaos. We dig deep in to current and past true crime incidents. Reporting what we find to our listeners. We want to become your reliable source for all things relevant, while we live in a society that is truly lost.
69 South
Brian and Sonja Stafford Probable Cause Affidavit:Justice for the Forgotten Children Part 1
What happens when those meant to protect become the perpetrators? Join us on Podcast 69 South as we uncover the chilling case of Brian and Sonia Stafford, accused of a staggering array of crimes against 33 children over 13 years. Detective Patrick Williams and the state's attorney bring their crucial insights to the table, revealing a shocking punishment system and the relentless pursuit of justice by law enforcement. As we navigate the disturbing 100-page probable cause affidavit, the need for justice becomes more pressing than ever.
The horrors experienced by vulnerable children in the Stafford household are laid bare through personal accounts from victims identified as X and L, as we scrutinize the role of the Oregon Department of Human Services in placing them there. These harrowing stories, corroborated by detailed records, paint a grim picture of the psychological and physical abuse endured, including Sonia Stafford's disturbing control tactics and punishment systems. The episode also sheds light on the oppressive environment created within the home, affecting children's mental health and driving some to the brink of institutionalization.
Our investigation extends into the broader context of the Staffords’ fostering and adopting practices across state lines, revealing financial manipulation and a deeply troubling home environment. The narrative encompasses the involvement of child services and law enforcement, detailing the interventions that led to the removal of children from this toxic household. As we recount these stories, we also acknowledge the emotional toll this investigation takes on us, offering a commitment to continue unveiling the truth and seeking justice for the victims, while promising more updates in the near future.
Send Us a Text- We can only reply on our Facebook Page if you would like to DM
Disclaimer: All defendants are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. All facts are alleged until a conviction!
69 South 69 South 69 South. 69 South 69 South.
Speaker 2:Welcome everyone to Podcast 69 South, where we discuss and discuss true crime, cold cases, current events and hot topics, along with our state of society today. This is your trigger warning. Our podcast content is produced for adult listeners, 18 years of age and older. We discuss situations that may be offensive and triggering to some listeners. Sit back, relax and enjoy. Welcome everybody to 69 South. I hope you had a good time since the last time we have so much to get to today. With me always is my beautiful and sweet co-host, julie. How are you doing today, girl?
Speaker 2:I'm good is my beautiful and sweet co-host, Julie. How are you doing today, girl? I'm good. So if you guys have been following our Facebook, you guys have already known that we were the only podcast. We were the only anybody, basically, except for a couple of TV stations at the press conference releasing the probable cause affidavit. That was for the Stafford case.
Speaker 1:And what they did is this is a transcript of pretty much, I guess, the grand jury hearing where they got an arrest warrant on these charges, and so that is what this is, and we're going to read it.
Speaker 2:Basically, we're going to do this like a script. Julie is going to play the county.
Speaker 1:State's attorney.
Speaker 2:The state's attorney and I'm going to play the detective Patrick Williams, which I got to say up there on that press conference man. He looked a little bit nervous but that poor detective has worked tirelessly. I could tell you on this case man, 33 victims. He admitted Stephen Sonega. They both admitted that this was more victims than they'd ever seen in any case in Morgan County.
Speaker 1:One of the worst cases that they've ever seen.
Speaker 2:So, without any delay, we're going to start this transcript and, once again, I'm going to play the detective, julie's going to play the state's attorney.
Speaker 1:Detective Williams, can you please state your first and last name for the record?
Speaker 2:Patrick Williams.
Speaker 1:And how are you employed?
Speaker 2:I'm a detective sergeant with the Morgan County Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 1:How long have you been in that capacity?
Speaker 2:I was formally promoted to detective in February of last year, so, just you know, under a year.
Speaker 1:And prior to being a detective, what was your role with the Sheriff's Department?
Speaker 2:I was a corporal assigned to investigations, where my primary duties were as the crime scene investigator for the Sheriff's Department.
Speaker 1:And so you were assigned to work an investigation involving two individuals named Brian and Sonia Stafford.
Speaker 3:Yes, I was.
Speaker 1:What were the allegations at the beginning of this case, when you were assigned to it?
Speaker 2:The initial allegations that were reported to deputies the night prior were neglect allegations, physical abuse, and then it was later in to their initial investigation the night prior that there were allegations of sexual allegations to include child molest and things of that nature.
Speaker 1:And to give the court a little bit of context, you've been dealing with this investigation for about six months now. Close to that. Is that correct?
Speaker 3:Yes, it is.
Speaker 1:And this has been a wide-reaching investigation that throughout the time you have been working the case, you've learned that there were a total of 33 children in the Stafford home over 13 years. Is that correct?
Speaker 3:That's correct.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so we're here today seeking arrest warrants for both Brian and Sonia Stafford, with a variety of different counts, probably close to maybe 50 for each of them. Is that correct?
Speaker 3:Yes, it is.
Speaker 1:Okay, and we're not trying to throw the book at them, but we're just trying to do justice for the harm that they've caused over the years to all of these kids.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so, since there are so many kids that were in the house and we're talking about an investigation that spanned over a decade, did you prepare a probable cause affidavit in this case?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:How long is this probable cause affidavit?
Speaker 2:It's a hundred pages.
Speaker 1:And so, throughout your testimony today, it's going to be necessary, due to the scope and complexity of our investigation, to refer you, to refer to your probable cause affidavit. Yes or that have came up during your investigation. Were there times that you found multiple children were consistent about certain things that were in the Stafford home that the court is going to hear about repeatedly today?
Speaker 2:Yes, we had similar disclosures about different types of allegations between the children that were in the home.
Speaker 1:Okay, and what were some of the things that were pretty consistent throughout all of the kids?
Speaker 2:Some of the things that were consistent. A lot of the girls would talk about sexual abuse that they were victimized through from Brian, and then they also talked about physical abuse that they as well mental abuse they sustained at the hands of Sonia.
Speaker 1:Did many of the kids talk about like a punishment structure of sorts that Sonia had put into place.
Speaker 2:They did. They talked about what was called, as they had beads or buttons, like in a button box. Each child had their own designated color associated with them. If they earned buttons, they received a variety of different types of discipline, whether it was physical discipline, getting spankings they were. Also. They had to run laps around the property. They were withheld food, at times punished by having to go to their room at early hours of the night and spend the whole night in their room. There was also times that the girls talked about having to write out sentences as part of their punishments. As far as those sentences go, the sentences were based off how old they were. So, for example, if one of the children was 13, they would have to find a Bible verse that was 13 words long and then, depending on the punishment, they got a variety or a range of how many sentences they would have to write.
Speaker 1:And throughout the 13,. I suppose the 11 named victims did all of those kids in one way or another. Talk about the button box or the beads that you just mentioned.
Speaker 3:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:And so, I guess, providing some background for the court. Did you learn that some information about the Staffords and the property they owned at 56 Herbymont Road?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:Okay, and can you tell the court a little bit about that property that you learned during your investigation?
Speaker 2:So the Staffords have owned that property, or did own that property, I should say, from 1996 until October of 2024 when they sold it. The property itself is about 23 acres. Initially, when they purchased the property, there was a few structures on the property which some of the kids ranging from when they were first placed there they kind of discussed. They had the main residence, then they had a small like outbuilding or barn. As the years went by the other kids that came to the home kind of talked about how the farm or the residence expanded. So this property got six or seven larger buildings. There's a chicken coop, there's different varieties of barns on the property itself.
Speaker 1:And in addition to learning about the property that the Staffords owned for a substantial amount of time, did you also learn that they had biological children of their own?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:How many did the Staffords have?
Speaker 2:They had three.
Speaker 1:And what were their names?
Speaker 2:There was Cody Stafford, kelsey Stafford and Matthew Stafford.
Speaker 1:And are all of the children currently alive?
Speaker 2:No, just Matthew and Kelsey are alive.
Speaker 1:What happened to Cody?
Speaker 2:In 2004, Cody committed suicide.
Speaker 1:And I know that throughout your investigation there was some information that you learned about where Cody committed suicide. Can you inform the court about the circumstances surrounding the suicide?
Speaker 2:I can. I was told in different interviews that Cody committed suicide at the foot of Brian and Sonia's bed in their bedroom.
Speaker 1:And throughout your investigation did Cody's suicide come up a couple of times when you talked to different witnesses?
Speaker 2:It did In several interviews discussing Cody's suicide. There was concern that Cody might have been led to actually committing suicide due to the treatment he was receiving in the home.
Speaker 1:And what sort of treatment did you learn that he was receiving?
Speaker 2:Well, during the interviews people had expressed that he was treated differently. Some had talked about how he had a learning disability and because of that disability he wasn't treated as good as the other kids. The parents, as well as the biological kids, would make fun of him if he couldn't complete tasks or just overall. He was just treated much poorly than the other kids were.
Speaker 1:After Cody's suicide did Brian and Sonia become licensed foster parents?
Speaker 3:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:And do you know when they became licensed?
Speaker 2:It was 2008.
Speaker 1:So between 2008 and 2024, how many children were placed in the Stafford home?
Speaker 2:There was a total of 33 children, 32 of which either came through foster or and or adoption, and then there was a foreign exchange student that came into their home.
Speaker 1:Were any of these children that were placed in their home between this time period adopted?
Speaker 2:Yes, there was 11 children that were actually adopted.
Speaker 1:And did you, during your investigation, learn that the Staffords were receiving money from the state that they were adopting these children from?
Speaker 2:Absolutely I did.
Speaker 1:When was the first group of kids placed with the Staffords 2009. And how many kids were in that first group of kids placed with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:2009.
Speaker 1:And how many kids were in that first group.
Speaker 2:There was a total of four in the first group.
Speaker 1:And where did that group of kids originate from?
Speaker 2:Oregon.
Speaker 1:Did you learn that throughout your investigation, the names and ages of some of those kids?
Speaker 3:I did.
Speaker 1:And who were the kids placed from Oregon did and who were the kids placed from Oregon.
Speaker 2:Now to our listeners. We got the raw PCA, but we're going to only use first letters of these victims. Most of these victims are adults now and their names were listed in the PCA, but we don't feel comfortable with leasing them. So we're going to go ahead and go on, but we just want to explain that part right there. So we're going back to the answer. There was X and L and there was two younger children that weren't able to be identified. The name is A and C.
Speaker 1:And what were the approximate ages of A and C when they were placed with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:They were younger infant age when they were in the home.
Speaker 1:And so now they would probably be adult age. Would that be correct or close to that?
Speaker 2:That's correct.
Speaker 1:Because of their age, when they lived with the Staffords they were not capable of providing interviews.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Okay. Did you end up interviewing L and X at some point during your investigation?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:Okay, so prior to interviewing L and X, I guess let's kind of back up Did you learn that the kids were placed from Oregon, that they were placed through the Oregon Department of Human Services, or that they were involved in their placement?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:And, as a part of the investigation, have we received records related to those kids from the Oregon Department of Human Services?
Speaker 3:Yes, we have.
Speaker 1:And in your review of notes from those records, were there things about Sonia's treatment of any of the kids that stood out to you that was concerning or relevant for your investigation?
Speaker 2:Yes, there was.
Speaker 1:And what were those things?
Speaker 2:There were some notes that were a little concerning. Sonia had gotten upset. She was essentially in my looking at them, was trying to get more money out of Oregon. There was activities such as that. She went hoping to get more money from Oregon, had essentially told her that she was not going to receive additional money if she was going to do specific activities with the kids. They had a set amount that they were going to receive and Sonia got upset. She made comments about how it was crazy and she wanted to submit far and above what's reasonable so she can get as much money as she can.
Speaker 1:What else did you find in your review of those notes about any treatment of specifically X that was concerning?
Speaker 2:There was very concerning notes with X where there was a mention of alarms being put on bedroom doors. There was also concerns that Sonia was locking X in his bedroom for an unreasonable amount of time. There was one specific note that Sonia had made a comment about him being in his room for 10 hours. She didn't think that it was going to essentially fix the issue that they were having. There were also notes about how X only had six more hours to do and eventually there was an overall concern about his mental health. He later disclosed to a teacher I'm sorry, the principal at the school that he was attending that he was wanting to harm himself.
Speaker 1:Was there also a note from your review that Sonia had taken X's pillow and mattress away from him for a week as punishment?
Speaker 3:Yes, there was.
Speaker 1:And so you had mentioned that there was a situation where X wrote a note saying he wanted to harm himself. What was the end result of that note and essentially, sonia's treatment of X with the children from Oregon.
Speaker 2:X was eventually, or shortly after the disclosure of the note, he was admitted to Meadows for treatment, now pausing right there for a second. Meadows is a mental institution near Bloomington, indiana. It's the bigger town around the neck of the woods we live in. The kids after shortly after, were removed when X was released and Sonia made comments about how the other three children were going to suffer because of the psycho kid.
Speaker 1:Is there any documentation about her reaction specifically? I know you said that she made a comment about the other children suffering, but was there any reaction that they had documented when she was told it was basically a failed adoption?
Speaker 2:that they had documented when she was told it was basically a failed adoption. Yes, there was notes that she initially reacted, that she was calm and then became very upset and hysterical and then gained again, made the comment about how the three children were going to suffer and quoted as X being the psycho child.
Speaker 1:We've talked about X and notes that were included from Oregon DHS, but were there any mentions about anything involving L that would eventually become relevant in your investigation?
Speaker 2:Yes, so L had talked about the chore charge, which we learned through multiple interviews with other children, is something that had been going on there.
Speaker 1:And so I asked you earlier if at some point you were able to interview Elle and X. Did that happen in your investigation?
Speaker 2:Yes, it did.
Speaker 1:And when you interviewed Elle, did she corroborate some of what was provided in the notes from Oregon DHS?
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:What did she specifically corroborate that you were able to observe in the notes?
Speaker 2:She had also talked about the chore chart. She talked about the treatment of X and she wasn't sure initially. She wasn't sure if the reason that they were all removed was because of X. She had a gut feeling X had disclosed something or something had happened, feeling X had disclosed something or something had happened. She did talk about X's treatment, how it was different and that she was overall concerned about his well-being. She had said something happened to X while they were there but she wasn't sure what.
Speaker 1:When you were interviewing Elle, did she also give you a description of what the property had looked like when she or her siblings were out there in 2009-2010 time period?
Speaker 2:She did. She said that when they were placed in the home there was just the main residence. There was a barn and a chicken coop on the property.
Speaker 1:Did Elle tell you about alarms being on the door and being sent to her room basically day and night when she was with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:She did. She talked about the alarms and how, if they were to open up the doors after they had been sent to the room, the alarms would go off in the house, and she had talked about in the evening, about 6 pm, how they would have to go to the rooms for the night and didn't come out until the following morning.
Speaker 1:Did she mention anything about what the food situation was like living with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:She did. She talked about how they were only allowed to eat healthy food. They didn't get snacks and they were only allowed to eat when Sonia would let them eat.
Speaker 1:Did she mention about locks being on the pantry in the kitchen?
Speaker 2:She did. She talked about there being locks on the door, on the pantry, so they couldn't access any of the food in there.
Speaker 1:Did Elle tell you anything about an adoption website that Sonia had showed her while Elle was living with them?
Speaker 2:She did. There was one particular instance that I had discussed. She said that Sonia had called her into her room, that she was in being Sonia. Sonia was on her computer on a website. She told Elle that this is where she looks for kids, referring to it as shopping for kids.
Speaker 1:Wow. That's fucked up, and so you've talked about Elle describing the treatment that X received. Was there anything else that she had? She did mention one incident.
Speaker 2:She talked about X having issues with going to the bathroom at night. She talked about how Sonia would give him laxatives in ice cream. She said there was one additional incident where she did this and put more laxatives in the ice cream than normal. Sonia apparently made some kind of comment about it, but she couldn't articulate what it was, and it would cause X, since he was locked in his bedroom, to have essentially accidents all through the night because he couldn't get out to use the restroom. He couldn't get out to use the restroom.
Speaker 1:Did you learn anything about whether X was provided with like a pull-up or a training potty or anything when he was locked in his room?
Speaker 2:I did. He was given essentially a bottle and he, during his interview, referred to it as a piss bottle. He was given an option to wear a diaper or have described like a porta potty, like for a small child in the bedroom with him.
Speaker 1:And so I'm kind of jumping ahead. But after you interviewed L, then did you also interview X?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:OK, and how was the interview conducted?
Speaker 2:Well, with X it was done on audio, an audio recording. I myself and Detective Shane Norris had actually went to Oregon to do the interviews. Unfortunately, due to X's work schedule, we had some scheduling conflicts so prior to us having to leave to come back to Indiana, I was able to get him on the phone and do an interview with him prior to leaving.
Speaker 1:And during his interview did he corroborate what you had learned from Elle, as well as what you had learned from records from the Oregon DHS.
Speaker 3:Yes, he did.
Speaker 1:Was there anything else about his interview that stood out to you or that was relevant for your investigation that we haven't talked about?
Speaker 2:There sure was. He had mentioned some physical punishments that he received. He referred to a four-inch thick paddle and he referred to it as the overboard, and then we would learn more about the paddles as we were interviewed the other kids throughout the years that were in the home- so the Oregon group of children was eventually removed, and what was the year that they were removed from the home? They were removed in 2010.
Speaker 1:Were there any children placed after the first group of kids were removed?
Speaker 2:Yes, there was Okay folks, man, me and Julie have to take a little bit of a break from reading this probable cause affidavit, because we're both up in our feelings, up in this shit. Man, this is weird. So until this probable cause affidavit, which I want to mention we pretty much got the first one that was printed at the press conference we wasn't aware that there were four children from Oregon and were removed from Oregon DHS in 2010.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Oregon came to Indiana and got those kids back and took them back out there.
Speaker 2:Took them and to kind of summarize what happened is Sonia was calling DCS, I call it DCS, but it's DHS in Oregon. Y'all know what the fuck I'm talking about. She wanted more money, more money, more money. She was abusing the shit out of these kids at that point in this story.
Speaker 1:Locking them in their bedrooms.
Speaker 2:Alarms on the bedrooms, giving them a water bottle to piss in, and you know the shit about putting laxatives in the ice cream and then locking the little boy up in the room and then the poor little boy probably shitting all over himself in his room and they're probably punishing him For doing that. For not being able to hold his poop man.
Speaker 1:That's pure evil. Pure evil, phew.
Speaker 2:That's got me breathing a little bit. Funny folks, we want to get through this PCA with y'all man.
Speaker 1:It's horrible.
Speaker 2:It's a lot. It's a lot and I'll tell you what. We're going to bite our lip, but we're going to get through it a little bit more. But I do want you guys to realize that there were four children removed in 2010. And, as you're going to see when we start back up in the PCA, there were more children added in just less than a year later. So right back into the PCA.
Speaker 1:the next question was and what was the next group of children?
Speaker 2:The next group came from Indiana. They were in the home in 2011, which there was victim 3, victim 10, victim 11, and victim one.
Speaker 1:And do you know the ages of each of those kids when they were placed with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:Victim three was approximately two when she came to the home. Victim 10 was eight. Victim 11 was about six or seven, and then victim one was around seven or eight when they were in the home.
Speaker 1:And so far, after the Indiana group was placed and adopted with the Staffords, what was the next group that was placed with them and adopted?
Speaker 2:There was a group of five that came from Florida which was victim seven, victim six, victim five and victim eight. I'm sorry there was four that came in that group. I apologize from Florida and folks, we can't get mad at him for tripping because there is 33 victims here and this detective is trying to keep his composure.
Speaker 1:Next question Did this group of siblings have two additional siblings, I believe C and C, that were older?
Speaker 2:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:Okay, and where they, those two were not adopted by the Staffords. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:That is correct. They returned back to Florida. Fyi 69 South learned through an interview that we have had with one of the victims that the older two victims that they're talking about in the PCA right now. They showed up and they were 17, 18 years old. They saw the situation that was going on and they was like F this they split back to Florida because they were old enough to make a choice. Back to the PCA question.
Speaker 1:And can you give the court approximate ages for victim seven, victim six and victim eight when they were adopted?
Speaker 2:Victim seven was 13. Victim six was 11. Victim five was nine. Victim eight was about seven years old.
Speaker 1:And after this group of Florida children was adopted, what was the next group that the Staffords had placed in their home?
Speaker 2:Actually, there was another group that came from Florida. They were Victim 9, Victim 2, and Victim 4. Also, there was an older sister named Em that came from Florida as well.
Speaker 1:Were all four of those kids from Florida adopted.
Speaker 2:They were not.
Speaker 1:And I don't know if I asked, but when were they placed?
Speaker 2:2015.
Speaker 1:And they weren't all adopted. I guess how many of them were and which ones.
Speaker 2:There were three, Victim nine, victim two and victim four. They were adopted.
Speaker 1:And so Em was not part of the group that got adopted.
Speaker 2:She was not.
Speaker 1:And we talked about Victim 9. Is Victim 9's name different now?
Speaker 2:Yes, At some point Victim 9 had his name changed to Victim 9. So he is now legally as Victim 9. And we just want to point out that those are redacted as victim nine. And we just want to point out that those are redacted.
Speaker 1:So victim nine is, victim nine Is victim nine Is victim nine.
Speaker 2:Their name is not really victim nine. They're all three redacted, so that's what it is.
Speaker 1:Next question Okay, so we've talked briefly about and Florida for all of the groups of children that were placed in their home.
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:And we have our investigator, Brett Bays, who is going to talk more about the financials. But did you learn that some of these children, specifically from Florida, were covered by Medicaid when they were placed with the Staffords?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:Did you learn about any agreements that the Staffords had made by accepting this money from either Florida or Indiana?
Speaker 2:Yes, it was supposed to be used for the care of the children in the home.
Speaker 1:And so for care of the children, did that mean they agreed to clothe and feed them while they had the children in their care?
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:And so after the last group of kids were placed from Florida, did the Staffords foster any additional children that ended up becoming important in your investigation?
Speaker 2:Unfortunately they did.
Speaker 1:And when did that take place?
Speaker 2:That was arranged well. There was a group of three boys that were actually in the home at two different occasions. The most recent was 2023.
Speaker 1:And what were the approximate ages of these three boys?
Speaker 2:There was a minor child, which we're going to call minor child one. He was about 10 the last time he was in the home. He also had a brother. We're going to call minor child two, which is a minor as well, and Minor Child 3, which is Minor Child 3. They were both infant-aged children. I'm not sure of the exact age of them. They were ultimately interviewed or talked to due to their age in the case.
Speaker 1:But Minor Child 1 is a child that would have been at an age that could have been interviewed.
Speaker 3:Yes, he was.
Speaker 1:And was he interviewed? And you'll talk about that later in your testimony.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so you said that they were placed with the Staffords a few times. Were they ever formally adopted by the Staffords?
Speaker 2:No, they were not.
Speaker 1:Did you receive some documentation or review some documentation or notes from the Indiana Department of Child Services regarding placement of the minor children with Sonia and Brian Stafford?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:And was one of those documents that you were able to review, a document entitled Entitled Resource Parent Role Acknowledgement.
Speaker 3:Yes, it was.
Speaker 1:And was that a document that was signed by Sonia Stafford?
Speaker 2:Yes, it was.
Speaker 1:And when did she sign that?
Speaker 2:June 23, 2023.
Speaker 1:Does that document contain a list of punishments that foster parents are explicitly told not to use on the children that are in their care?
Speaker 3:Yes it does.
Speaker 1:And can you tell the court what's included on that list?
Speaker 2:Well, it talks about corporal punishment, to include spanking, physical exercise, running or push-ups, you know things of that nature. Having proper health care, food, bedding, no types of shaking, no mechanical restraints and having any placement in the type of a locked room.
Speaker 1:And during the course of your investigation did you learn that Sonia used almost all of these punishments on the children that she adopted over the last 13 years?
Speaker 2:I certainly did.
Speaker 1:Okay, so now that we've provided the court with some background and some context for the kids we're going to be discussing, you testified that you were assigned to this case on May 23, 2024. Was DCS involved on the date prior to that?
Speaker 2:Yes, they were.
Speaker 1:And you talked about kind of initial disclosures or at least the initial information that you all had, what led to DCS being involved on May 22nd of this year.
Speaker 2:So our sheriff's department was contacted on the 22nd, as well as DCS, as well as DCS. So when our uniformed deputies arrived at the residence, nicole Thompson, who is the FCM, the family case manager, was already on the scene conducting her side of the investigation on the allegations that were reported.
Speaker 1:So, then, our uniformed officers assisted her and gathered information while they were there about the allegations and for the courts, I guess purposes and understanding kind of where we are with the timelines. How many children were living with the Staffords on the 22nd of this year in?
Speaker 2:May there were three.
Speaker 1:And which of these three children that we've talked about were living with the Staffords at this time.
Speaker 2:It was victim three, victim four and victim two.
Speaker 1:And victim three, for context, is one of the girls that came with the very first group of kids that was adopted from Indiana in 2011,.
Speaker 2:Correct, that is correct.
Speaker 1:Okay, and then victim two and victim four were from the very last group, from Florida. They were adopted in 2015, correct?
Speaker 2:That's also correct.
Speaker 1:Okay, how many adults were living in the house on May 22nd of this year when DCS responded and got law enforcement involved?
Speaker 2:There were three.
Speaker 1:Who were the three adults that were living there?
Speaker 2:Brian Sonia and Victim 11.
Speaker 1:And how old was Victim? 11 in May of 2024?.
Speaker 2:She was 18.
Speaker 1:And again to provide some context, because we talked about a lot of different kids, is Victim 11, one of the adopted children that has now become an adult.
Speaker 3:Yes, she is.
Speaker 1:What group of kids was she with?
Speaker 2:She was with the first group from 2011 from Indiana.
Speaker 1:And so you had mentioned that the Sheriff's Department had gotten involved and went out to assist essentially Nicole T, who was the FCM. Did Victim 2, victim 3, and Victim 4 disclosed anything to Nicole that night when she was out there?
Speaker 2:They did, they have disclosed some of the physical abuse that was going on and then things that had happened with Brian.
Speaker 1:As far as the sexual allegations, Did any of the girls have any injuries that Nicole was able to observe that night.
Speaker 2:They did. Victim 4 had some marks and scratches on her right thigh. Victim three had what was later to be found as frostbite scars, which well, we'll kind of talk about in a little bit. I think I've got photographs as well. And then victim two had scratches on her face.
Speaker 1:Did they also tell Nicole about paddles that had been used during part of the physical abuse or part of the discipline that Sonia would use?
Speaker 3:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:And was Nicole able to photograph any of the paddles that were used?
Speaker 2:She was. She was able to get photographs of one of the paddles.
Speaker 1:I'm going to show you what I've marked as States Exhibit 1. Is that a picture of one of the paddles that Nicole was able to photograph the night that she was out there on May 22nd 2024?
Speaker 2:Yes, it is.
Speaker 1:Now for the court's purposes. Judge if we could admit that. And then they admit it. The court says Exhibit 1 is entered, and then they admit it.
Speaker 2:The court says Exhibit 1 is entered. They're basically admitting into evidence the pictures of this big-ass paddle that they call Overboard. The children call the paddle.
Speaker 3:Overboard.
Speaker 1:Four-inch thick is what was alleged. That's rough, and so you mentioned that the Sheriff's Department went as sort of an assist with DCS. At that time the Sheriff's Department had body cameras. Is that correct?
Speaker 3:Yes, it is.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so you were able to, after reviewing the body cam, get a sense of how long everyone was out there that night. Yes, I was. How long was DCS and law enforcement and the parties out there?
Speaker 2:They were out there for an extended period of time, I'd say a couple of hours, maybe several hours, and that they were out of the house.
Speaker 1:you know, that night and during that time that DCS and law enforcement was present at the Stafford home, did any of the older adopted kids who were no longer living on the property arrive and interact with law enforcement?
Speaker 3:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:Which kids showed up?
Speaker 2:Well, victim 10 and victim five showed up.
Speaker 1:And again, kind of to orient the court, since we've talked about so many different kids which group did victim 10 come with?
Speaker 2:Well, victim 10 was in the first group, from Indiana, and then Victim 5 was in the next group that came from Florida in 2013.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so what information did Victim 10 provide when he was on the scene on the 22nd about living with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:He had talked about that there was physical and sexual abuse that was going on in the home. He also talked about how, when DCS was called out to investigate prior allegations, that they were told to lie and tell essentially tell DCS that there was nothing going on at the residence.
Speaker 1:What about victim five?
Speaker 2:there was nothing going on at the residence. What about victim five? Well, victim five had disclosed an incident where she had been drug, drug by the hair and then also physical abuse that was taken. That was going on in the home.
Speaker 1:And so was it discovered on the 22nd when DCS was out there, that victim 11, one of their adopted children was pregnant with Brian's child.
Speaker 2:Unfortunately.
Speaker 1:yes, and I think you testified that at that point victim 11 was 18, correct she?
Speaker 3:was.
Speaker 1:Was it decided, after DCS and law enforcement were at the property for a substantial amount of time, that the three youngest girls we've talked about living there victim 2, 3, and 4, were only the physical abuse that was going on in?
Speaker 2:the house.
Speaker 1:as well as the disclosure of the sexual abuse, dcs removed the children that night immediately remove the children that night immediately, and so, after the three girls were removed from the property, were they then scheduled to be interviewed at Susie's place.
Speaker 2:Yes, they were.
Speaker 1:And what exactly. This is off, not on the script of this thing, but I just want to explain to people what Susie's place is Now. Susie's Place is a safe, neutral, non-leading, non-suggestive place for children to speak regarding allegations of crimes against them.
Speaker 2:This is off script, but is that just an Indiana thing, or?
Speaker 1:I don't know. I've never heard of it.
Speaker 2:Sounds like a pretty cool place. I mean it's a safe place where kids can go, hopefully.
Speaker 1:I wonder who's in charge of it, probably licensed psychologists and counselors that know how to interview kids without re-traumatizing them.
Speaker 2:Right, because I mean you got DCS, you got the Sheriff's Department, you got the staffers involved. Surely it's some kind of a different—. A third party, a neutral third party At this point, a fourth or fifth neutral party, but yeah, Okay so A neutral third party At this point, a fourth or fifth neutral party?
Speaker 1:Yeah, okay. So let's jump back into our script here now. Yes, ma'am, when did that interview take place for the first round of interviews?
Speaker 2:That was immediately the following day, on May 23rd of 2024.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so let's talk about victim two's interview and I think for purposes for the court to talk about both interviews. I think it makes the most sense, can you?
Speaker 2:explain for the court when victim two was interviewed a second time. She was interviewed for the second time October 22nd of this year, 2024.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so did victim two, in her first Susie's Place interview, give a picture of what life was like when she was living at the Stafford home.
Speaker 2:She did Initially. She said things were well, they seemed okay. As the years went on and they discovered that Brian and Victim 11 were having a child. At some point that Victim had was pregnant. She said things kind of started to deteriorate. Things, you know, kind of got worse. They started having more food restrictions, certain foods they were not allowed to eat. There was a lot more physical abuse that was going on in the home with the children than a lot of things of that nature.
Speaker 1:Okay, so let's talk about the food restrictions and what they were allowed to eat. What did Victim 2 disclose about what their diet was like?
Speaker 2:Oh, she talked about how they had separate food from Brian and Sonia. It was kept in a separate room in an outbuilding. It was actually the large barn on the property. They were allowed to eat for breakfast. Sometimes they'd get a little cup of yogurt. For lunch or dinner they could either have a can of sardines, a thing of ramen or maybe a thing of ravioli. She talked about how Brian and Sonia would have, you know, like normal food, burgers, things of that nature, but those things that the kids were not allowed to eat. She also talked about some punishments, that sometimes she would get a slice of bread with some ketchup on it.
Speaker 1:Did she also talk about sometimes receiving like a peanut butter sandwich for lunch or something of that nature?
Speaker 3:Yes, she did.
Speaker 1:Okay. Did victim two disclose that this was the meal regimen that she and her two younger sisters, victim three and four, were forced to follow for three years?
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:And so she talked also a little bit about some punishments that happened in the home. Did she disclose what it was like with Sonia and kind of what their daily schedule looked like?
Speaker 2:She did. She talked about how they would have to be up at a certain time in the morning. They would have a schedule, they would have their chore chart. They had to get up and do different types of labor on the farm. Then they would get to eat. If their chores were done, Then they would get a limited time where they were allowed to do schoolwork. Then, after their schoolwork was done, then it was right back to the farm work and the other chores that they had to do. Then they were able to eat their limited amount of dinner and then they would be well go back to their room for the rest of the evening.
Speaker 1:And did you get the impression, listening to bothim 2, 1st and 2nd Susie's Place interview, that the girls essentially worked from sunup to sundown when they were at the Stafford property?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:Did Victim 2 also talk about a point system that she and her sisters were subjected to?
Speaker 2:They did. It was like the button box that they talked about. They got a certain amount of points if they were late. So if they arrived late for example their morning chores they would get points. If they didn't get a chore done properly, they got additional points If they left. For example, I think some of the girls talked about if they left like a piece of clothing out, like a sock or something, they got more points on top of that and things like that. So that's how they kept.
Speaker 1:And so you talked about earlier in your testimony that there was multiple kids. If not all of them have discussed a button box that was used. Was this the way that Sonia would keep track of who had points and how many?
Speaker 3:Yes, it was.
Speaker 1:And did you get the impression that, after listening to Victim 2's interview as well as interviews from other children, that they got to the point where they were unable to work off the points that they had?
Speaker 2:Yes, a lot of the kids had disclosed that it was almost impossible to get the points worked off. They would even talk about how they would be up throughout the night trying to write their sentences to essentially get the points down, but it was never-ending. So they said it was impossible to get caught up.
Speaker 1:And so did Sonia provide them with, and I'm going to use air quotes option for how to work off their points.
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:And what were some of those options?
Speaker 2:These kids discussed how they could do extra chores. They could write additional sentences and they would get their points off. They could do like physical activity, to include running a certain amount of laps around the whole property of the farm, and essentially it was a way to try and get some of the points worked off of what they had earned or accumulated.
Speaker 1:And so I want to make sure that the court's understanding what this kind of looks like. Did you gather from your investigation that it seemed like the girls had a set time, that they woke up in the morning, had chores they had to do and then, if they weren't following this very tightly regimented schedule from Sonia, they would then have additional points that they would have to work on top of their original chores to remove those points.
Speaker 2:That is correct.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so were there things that she you talked about kind of food deprivation. You talked about kind of food deprivation. Is that a way that she would, something that she would use for punishment? If they had extra points, would they lose the option to eat?
Speaker 2:They did. They were given the option to skip a meal or skip a snack or things like that, and that would essentially take some points off, jeez.
Speaker 1:So, in addition to sentences which we will revisit here in a minute, you talked about running as a way to work off some points. Did Sonia also give them an option of taking wax as a way to work off points?
Speaker 2:Yes, she did. They had an option to where they could take wax from the paddle and they would essentially also, you know, get some of the points taken off.
Speaker 1:And so, in addition to her giving them what she called options, were there other forms of punishment that Sonia Stafford would use if the girls were behind on their schedule or just, I suppose, if she was angry?
Speaker 2:They had the sentences the running. They could do extra chores or wax. Sometimes they even had to do chores outside in the Indiana cold, wearing just a bra and underwear, and then sometimes they would even withhold bath products from them so they couldn't properly shower within the home.
Speaker 1:So we have talked about the sentences a few times hour within the home. So we have talked about the sentences a few times. Can you give the court an idea of when Sonia would tell them you have sentences to write? What would that mean?
Speaker 2:So, basically, that would well, based on their age, they would have to find, like a Bible verse or a quote that those equivalents of how old they were so like if they were 13, it had to be 13 words long. If they were 17, it had to be 17 words long. And then they would have to, based on how many points they had, they would essentially have to write these sentences for that and try to work these points off, essentially have to write these sentences for that and try to work these points off. Some of the girls and kids disclosed that they would have to write thousands upon thousands of these sentences and would be up almost all the way through the night, all the way to the morning, trying to get them done because they had so many sentences to write.
Speaker 1:Did one of the kids disclose writing about 25,000 sentences at one point?
Speaker 3:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:And this is on top of the sentences that they would have to write as a form of punishment. This was on top of having their daily chores, their schoolwork and whatever else Sonia deemed was necessary for them to do.
Speaker 2:It is they would talk about when they were in their room, like for the night, sitting up in the room and trying to write these sentences out throughout the night.
Speaker 1:Did Victim 2 ever disclose seeing Sonia push her younger sister's Victim 3 or 4?
Speaker 3:Yes, she did.
Speaker 1:What are some of the things that Victim 2 disclosed witnessing Sonia do?
Speaker 2:Well, she talked about one incident where she saw victim four kind of throw her down the hill and rode her through some cow manure that was on the property. She also talked about how Sonia would grab some of the kids by the face and squeeze which would result in scratches and things and injuries on their faces scratches and things and injuries on their faces.
Speaker 1:Gosh, I know we're kind of jumping around a little bit, but did any of the girls disclose Sonia using a slap down?
Speaker 3:Yes, they did.
Speaker 1:And what would a slap down look like?
Speaker 2:Well, essentially, sonia had names for both of her hands. She referred to one hand as Slappy, she referred to the other hand as pappy, and she would take the girls, bend them over her knee and just start going. I mean essentially just slapping, beating the down on the child with those hands.
Speaker 1:And so we talked about a little bit of victim two's first interview, which she also interviewed the second time at Susie's place.
Speaker 2:Yes, she was.
Speaker 1:Okay, and so did she give, I guess, a better picture of some other details in her second interview, kind of the day-to-day life or treatment that Sonia gave the girls.
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:And so did she talk about how things were when she was first adopted by Brian and Sonia.
Speaker 2:She did. She had mentioned that when they were first adopted things seemed to be kind of okay.
Speaker 1:They were able to do some activities and then things slowly went away as the time with them extended time with them extended, and so did victim two have any sense of how long after she had been adopted that things started to change at the Stafford home.
Speaker 2:She said it was about a few years.
Speaker 1:When she was interviewed the second time at Susie's place, what did she tell you, or what did she disclose to the interviewer that stood out to you, about her day-to-day activities?
Speaker 2:She talked about she rarely got to play, rarely got to participate in any activities. She always had to do work, schoolwork, sentences or was in bed. She talked about her chore schedule. She also talked about how she wasn't allowed to read unless it was for a special occasion. She discussed how Sonia told them that reading takes away time, that they could be working.
Speaker 1:Did she ever talk about a store that Sonia had on the property where she would sell various like items and things of that nature?
Speaker 3:Yes, she did.
Speaker 1:And was victim. Two required, as well as their sisters, to work in that store.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:What capacity was victim 2 working in that store?
Speaker 2:She got product and stuff ready. She waited on customers as they came in and just kind of like basic work in the store.
Speaker 1:And did she talk about how there was a logbook for the girls to write down if they waited on a customer that they would be entitled to get you know an X amount of money?
Speaker 2:She did. I believe the children also had like some beaded jewelry things like they had handmade to sell at the store. So they had like a notebook or a log handmade to sell at the store. So they had like a notebook or a log. They would keep track of the items that they sold because they were under the impression that they were going to get a portion of that money that you know from the sale of those items.
Speaker 1:And did victim two ever see any money from what she was doing in the store?
Speaker 2:She did not.
Speaker 1:And so we have talked about sometimes, as a punishment, sonia would withhold bath products from the girls to use. Did you learn during your investigation, through Victim 2's interview as well as additional interviews, that there was a certain days of the week that they were all allowed to shower on?
Speaker 2:I did. They were only allowed to shower on Wednesdays and Sundays.
Speaker 1:And who decided that?
Speaker 2:Oh Sonia.
Speaker 1:Was there ever a time where, during any of the girls' interviews, they talked about the option being withheld from them as well if Sonia was angry about something?
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:And so did victim two also give a picture of how many clothes the girls had, or if there was a limit to what they were allowed to have.
Speaker 2:They did. They had talked about how they were only allowed to have one outfit, so they were allowed to have one shirt, one pair of pants, one pair of socks, one pair of bra and one pair of underwear.
Speaker 1:Did Victim 2's interview reveal what happened to the adopted kids as they aged out of the farm?
Speaker 2:She did. She talked about how the kids, as they would age out or get older, were essentially kicked off the property.
Speaker 1:Did she also talk about, prior to that happening, the oldest kid, or the children? I guess that would become the oldest, next that they would become Sonia's favorite.
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:And what did that look like?
Speaker 2:Well, she talked about how, when the kids got older or become more of you know their favorites, they would get extra privileges, they'd have extra responsibilities. And there was also a system that encouraged the kids to essentially snitch or tell on the other children in the home, so if they were doing something they weren't supposed to or their chores weren't getting done, the kids to essentially snitch or tell on the other children in the home. So if they were doing something they weren't supposed to or their chores weren't getting done, they were rewarded for going to Sonia and telling her about you know what was not getting done.
Speaker 1:Did you get the impression from Victim 2's interview that and I believe she even used the phrase the oldest kind of would bear the responsibility or burden of the farm on their shoulders? Yes, and so did it seem to you that victim two was, in addition to being responsible for her own chores, she was responsible for making sure that her younger siblings, victim three and four, were doing what Sonia dictated they needed to do.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:So we've talked about the work schedule they had. We've also mentioned that they would have to do school. When did they have time for school during all of this?
Speaker 2:So they had as a part of their schedule. They had a limited time during the day that they could do their schooling or their lessons and things like that during the day. If they didn't get it done throughout a certain period, they would have to work on it through the evening After all, on top of everything else they had to do during the day.
Speaker 1:And so were the girls homeschooled.
Speaker 2:Yes, they were.
Speaker 1:Okay. Did you learn throughout their interviews that they used a variety of different homeschooling products or services throughout the time that they were at the Stafford's house?
Speaker 3:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:And who was supposed to be their teacher?
Speaker 2:Miss Sonia.
Speaker 1:Did you learn throughout their interviews? And eventually Sonia stopped providing any instructions?
Speaker 2:I did. Several of the kids had disclosed and talked about how at some point Sonia essentially was not present, so they essentially had to fend for themselves. They also talked about how, if they didn't get a perfect score or every single question right, they essentially had to go back and redo it until it was perfect.
Speaker 1:And I know you mentioned that victim two had disclosed. One form of punishment that she had received Was she got a piece of bread with ketchup on it Was that if she was behind in school?
Speaker 2:Yes, if she was behind in school, there was one of her punishments for it, until she was caught up.
Speaker 1:Was another one of her punishments for being behind in school having Sonia withhold a coat in the wintertime until she was caught up.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:And did you learn that the girls didn't finish school last year as a result of Sonia's lack of instruction?
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:Now we talked about the food regimen. Did victim two disclose in her interview if Sonia ever explained why the girls were on this schedule? Interview if Sonia ever explained why the girls were on this schedule.
Speaker 2:She did. There was comments made by Sonia that they weren't worth the money for the food. So they essentially had cheaper items that were. You know, they were allowed to eat cheap stuff.
Speaker 1:In addition to basically doing all of the work that the girls talked about, did you also learn that it became Victim 2's responsibility to cook for her adopted father?
Speaker 3:Brian, yes, I did.
Speaker 1:And did Victim 2 talk about whether Brian was aware that the girls were on this restricted diet?
Speaker 2:She did because she made comments during her interviews that even though Brian the food that she made for Brian was different, she wasn't allowed to partake in any of that. She was still required to eat the items that you know had gotten for them.
Speaker 1:And did she disclose him making a comment sort of along the lines of I know that this is what it is and this is what you have to do, but there's nothing that I can do about it?
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:Did Victim 2 talk about what special occasions or holidays look like when she was living with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:They did Well. Not only Victim 2, but some of the other children as well, talked about how they weren't allowed to participate in any of the special occasions. Special occasions, so, whether it was birthdays, Christmas, family gatherings, you know things like that. They weren't allowed to participate in those activities.
Speaker 1:And family gatherings. Would that include if Sonia and Brian had their surviving biological kids, kelsey and Matt over.
Speaker 3:Yes, it would.
Speaker 1:Okay, and did Victim 2 talk about Christmas?
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:What happened on Christmas with the Staffords?
Speaker 2:She wasn't essentially able to participate. If they did get gifts, they weren't given to them. Sonia would take the gifts and lock them up, either in closets or maybe a couple of years later they would have access to those. But they essentially weren't shown the gifts, they were taken away from them and they weren't allowed to have them.
Speaker 1:Did Victim 2 talk about Thanksgiving and anything that ever happened with that holiday?
Speaker 2:She did. She did as well. They had mentioned that there was Thanksgiving event at the Stafford's house. Victim 8 had came up and was talking to Brad, which is Brian's brother, and he had essentially said you know, goodbye, I'll see you later. I've got to go to bed. And it was like five or six o'clock in the afternoon. Sonia or, I'm sorry, brad had family that was there and mentioned or had asked victim eight you know well it's only 5 or 6 o'clock. Why are you going to bed? He said well, I have to, it's time for me to go. And Sonia had overheard that conversation and blew up, got angry and essentially told Brad and the other family members that don't question her her mothering skills or her mothering habits and then victim 8 was punished and went to his room.
Speaker 1:And victim eight, sort of to orient the record in the court again, for where victim eight fell was he with the first group of kids that was adopted from Florida.
Speaker 2:Yes, he was.
Speaker 1:Were there certain rooms in the house that the girls victims two and three and four were not allowed to go in.
Speaker 2:Yes, they weren't allowed to go into Sonia and Brian's bedroom. They weren't allowed to go in the kitchen.
Speaker 1:During both of victim two's interviews did she disclose that she and all of her siblings were told to lie about what was going on at the farm?
Speaker 2:Yes, they were. And who told her to lie. She was told essentially any authority figure, Essentially DCS was the main party that would come out to the house and they would have to lie to.
Speaker 1:By Sonia.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:Okay, and what was she told to lie about specifically? Did she disclose that?
Speaker 2:Any stuff that was going on on the property.
Speaker 1:Did Sonia make any threats to victim two or to the other kids about what would happen if they didn't lie, if DCS were coming out?
Speaker 2:They mentioned that she had threatened the girls and told them essentially they were all going to be separated, never see each other again. She said that Brian or Sonia could go to jail things like that.
Speaker 1:So she told these kids that they would basically never see their siblings again unless they lied to DCS. Yes, and so you kind of talked about it a little bit in your testimony. Did you learn from Victim 2's interview that things with Sonia got much worse over the last year that the girls were living with her?
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:And what was the reason for that change?
Speaker 2:Sonia had found out that Brian and Victim 11 were in a relationship.
Speaker 1:And you said Sonia had found out. Were the girls victim two, victim three and victim four also aware of this?
Speaker 2:Yes, they were.
Speaker 1:And I know we've mentioned it a couple of times, but just for clarification, victim 11 was one of the adopted daughters of Brian and Sonia from the first group of kids from Indiana in 2011, correct?
Speaker 2:That is correct.
Speaker 1:And so, in addition to Brian's relationship with Victim 11, did Victim 2 disclose anything related to Brian and her?
Speaker 3:She did.
Speaker 1:What did she disclose about Brian and what happened to her?
Speaker 2:We're going to stop the PCA recording and skit at that time. There is just so much it is emotionally charging and triggering for me and Julie to even read this stuff. It's so disgusting. The PCA is getting ready to get even worse than this last hour that we read to you guys, but we are going to get right back at it.
Speaker 1:And we will be dropping the rest of this tomorrow evening, so tune in. I'm not exactly sure what time, but if you follow our Facebook at Podcast 69 South, you will be notified there for whenever the drop is and we will post.
Speaker 2:So until tomorrow, when you hear the rest of this PCA man, we hope you have a good day, good evening, whatever.
Speaker 3:We'll see you next time.
