Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
Charles Harrelson; the story of a killer
The episode illuminates the complicated legacy of Charles Harrelson, a notorious hitman and father of actor Woody Harrelson. We explore family dynamics, the impact of criminality on relationships, and the assassination of Judge John H. Wood Jr., outlining how crime and familial loyalty intertwined in tragic ways.
• Examination of Charles Harrelson's life and crimes
• Exploration of Woody Harrelson's complicated relationship with his father
• Insights into the assassination of U.S. District Judge John H. Wood Jr.
• Discussion of judicial risks faced by law enforcement
• Commentary on the criminal justice system and plea bargains
• Reflection on the nature of familial loyalty and betrayal
• Consideration of inherited moral choices and their impact on identity
www.deviantcriminology.com
I'm Heather. Behind the soundboard Criminology. I'm Richard. I'm Heather.
Speaker 2:Behind the soundboard is Nancy, and this week's episode is kind of one that I had never heard about before. So around Christmas, you know, you've got family talking and people kind of bring up stories about different things, and my father's really big on like things that are on TV. What's he seen on TV? Who are on tv, what's he seen on tv, who are actors he's seen and stuff and we were talking about somehow we got on and we were talking about woody harrelson and the matthew mcconaughey relationship and my dad had said, well, yeah, his father's in prison for, like, he murdered a guy, and I was like I don't, I had not heard that. Had you heard about this before?
Speaker 3:I had never heard heard of this. No.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I was like, okay, google, and I Googled it and lo and behold, woody Harrelson's father's name is Charles Harrelson and he was tried for multiple murders and then eventually was convicted of homicide. So I thought this was kind of an interesting story that a lot of people may not know about and figured, hey, let's do this. So Woody Harrelson's father is Charles Boyd Harrelson, who was born on July 23rd 1938 in Lovelady, texas. He grew up in a small Texas town during the post-Depression era, so through details about his childhood they're pretty scarce.
Speaker 2:But at some point after leaving school Harrelson decided to join the Navy and became a sonar operator, which is his rate, which just defines kind of what he worked on while he was in the Navy, and it provided him with a brief stint of legitimate employment. But following his military service, harrelson kind of takes a turn in his life and somehow ends up involved in crime. He ends up moving to California and he was working as an encyclopedia salesman, but somewhere in there he began leading this double life and by day he would sell encyclopedias. Kind of seemed like a legitimate guy. But he started committing burglaries at night and this criminal behavior eventually landed him in prison for the first time in the 1960s.
Speaker 3:So it was during this initial incarceration that Harrelson's criminal career escalated dramatically, and we kind of talked about this before how people go to prison and sometimes they learn how to be better criminals instead of actually being reformed.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's not like we figured out that the original concept of prison was to be rehabilitative and we've just continued to use it as punishment and retribution instead of like a way to maybe get people to stop committing crimes.
Speaker 3:Yeah, definitely. We have not figured out the solution on that. So while he's in prison he reportedly admitted to dozens of murders and established himself as a feared hitman in the organized crime circles, and his admission marked the beginning of his deep involvement with the criminal underworld. So his first major brush with the law for murder came in 1968 when he was tried for the killing of Alan Harry Berg in Texas, and he was defended by Percy Foreman. He was acquitted of the charges by the jury in Angleton, Texas, on September 22nd 1970.
Speaker 2:So shortly after his acquittal, harrelson faced another murder charge. So obviously this guy's not learning from what he's doing. He seems to almost enjoy it, which is kind of something you hear from Hitman. There's no emotional connection to it, it's a payday. So he was tried again for the 1968 murder for hire of Sam DeGaglia Jr, who was a grain dealer and father of four in Herne, texas, hernia, texas, in-in-the-ass, texas, I don't know. The prosecutors alleged that Harrelson was paid $2,000 for the hit. The first trial for D'Elia's murder ended in a hung jury, which just means that based on the charges, they couldn't decide. Some thought he was guilty, some thought he wasn't. Is that kind of how that works?
Speaker 3:Yes, if they cannot reach a verdict, basically meaning everybody agrees, then it's a hung jury, which means you get tried again. So that whole no double jeopardy, hung jury, you do get tried again double jeopardy hung jury.
Speaker 2:You do get tried again, and that led to him being retried in 1973 and being convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He served only five years of the sentence before being paroled in 1978 for good behavior.
Speaker 3:Taking 10 years off for good behavior seems like a lot well, and especially for this, because because in most places this would be considered a crime of violence and different jurisdictions have different rules as far as how much time you get for credit for time served and things like that. Typically for nonviolent crimes it's a day for day credit, so a 15 year sentence would be cut to seven and a half years, but only serving five I mean a crime of of violence usually it's like 75 percent of the sentence that you have to do, so it seems very odd.
Speaker 2:The only other thing I could think of was maybe he got more credit for time he served prior to his sentence, but still five years doesn't seem like much at all the two times I've seen this myself and again you have more experience in the court system, but is one when you have jails or prisons that are being coming overpopulated which this is about the time we are seeing that like boom and people being sentenced because there's war on crime starting, and the other is because somebody turns evidence. Now again, I couldn't find anything that said that, but it does seem like 10 years for a murder for hire would be pretty.
Speaker 3:That's a substantial reduction.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's a what's up, my buddy.
Speaker 3:Yeah, so the only other thing I could think of is, since he was retried in 73 and he was paroled in 78, that part's five years Maybe he got credit for time served prior to the conviction. Since he did have to have two trials there, I would assume they would have had him in custody during that time and not released on bond.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I didn't see anything about that actually, if he was held pretrial or if they let him go, but that would, that would actually make sense.
Speaker 3:So at least give him some extra time. So in the meantime, there's this judge, judge Wood, and he is known as Maximum John because he basically throws the book at people, especially drug dealers, and right around the time that Harrelson's getting out, he is actually presiding over a pretrial hearing for Jamil Chagra, and I'm not sure if I'm saying that last name.
Speaker 2:I go with the way it looks Okay.
Speaker 3:And so, anyway, jamil Chagra was in a pretrial hearing and there were 20 defense motions and the judge ended up denying all 20 of the defense motions and he turned to his brother, attorney Joseph, and says something along the lines of I'm not going to get a fair trial in front of this judge, and asked if he should have the judge killed, which you know. You're like, oh my gosh, that's kind of an extreme conclusion to jump to, not you know, not a change of venue, not anything like that.
Speaker 2:I also think it's interesting that he's his defense attorney is also his brother. Yes, like it seems like I again, I don't know the ethics in the court system as much as you would think I do, but that kind of sense of conflict of interest, I guess it's not because you're defending that person, you're not prosecuting them. So of course you'd probably give your brother a better defense, but at the same time, like I kind of feel like that could cause some family problems if you don't win.
Speaker 3:Well, and speaking of conflict of interest, we'll see that in a little bit because Joseph agrees, yes, let's kill the judge. So, now they're conspiring to commit a crime, which that's a problem.
Speaker 2:The last thing you need is an attorney that's like you know what. You probably will not get off on this crime. You should commit a much worse one.
Speaker 3:Right.
Speaker 2:So the most famous crime associated with Charles Harrelson was the assassination of US District Judge John H Wood Jr. And that was committed on May 29th of 1979. Yes, before I was born Outside his San Antonio townhome. So this was a landmark case. I mean, anytime you have a federal judge or any federal agent really assassinated, that's going to kind of be gripping for the media and the country as a whole.
Speaker 2:So as Woods was the first federal judge to be assassinated in the 20th century, investigation into Woods' murder was massive, with the FBI launching what they called the largest manhunt ever to focus on El Paso, spending over $5 million over three years. So prosecutors alleged that drug dealer Jamal Jimmyimmy charga tagra still not sure how that's said uh hired harrelson to kill judge wood for 250 000. So I do have to say that in 10 years he has really upped his cost like two thousand dollars for that first hit that he got and now he's like you know what? That's not worth it 250 000 for a federal judge. You are seeing an increase in his fees, but also the association of like taking out somebody that's a low-level criminal in your town compared to like the dangers and potential prosecution and repercussions of murdering a federal judge. So harrelson's arrest came after a dramatic six-hour standoff with police in September of 1980. So during which he threatened suicide and bizarrely claimed responsibility for both Judge Wood's murder and the assassination of President John F Kennedy.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So you can see he's either really involved in things or he's, you know, kind of really crazy, which I think is what he was playing for when he said he was part of the assassination of JFK. I think he was trying to get some attention, and at one point I read that he had claimed he said that because he wanted to make sure they didn't kill him. And they thought that in his mind he thought well, they'll take me alive if I say that because they'll want to know more about what I know about. And so you know either that or he was just grandstanding, because we did say earlier that when he was in custody he was telling all kinds of people all kinds of things he did that didn't sound like he actually had.
Speaker 2:But at the same time, from a clinical side, that's ingenious to a point, because he could simply be like I'm just insane, right, look, I think I killed Kennedy, like, of course, I killed this judge. You know which one's real, which one's not? Are they both right? Are they both wrong?
Speaker 3:Which is something it said, that he brought up, that he, when they were trying to introduce the statements that he said he killed the judge.
Speaker 2:He tried to say, well, I also said I killed gfk like yeah, how credible is that? Well, and it's it's. It's interesting this concept, because I've read the book the psychopath test by john ronson great book if you haven't read it. It really kind of looks at the insanity plea and the use of like labeling people as psychopaths and stuff. But like the main character in that story was told he was on trial for grievous bodily harm in Britain and he was told by other inmates like hey, if you act insane then you'll be put in a Cush mental hospital at the most and then be there, you know, a couple of years and then you'll get out, which is not what turns out. I'll let you read the book to find out how it really works out.
Speaker 2:But it's kind of like I've seen this before with other suspects that try to play the. I was crazy at the time or I was mentally deficient and and from what I've seen, rarely does that like you have to have a lot of psychosis and it takes a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists and social workers to evaluate you, convince the judge. Usually judges do not want to buy this. But then also the threatening suicide. That's actually really common in negotiation hostage negotiation and it stands off.
Speaker 3:So that one I was like, okay, I've seen that, but the I killed JFK, that's out of nowhere which, interestingly enough, one of the articles I was reading said that a person, um, who, like I don't know how many people, actually took it seriously, but this one person took it seriously and started going through photos trying to identify if he was there, and they were making arguments that there was this one person in these photos that they thought might maybe have been him, which again I was like that's kind of interesting.
Speaker 2:It'd be funny if, in the end, he actually had been there in some capacity were they saying he was the guy in like the trench coat, that's like near the grassy knoll that there's pictures of no, it was like three.
Speaker 3:I can't remember what they put, how they label. It was like three juveniles or three young people, three like minor players, and they thought that he was the smallest one of the three people that they had. I can't remember now what, what the word was, but it was basically, like you know, minor people that they didn't really investigate, that were not of consequence at the time, but it'd be interesting if he actually like, was there at all.
Speaker 2:Side note to that. I mean we know it was aliens. So unless Charles Harold said is it alien which as handsome as his sons are, it's very possible.
Speaker 3:Right, exactly, so there was a whole lot of drama around this trial. So there was a whole lot of drama around this trial. Joseph, who was the attorney brother, had agreed that he would plead guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and get a tenure sentence and in exchange he was going to testify against everybody except for his own brother. He would not testify against his own brother, so he testifies against his sister-in-law, elizabeth. He testifies against Harrelson's wife, joanne, and he testifies against Harrelson himself, but he refuses to testify against Jimmy.
Speaker 3:And because of all of the evidence they have with Joseph's testimony and thousands of recorded telephone and face-to-face conversations at the jail between different people, they use that evidence against Harrelson. And one of the questions that comes up is all of these people are criminals or potential criminals in the jail? So even though you have thousands of hours of recorded conversations, how much weight do you actually give those conversations in a jail? And how much weight do you give Joseph's testimony, considering he got a 10-year sentence? Brother says we need to figure out a way to get rid of the judge. And instead of joseph saying yeah, I'll file for a change of venue, he says let's kill the judge. He potentially, you could argue was the worst one of the bunch, and he got off with 10 years okay, you throw some great questions.
Speaker 2:Let's turn that. If you were a prosecutor wait, you were would you take this guy as like?
Speaker 3:would you take this guy to trial and say this is my star, that's really difficult because a lot of these you don't have a good person to pick. I mean, they're all bad, but if you don't make a deal with somebody, then somebody is going to get away. So you have to decide who do you really want to go after? So in this instance you might look at it and say well, even though Joseph was the one who got the ball rolling and he's the smart one, he did it because his brother was on the line. If we put his brother away for life, then that circumstance will never repeat itself, so he'll never do this again. On the flip side, harrelson seems to be killing like one person after another, and the brother, jimmy, was already stuck in trial on, you know, drug charges. So he's obviously not squeaky clean either.
Speaker 2:So there's a lot of stuff like in this one little section. There's just so many things that interest me Like. One is if you're in any type of institution that's owned by the government, you're being recorded Like I don't know how. People don't fucking understand this. I don't know how many people either through like the mail they get, which the guards and faculty facilities people go through the mail, I don't know how many jailhouse conversations between people that are visiting and family members are recorded, or just in jail cells there is you have no freedom, you're in prison. Stop talking about your crimes, idiots, and stop talking about your crimes, idiots.
Speaker 2:And then the other thing that I think is really here is I really like game theory and kind of the prisoner's dilemma of you know, if everybody would have just stayed quiet, they may have gotten five years each at the most. If you don't know the prisoner's dilemma, look it up. There's YouTube videos. It's kind of one of my favorite things to look at in the whole games theory. But because this guy was willing to flip, I get 10 years and everybody else gets slammed with life, where if everybody would have stayed quiet then maybe they would have gotten lesser sentences and it wouldn't have been so bad which is always the question, because you want to be the first one to flip and get the deal, but if nobody's going flip, you want to stick with that and nobody flip.
Speaker 2:You were bad cop, weren't you I?
Speaker 3:don't know. It's hard to say.
Speaker 2:Did it depend on like? Which depends?
Speaker 3:on the day depends on the day and the case Cause sometimes you know, you feel more sympathetic towards the people that you're dealing with than others, and I think that that also it adds that human element. Um, we were talking about AI and eliminating human elements before we started recording this. I think that there's definitely and human error too right, because you look at somebody and you think, oh, I think this person is a good person who just made a mistake. I think that they can be rehabilitated. And then you put them on probation and then they do something else and you're like, oh shit, that was a, that was a bad decision.
Speaker 3:But you know it's, it's hard. You just have to do the best you can with what you have. And the same thing here, like with Joseph he said he would not testify against his brother, so he had some loyalty there where he said I absolutely won't testify against him, but everybody else, he just the bus is coming and he's driving and I a the ai criminal justice thing is something that we will have to like talk about at some point.
Speaker 2:That'll be quite a while. We've got some other things we want to talk about, but yeah, that is an issue because when you do put human element into it, there is always this depending on the jurisdiction obviously, texas it seems a little weird they're being pretty lenient here, um, but there's always kind of that trying to balance that you can be a criminal and commit a bad crime and not be a bad person. You just put in a bad situation. But I think assassinating a federal judge kind of takes that like there's a good side and bad side of this person especially for money yes and like and like you said it was $250,000.
Speaker 3:So, um, obviously, like you were talking about before, the $2,000 for the first person, whoever issued that probably thought, oh, they'll look the other way, Cause it's just some, you know, low life, his, his life's only worth $2,000. Nobody's going to be interested in getting justice for him. But if it's a federal judge, then people will actually be hitting the pavement trying to solve this one. So I'll I'll pay you 250 for this one.
Speaker 2:I mean, and this is 250 K almost 25 years ago, so I've been more than 25 years ago.
Speaker 3:It was 2000.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so I'm like 40, I'm sorry, 40 years ago. Yeah, so 45 years ago. So yeah, I mean that was a lot of money. Then I mean I didn't do the calculations now, but that's okay.
Speaker 3:I still think 25 years ago was like 1980.
Speaker 2:I know right and it's.
Speaker 3:Happens when you get old.
Speaker 2:Okay, so the trial was a media sensation. Despite Harrelson's defense team arguing that he merely took credit for the murders to claim the large payment payment from Chagra, he was convicted and sentenced to two life terms plus five years. His wife, Joanne, was also implicated and received 25 years for obstruction of justice and perjury.
Speaker 3:So there's a lot of other things that happen in this that are interesting, like the attorney-client privilege, which might have been part of why Joseph stayed firm that he wouldn't testify against his brother. Because if, if he did and then some attorney regulation said, oh you broke your attorney-client privilege, they could have taken his license. So it could have been a self-interested thing that he refused to testify, but the findings by the court was because he was part of the conspiracy to commit the crime, there was no attorney-client privilege between the two of them. So anything that they got, any evidence they got or any way they can compel them to testify, was on the table. They couldn't claim that privilege to get out of giving information. And then, in addition to that, jimmy ended up getting acquitted of the murder and the conspiracy. So his brother didn't testify against him and he got away with that.
Speaker 2:His brother still got 10 years.
Speaker 3:But yeah.
Speaker 2:That's got to sting.
Speaker 3:Yeah, the attorney got 10 years.
Speaker 2:That's got to sting a little bit.
Speaker 3:But of course, as they bring it around like there's always some way for the karma to come around on a lot of these Elizabeth, who is the sister-in-law to the attorney, she gets convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to obstruct justice Because, if you remember, they were killing him to stop this trial and to avoid having the trial in front of him. So she gets convicted on those charges. We already said Joseph pled guilty and got his 10 years. Jimmy is tried separately. He ends up getting sentenced to 15 years for conspiracy to obstruct justice and his conspiracy to possess marijuana. So he didn't get charged with murder, but because he was obstructing justice, he got 15 years on that. So he did get more than his 10 years. He got 15. He was obstructing justice. He got 15 years on that. So he did get more than his 10 years he got 15.
Speaker 2:So what I'm hearing is, his second lawyer was better than his first.
Speaker 3:Well, yeah, he didn't commit another crime, so that was good.
Speaker 2:But if he would have hired a different defense attorney would he have actually gotten some of those 20 motions passed in front of the judge? But his brother was not a good attorney, so that's why they felt they had to murder a judge or just filed for a change of venue yeah, maybe don't like my cousin.
Speaker 3:Vinnie your actual prosecution and hire a decent attorney, not just your brother, because he's your brother right, that's my takeaway well then, of course, part of what they were saying was that he didn't actually do the hit. He just showed up to collect the $250,000 and said, hey, I did it so that he could get the money and didn't actually have anything to do with the crime. And that was one of his defenses that he was, I remember, where he said Dallas or someplace else. He's like I wasn't even in town when it happened, but I showed up and said I did it to get the money.
Speaker 2:He was back in Texas, in Dallas, like celebrating his triumph over President Kennedy.
Speaker 3:Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 2:That is one of the weirdest things ever. I think that, like you're going to show up to this guy and be like, yeah, give me $250,000 for a hit that somehow I knew about. I know the details about, but it wasn't me. Once you're caught, I don't know.
Speaker 3:Well, and Elizabeth, which is the sister-in-law for the attorney. She's the one who really gets hammered because she ends up getting 30 years on the conspiracy charge and on a tax evasion charge because she's the one who transported the money to deliver it and she claims she thought it was for gambling debts or placing a bet. I'm not exactly sure how that gambling thing worked, but she thought it was gambling money and so she ended up getting 30 years for being the go-between and delivering the money and sending messages and things like that back and forth. So I thought that was interesting, that she's the one who gets the short end of the stick more than anybody else.
Speaker 2:And I didn't see and of course that's just me because this is an older case and I didn't see and of course that's just me because this is an older case and I think sometimes, especially now, with how inundated everything is books, the internet, news sources it's kind of hard to see some of this stuff. But I don't know what he the original charge like if he had just gone to trial with this judge, what he would have faced, right right. But I think it's very. This is a really good example of criminals thinking more crime is the easy way out, when sometimes if you just do your time, it's a just admit your crimes and do it. I know that's hard to say like I'm going to prison. I mean, if it's drug trafficking he may have been looking at 15, 20 years, but now, with the domino effect, like all the people, he's taken down this and he's destroyed his family and everything else and brought them all in on it too.
Speaker 3:Right. So yeah, now the attorney's gone to jail. The original defendant is going to jail for his original charges anyway. Even though he got away with the murder, his wife ends up going to jail for 30 years. Harrelson gets two life sentences, I think it was.
Speaker 2:Plus five years.
Speaker 3:Plus five years, and then Harrelson's wife got 25 years for her conspiracy and perjury charges. So a lot of people ended up spending a lot of time incarcerated because of this activity.
Speaker 2:And a man ended up dead.
Speaker 3:Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2:Who was just trying to do his job.
Speaker 2:Right and do it well, and you know the best of his abilities so, as we mentioned, like Charles Harrelson, uh spent the rest of his life behind bars. He ended up passing away March 15th of 2007, at the age of 69, in the supermax ADX Lawrence prison, which was in Colorado, um, from complications of a heart attack. Uh, and, as originally noted, charles Harrelson is the father of Woody Harrelson and the rumored father of Matthew McConaughey. If you want to know about that, read the gossip table. So Charles's son, who was born on his father's birthday, so July 23rd, but 23 years apart.
Speaker 2:Woody was only seven years old when his father left the family for good in 1968. So his father was gone. I mean, that's going to prison right there. For that second murder he was tried for and, despite his father's absence and criminal activity, woody attempted to reconcile with him as an adult. So Woody had visited Charles a couple of times in prison, prison and he even put money into a defense fund and hiring lawyers and legal fees to try and get his father a new trial, believing his father had not received a fair hearing. I don't know enough about that.
Speaker 3:It's questionable, right? Because, like we were saying earlier, how much credibility do you give people who are making their own deals to say are they actually saying the truth? Like when I say I'll give you 10 years if you say the truth? Are they actually saying the truth? Like when I say I'll give you 10 years if you say the truth? Are you really saying the truth? Or is it I'll give you 10 years and now I'll tell you anything you want to hear, so that I get my 10 year sentence and I don't get more time than that?
Speaker 3:So that was part of I think what Woody was saying is one who? What was the evidence? Who was it that was showing up? It's a bunch of criminals. They're all criminals at the end of the day.
Speaker 3:And he also pointed out that his father only spent $7,000 on his defense, compared to the five to 10 million spent by the federal government. Now, I don't know how they came up with those figures. As far as you know, if you have a federal agent, did they include their entire yearly salary in that, or did they actually go through and try to approximate how many hours different people worked? I'm up with that, because that five to ten million dollars seems like a very large amount of money in my mind, but that's, that's the figure that he had come up with in the case that he was arguing that they had spent the five to 10 million to get all of the evidence and do the trial and all of those things. So you know again, you have to always wonder how are we taking these things through trial?
Speaker 3:Obviously a jury thought beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty. Obviously there was somebody who died. But how much faith and credit do you give in the testimony and the word of criminals and how much do you believe their behind-the-closed-doors statements, even if you say, well, they didn't know they were getting a plea agreement because they were talking about it in jail to other inmates? How truthful are they when they're talking amongst themselves? Truthful?
Speaker 2:are they when they're talking amongst themselves? I mean, in prison of course there's going to be a lot of showboating, because the more crimes of course in prison like, the more crimes and the level of crimes and sometimes even the violence with your crimes, the more social capital you have inside the jail and the more you're looked at as kind of like this badass figure. So, yeah, I think there's a lot of complications with this and even like from the law enforcement side, there's a lot of that of like who are you getting information from? Who are your informants? How reliable are they? And they're always held to a much different standard. And here, like this guy obviously was involved in this murder for hire, this uh attorney, but he only gets off for 10 years because he's willing to just rat on everybody and he would know that with good time he could probably be out much sooner. So this is a perfect deal. So sometimes it does kind of seem like if you're taking it from just a novice outlook that it does look like you're paying for testimony.
Speaker 3:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2:So finally, there's an article that we looked over that said, um, once her, uh, woody harrelson said I don't feel that he was much of a father, he took no valid part in my upbringing, but yet would he still try to develop a relationship with his father and his adulthood. I think this kind of psychologically it shows kind of that complex nature of father son relationships that you always kind of want to hope that there's some good in somebody. And we see this with a lot of crimes and criminals the family still there's, there's still an attachment like yes, he committed a murder, but you still lost a family member in this in a way, uh, even if it was by their own choice. So I thought this was a really interesting case because Woody Harrelson again, probably you know he's one of my favorite actors. You know, if you go from Cheers to all the other things he's done and I'm sure people will be like you're missing all the films he did.
Speaker 2:We're not a movie podcast, so go check it out, even though I did love Zombieland. But that I think it shows as well that just because your father or where you come from it's a bad place Doesn't mean you have to end up there as, from all accounts, everything I've seen, charles Harrelson was a murderer who and obviously somebody who did murders for hire, where everything I've ever seen about his son he's a very caring, loving, fun, friendly person. So it's not always just because somebody comes from a crime family or a bad background that that person's going to end up that way.
Speaker 3:I would agree with that.
Speaker 2:Thanks for joining us. Have a good weekend. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime. So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes. Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners.
Speaker 2:So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, co-workers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media. I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets, to help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology. We also have an Instagram page, which is Deviant underscore Criminology. Find me at drrichardweaver on Instagram and as we grow, we hope to develop a community that will grow with us. So again, thank you for taking the time to listen and have a good week. Thank you.
