Verdict in Sandra Birchmore murder trial. A husband's stunning admission. Plus, Flock cameras.

All right, let's go. You're listening to the Dateline Morning Meeting. She is saying, my life since this has been a nightmare. Our producers are catching up on breaking crime news. The family's requesting a little bit of time. The motive was. Obsession. Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's November 12th, and here's what's on our docket. Fireworks in a Virginia courthouse as a man accused of murdering his wife and disposing of her body takes the stand in his own defense and makes a stunning confession. What were you trying to put into the trash can? Dead body. In Dateline Roundup, UK comedian Russell Brand is sentenced for multiple sex crimes and a critical ruling in the Lindsay Clancy case. Clancy's attorneys argued she should be exempt from a retrial and have her charges dismissed. Plus, police are using a new kind of dragnet to track down fugitives or missing people. Flock cameras. So why are they so controversial? They're basically creating this dossier of everywhere you've been, and they keep this entire history of your travel. But before all that, we're headed to a federal courthouse in Boston. We have a verdict in the trial of a former police officer accused of killing pregnant teacher's aide Sandra Birchmore. And a warning for listeners, this story includes discussion of suicide and sexual abuse. On Monday morning, as jurors were about to start their second day of deliberations, friends and family of Sandra Birchmore held a vigil outside the courthouse where Matthew Farwell was on trial for killing her. And please put your hand and love around the jury so they can come up with a just verdict for Sandra and her baby. For the past month, the jury listened to prosecutors and defense attorneys present starkly different theories about what happened to Sandra Birchmore. and defense attorneys present starkly different theories about what happened to Sandra Birchmore. about what happened inside Sandra's apartment on February 1st, 2021. Prosecutors said Farwell murdered Sandra because he was desperate to stop her from exposing their sexual relationship, which allegedly began when Sandra was underage and a member of the local police explorer's mentorship program. Farwell's defense team argued Sandra was the desperate one, an unstable young woman who died by suicide after Farwell broke up with her. On Tuesday, the jury came back with a verdict. Here to find out more, fill us in on the final days of the trial is Dateline producer Cassie Marshall. Cassie, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me, Andrea. Cassie, you've been at the courthouse throughout the trial. Set the scene for us while you were waiting for the verdict to come in. You know, it was quiet and it was tense. And just to give you an idea of what that's like, it's, you know, you really can't leave the courthouse. The witnesses can't, the family can't, because you don't get much notification when there is a verdict and obviously everybody wants to be there for that. So the hallways are filled with people filled with waiting reporters. Families are camped out on benches and you're just waiting to see if the jury is going to ask a question to counsel or the judge or come back quickly. Before we get to the verdict, Cassie, let's rewind. Closing arguments took place on Friday. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Fogarty, he went first for the prosecution. He began by showing the jury security camera video from the lobby of Sandra's building on the night she died. You can see Farwell wearing a mask. His hood is pulled up. He's wearing a mask. He's going to her apartment. We know the jury had already seen this video. So for the prosecutor to show it again during closings, it really tells you how powerful that piece of evidence was. Yes, it was powerful to start that way because it seemed like the prosecution was setting the scene for what they believe were Sandra's last moments. You see Matthew Farwell sort of like arriving in the building around 9.14 p.m. Then he goes into the elevator. He goes into Sandra's apartment. But then he leaves about a little, less than half an hour later. And moments before that is when prosecutions say Sandra's iPhone stopped showing steps. And their theory is that was the moment that she died. Yeah, the prosecutor said Farwell had a problem. Sandra's murder was the solution. And the problem was, you know, Sandra was expecting a baby. The prosecution said that Farwell believed it was his child. He'd lost control of her. She threatened to tell people about their relationship. And also we had that phone call where someone calls the police department, you know, to expose this relationship. Exactly. They said Farwell's sexual relationship with Sandra started when he was an adult and she was a kid. And during that time period, he had complete control over her. You know, he was tracking her location. He was advising her to delete messages. But that as she was getting older and became an adult and sort of had her own mind and was sort of pushing on those boundaries, he was losing control. And that call to the Stoughton Police Department was sort of the tipping point, you know, maybe in his mind that it was inevitable that the information he was trying to conceal, he wasn't going to be able to do that anymore. We should note, Cassie, that Matthew Farwell did not end up being the father of this baby after they did some tests. But the prosecution's point is that he believed he was the father. And they say that's the most important part of that, not who actually was the father. Cassie, remind us why prosecutors believe Farwell had so much to lose if people found out about this relationship and about a potential baby on the way. You know, there's two fronts. The personal front is that Matthew Farwell was married and had two children and the third one on the way. So if his affair was exposed, you know, he had a lot to lose there. Professionally, he had a lot to lose because obviously he's a police officer. He met Sam, he met Sandra during the Explorers program when he was an instructor and she was a cadet. That's all kinds of internal violations there. And then because of the statutory rape allegation, because there's text messages between Matthew Farwell and Sandra reminiscing about the day that Farwell allegedly took Sandra's virginity, you know, with a date that puts her at just 15 years old. Also, you know, he's on the clock allegedly, you know, allegedly during times when they're having these meetings to have sex. And so there's allegations that could also lead to federal crimes. So he has a lot to lose there because if any of this information comes out, I mean, his whole life is going to be imploded. And Andrea, we should note that in 2023, Farwell denied having sex with Sandra when she was a minor. It was in response to a wrongful death lawsuit brought by her family. Cassie, then it was time for the defense. Farwell's attorney argued that the walls were closed and that the walls were closing in on Sandra. She was alone, pregnant, broke. She'd built this fantasy life with Farwell and that when he broke up with her, all of that came crashing down, giving a motive for suicide. Exactly. I mean, they really painted a picture of a woman in the days before her death of not just, okay, she's happy about a baby, but also sort of like a long history of mental health struggles. You know, she had had suicidal ideation in the past. There had been a past attempt. She was a teen to take her life. And now that she was sort of having this fantasy life or idea of what life with Matthew Farwell would be like, that maybe he would leave his wife, that maybe he would stay involved with their child's life, that him going to her apartment and breaking up with her was sort of like this last card being pulled in this house of cards that would just shatter everything and that she would be sort of just beyond crushed and unable to sort of like continue. Also, Cassie, the fact that the state medical examiner who originally ruled this as suicide then changed it to undetermined never actually changed it again to homicide, leaving a window open for the defense with reasonable doubt. Yes, that's true. So much for the jurors to think about. Cassie, before the case went to the jurors, they heard instructions from the judge that included discussion about the charges. Explain that for us, because it is a little complicated. Yes, it is. It is. So basically, there were two charges. Killing a witness or victim is the first charge. And the second charge was protection of unborn children. And basically what that means is the death of Sandra's unborn child. The first charge is the one that gets a little tricky. The first thing that they have to decide is that, you know, did he intentionally kill Sandra? You know, if so, was he doing so to prevent a communication of a possible federal offense as one of his motives? They identified three possible federal offenses that could be communicated to federal authorities. One of them is deprivation of rights under color of law. And basically what that means is that Matthew Farwell used his position as a police officer to deprive Sandra of her civil rights. And that deprivation would come from the fact that she was possibly under 16 when they started their sexual relationship. The other possible underlying federal crime was coercion and enticement. That sort of plays into the possible grooming and sexual exploitation of Sandra. And then the third possible crime was wire fraud. The fact that Sandra was a witness to the fact that she knew there were times when Matthew Farwell and her would meet up for sex while he was on duty. After closings, the jury, of course, went out to deliberate. And then I got a text from you telling me that, that the jury can't seem to agree they're saying they're deadlocked. It was quite a shocker. The judge excused the jury for the day. And you can imagine, like, you know, the family, people that had testified, I'm sure both sides were sort of thrown by it, meaning, you know, it can mean a bunch of things. And so that was the way we started Tuesday morning. And then, you know, Tuesday afternoon, we had a verdict. You can tell everybody's surprised. You can feel the tension in the room. And it was guilty, guilty on all charges. And there were notable loud gasps in the courtroom. Barbara Wright, one of Sandra's cousins, she was visibly shaken and crying. The others were just sort of relieved. And, you know, obviously, this was something they had been working towards for a very long time. So they were extremely, extremely happy about this. After the verdict, several of Sandra's cousins spoke outside of the courthouse. Let's take a listen. And when you heard the words guilty, can you. Just share. It felt right. And Barb, for you, are those tears of sadness today, happiness today, what are those tears? Everything. Sadness, happiness, relief. It's been a long time coming. It's been almost six years since we lost Sandra. The U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, Leah Foley, held a press conference after the verdict. Yes, yes, I was there. It was very heartfelt. It was basically reminding people about, you know, Sandra as a person, as well as Sandra as a person. As well as sort of the unjustness of what had happened to her at the hands of somebody that, you know, that she trusted and looked up to. It is my sincere hope that moving forward, Sandra Birchmore's legacy is not defined by the tragedies that led to this case, but rather by the memories of a young woman who had a bright future. Sandra did not deserve this. When you think of her, I hope you recall the girl full of love, life, and hope. And that is what Sandra deserves. Matthew Farwell's sentencing is scheduled for February. What is he looking at, Cassie, for time? It's mandatory life. Cassie, thank you for bringing us not only the verdict, but all your reporting on this story for a very long time. I know you've been on this forever, so we really appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Coming up, a Virginia man accused of murdering his wife takes the stand at his trial and surprises everyone. For our next story, we're heading to a Virginia courthouse where another murder trial came to an end this week. The trial of Narash Bhat, an IT consultant accused of murdering his wife Mamta, who went missing in the summer of 2024. Prosecutors say Narash killed Mamta and then disposed of her body. She has never been found. They called witness after witness to testify about the couple's troubled marriage. In California, the court ruled that Mamta was the one who killed including allegations that Naresh physically abused Mamta. Mamta. The court ruled that Mamta was the one who killed Mamta. Then, Naresh, who had pleaded not guilty, took the stand in his own defense. And the days-long testimony stunned the courtroom. Here to catch us up on all the details is Dateline producer Marianne O'Donnell. Welcome back, Marianne. Hi, Andrea. Hey, so remind us about this case and where it all began. It began in Northern Virginia, right outside D.C., Naresh and Mamta Bhatt. They look like they have a lovely marriage. They have really a newborn daughter, and they look great. He has an amazing job as an IT consultant, and she is a registered nurse. And then all of a sudden, she doesn't show up for work one day. And immediately, her friends or co-workers sound the alarm bells. That's not like her. given that she also has a small baby at home. So this is in late summer of 2024. Then the police come to do a welfare check at the home, and they meet Naresh Bhatt. And he's holding their little daughter, who's about to turn one, and he's saying, you know what? We were having problems with the marriage, and Mamta just up and left. And I think maybe she's with friends in Texas or maybe in New York. I don't know. And with that, the police leave. And then really, Marianne, just a few weeks after that visit to the house, they arrest and charged Naresh with Mamta's murder, even though her body had not been found. That's right. Let's rejoin the trial that we spoke about that is in its sixth week. Walk us through, first of all, the prosecution's case. The prosecution really paints a picture of an abusive marriage and not just verbally abusive, but physically abusive. So she was trying to get away from her husband is what friends testify to. And even her own brother says, she sent me a photo of her. Her eye is bruised, face is swollen. There's blood in her nose. And she's saying, I do not feel safe. And this is in the months before her disappearance. Really hard to hear, Marianne. What evidence did the prosecution present to try to prove that a murder even took place, given the fact that Mamta's body has never been found? There was one heart-stopping piece of evidence. It was the Ryobi saw. There is staining inside the saw that's reddish brown. And they say that's her blood because he dismembered her in their home and used that saw. They also show video after video after video of parking lots and his Tesla coming in, driving up to a dumpster, and he's unloading bag after bag and then driving away. Marianne, we should say Naresh was not only charged with Mamta's murder, but is also facing charges of defiling and concealing a human body. So the prosecution wrapped up their case, then it was the defense's turn. And as we mentioned, Marianne, their star witness was none other than Naresh himself. Do we know what went into Naresh's decision to testify? We do not. But he was witness number one that the defense called. And it is really, I hate to use the phrase, but it is jaw-dropping. He is saying, I found her dead on the bedroom floor. Can you describe what you saw when you saw Mamta on the floor? Yes, on the floor, and then she was lying with a vomit, stuff like that. He's doing essentially a 180 now, right? Because he initially told the police that Mamta left willingly, and he didn't know where she was. And now he's saying his wording is suicide. Is that right? That's correct. He said that he found an open package of pesticide, some type of chemical. That's right. And Naresh is saying that he tried to save her. Multiple times. He says, I tried to do CPR, but he could not revive her. Even when it was clear she was dead, he said, I waited an hour. I went back. I tried to revive her again. Mr. Bhatt, obvious question. Why didn't you call 911? I really, at that point, scared. I don't know why I did not. I really scared. I don't know why. I have completed more than 3,500 hours of meditation. Still, I don't have that answer. Naresh testified that after he realized Mamta was dead, he says he hatched the plan to dismember her body. That's correct. He was saying, yes, I know it was wrong. I dismembered my wife. I disposed of her in separate bags, but I didn't know what else to do, so I did this. Dead body. Mom's body. That is correct, yes. All right, prosecutors had a field day with him on cross-examination. They went right after him, right out of the gate. You're a liar. Yes. You lied. With that, the room breaks into applause. I don't know about you, Andrea, in all my years of covering this, I've never heard the courtroom erupt into applause. Never. I've never seen that, Marianne, ever. From there, he continues to say, so you lied to this police officer. He says, yes. And you lied to your mother and you lied to your friends. Yes, yes, yes. You're an admitted liar to this entire jury. Everybody in this room knows now that you are a liar. It is so damning that right out of the gate, folks, this man is even telling you he's a liar. Can you believe anything else that comes out of his mouth? Another line of questioning, Marianne, from the prosecution, they touched on Naresh's Google searches that started months before Momta disappeared. The state painted them as very suspicious. Well, they sounded very damning. What happens when a spouse disappears during a divorce? He's also looking at maybe getting in touch with a former fiancé. And Naresh, Marianne, also did a search for chicken farms in his area. The prosecution suggests that Naresh could be thinking of ways to hide Mamta's body. The smell is pretty strong at a chicken farm. It's a good place to hide a decomposing body, right? I don't know that. Never crossed your mind? Never. So you were thinking about buying chickens after you found your wife dead on the floor. That was on your mind? No, I don't believe so. The prosecution pressed Naresh on his alleged abuse of Mamta, showing him photos and a video of Mamta's injuries before she disappeared. He was steadfast in that he did not put Mamta I never touched her at all in my whole life. Never. The only time you touched Mamta is when you chopped her up? That was after Mamta left. The cross-examination lasted for hours, but it all came to a head with one dramatic confrontation. Naresh is answering questions with a translator by his side. You concealed her body. Yes. You admit that's a crime. Yes. You're also charged with murder. Right? Yes. And you have been thinking about killing Mamta for months. I never think about that. Never, ever. All right, Marianne, the jury got the case Tuesday, and after a little more than four hours of deliberation, came back with a verdict. The jury find the accused, Naresh Datt Ba, guilty of first-degree murder. Guilty on all three counts. Naresh Baat faces up to life in prison when he is sentenced next year. Thank you for the updates, Marianne. Thanks, Andrea. Up next, it's time for Dateline Roundup. Russell Brand heads to prison and new DNA evidence in the case of a dentist's son accused of murder. Plus, flock cameras under scrutiny. What you need to know. Welcome back. Joining me for this week's Roundup is Dateline producer Michelle Madigan. Hey, Michelle. Hi, Andrea. Up first, we've got a story across the Atlantic. British actor and comedian Russell Brand learned his fate in a London courtroom. Michelle, listeners may remember him from movies like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek. He was also briefly married to singer Katy Perry. Russell Brand. Russell Brand, who's now 51 years old, has actually been out of the Hollywood spotlight for some time. For the last four weeks, he's been on trial in the U.K., accused of multiple sex crimes, including three counts of rape. Michelle, according to the prosecution, some of the incidents date back to 1999. Why are some of these allegations only coming to light now, so many years later? Did the women say? Yeah, you know, some of the women said they were inspired to contact police after a TV documentary. A TV documentary came out in 2023, and that documentary raised disturbing allegations about Brand's treatment of women. Russell Brand has consistently denied all the allegations against him. Let's take a listen to him during a police interview. I led a very promiscuous life in the past, which I've spent years openly denouncing. I've never engaged in nonconsensual sexual activity. Brand chose to testify in his trial, and Michelle, he said that the sexual. All the encounters were all consensual. He did, but a jury disagreed and found him guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault. He was acquitted on the other charges, and within days, he was back in court for sentencing. In his sentencing remarks, the judge called Brand a sexual predator and then sentenced him to 10 and a half years in prison. The lead detective on the case spoke in a press conference after Brand's sentencing. Let's take a listen to some of that. In our investigation, it was never about Russell Brand's profile, status, or celebrity. Our focus has always been on the women who reported these offenses and on conducting a thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations that they made. The London Metropolitan Police added that Brand is still under investigation for rape allegations made by two other women. Okay, we'll see if there is more news to come on that front. Next, we've got an update out of. Kentucky in the case of Amber Spradlin, the 38-year-old restaurant hostess who was found dead back in June of 2023 at the home of a local dentist, Dr. Michael McKinney. He, his son, who goes by M.K., and M.K.'s friend, Josh Mullins, were charged in connection with Amber's murder, M.K. for the murder itself, and Dr. McKinney and Mullins were charged with multiple counts of evidence tampering. They have all pleaded not guilty. Michelle, M.K.'s defense attorneys have made repeated efforts to get his bond lowered so he can get out of jail. Their latest motion in court included what could potentially be a huge development, DNA evidence. They say proves M.K.'s innocence. Yes, M.K.'s defense team says that a new lab test has identified DNA on Amber's body that doesn't match M.K.'s. It matches someone else. Who do they think it might belong to, have they said? The defense has pointed the finger from early on to an alternative suspect, a man by the name of Roy Kidd, who was Amber's friend. According to the defense, the DNA is a match for Roy. Where exactly was the DNA found, Michelle? Well, in their motion, the defense wrote that Amber and Roy's DNA was found mixed together on items of, quote, damning importance. One of the items, they say, is a hair clip that Amber was wearing that night. And this is hard to believe. It's hard to hear. They allege that because Amber was stabbed with such brutal force that the killer likely needed to grab her hair to do so. And the DNA found on the hair clip belongs to Roy Kidd. How did the prosecution respond to this DNA evidence? Well, they argued that the suggestion that the killer grabbed Amber's hair is speculation, not science. And they accused this defense of making selective and inaccurate claims. From the lab's conclusions. As a reminder, Roy Kidd has never been charged in connection to this crime. And through a statement from his attorney, he's denied any involvement in Amber's murder. The judge ruled on the motion, and we have a clip from local channel Mountaintop News. I didn't see anything presented that would suggest additional changes in bail. So, yes, the judge sided with the prosecution, saying MK should remain in custody until trial. That's expected to get underway in January. For our final story, we've got a quick follow-up on some motions we told you about last week in the Lindsay Clancy case. She's, of course, the former labor and delivery nurse from Massachusetts whose murder trial for the deaths of her three children in 2023 ended in a mistrial with one holdout juror. Lindsay's defense team said she'd been experiencing postpartum psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Michelle, remind us what motions are. So, Clancy's attorneys argued she should be exempt from a retrial and have her charges dismissed. They asked the judge to do more investigation into this holdout juror, and they also asked for a gag order in the case. The judge released his decisions on all of those three motions on Monday. What did he decide, Michelle? He denied all three of them, but the motion to dismiss is huge. It clears the way for a retrial. Okay, thank you, Michelle, for these updates. You're welcome. Last week, we told you about Jacob Morley, a convicted killer who broke out of a Tennessee prison and was on the run for nine days before finally being captured hundreds of miles away in Missouri. The State Highway Patrol credited one thing in particular for helping track him down, Flock cameras. There are tens of thousands of these security cameras across the country. Police have called them a game changer. According to Flock, the cameras helped solve more than a million crimes last year. Many chiefs joke that it's more effective than DNA. But the cameras have also come under fire at city council meetings across the country. Get the Flock out of Troy. Thank you very much. And at a recent Senate hearing. The truth is, you have probably been scanned and surveilled and tagged and logged multiple times this week alone. Critics are raising the alarm. One of those critics is Harry Moggins, the CEO of Privacy Bee. Harry is here now to tell us about the cons. And the pros of this latest crime-fighting tool. Thank you for joining us today, Harry. Thank you for having me. Harry, you're a privacy expert and your company sells privacy protection services. Would you ever think surveillance like this could be a good idea? I think it's a good idea when used with legal guardrails where there's accountability and transparency. I think when it doesn't have these checks and balances, that's when it goes too far. So, Harry, big general question for those people listening who don't know about Flock. Flock cameras, what are they? Flock cameras are those seemingly innocuous black boxes that are appearing at every other intersection around the country. Usually on a black telephone pole or metal pole, usually with a solar panel up top. And they're pointed at roads, capturing cars, taking pictures of license plates. And really, you know, anything that passes by and makes them trigger their motion activation, it captures it and sends it up to their cloud. So, it could be people walking, could be cyclists. Correct. They're focused mostly on vehicles, but it's motion activated and no technology is perfect. So, what is happening when this information goes to the cloud? So, these cameras have been around for a while with a bunch of different vendors. The reason Flock is so different is they create almost a surveillance dragnet where they can stitch together uniquely identifying your car at camera 12 going down the street to camera 36 and they know it's still the same car. So, they're basically creating this dossier. of everywhere you've been and they keep keep this dossier, this entire history of your travel, in some cases for a month or more. So then law enforcement is, what, sifting through these images, or is it the camera sending things to the police? The customer of Flock is police departments, different organizations, mostly precincts, some county level, that subscribe to Flock. And when you subscribe, you get the camera as you pay an annual fee, and you get access to their back-end technology that connects everything together. So what happens is the intention behind it is actually good. You know, you can say, hey, there's an Amber Alert on this single car. Let's scan our entire city to try to find this Amber Alert or, you know, a felon on the flee from a crime. You know, whatever it is, that makes a lot of sense. And that actually is a very good use case that it is being used for to solve crimes every day. So let's get to the criticism over these cameras and how they're used with regards to privacy. I've seen a lot of stories in the news lately of officers using Flock cameras, for example, to track their ex-girlfriend or their wife. You know, there was one case where an officer was accused of tracking his ex-girlfriend over 2,000 times. He's pleaded not guilty to several counts of official misconduct and unlawful access to a computer. Absolutely. It's a new technology that police departments are now getting access to. And when it's new, there needs to be rules in place that say what is allowed and what's not allowed. So is one way to put protections in to, you know, really get specific as to what you need that video for? Yeah, no, absolutely. The challenge is Flock's a private company, so they don't have access to the same computer systems the police use. And they shouldn't because they're a private company, right? All Flock can do on their side is put a text box to say, please enter an identifying, you know, case number. But there's no way to connect or validate or confirm beyond a police officer saying, I promise I'm using it for an investigation. It sounds like a lot of it's up to the police departments themselves. Exactly. To monitor what is being searched. And that brings us to the Senate hearing spearheaded by Republican Senator Josh Hawley and Democrat Senator Dick Durbin. This hearing is about a simple thing. It's trying to get to the bottom of what is going on with the expanding surveillance network that appears to be going coast to coast in this country. One of the witnesses at the hearing was a Florida woman, Lindsay Isaacs, who said she was wrongfully arrested after a Flock camera identified her car three miles from the scene of a fatal crash. On April 17th, 2026, a warrant was issued for my arrest. I was placed in solitary confinement for approximately three and a half hours. I was terrified. I was facing the possibility of spending the rest of my life in prison for a crash. I knew that I knew I had not been involved in. Lindsay was released after 13 days in jail. Charges were dropped. Common sense would have shown that she wasn't involved. Her car was a different color. There was no damage to her car indicating a crash, even so she was arrested. It's crazy. And, you know, Flock's positioning is it helps aid an investigation. But I think people see a brain in technology and say, oh, it's perfect, when in reality it should be, you know, just one piece of a much bigger investigation to hint at it. One piece of the puzzle. So what has Flock done about this? Have they implemented protections to try to prevent abuse of the database? So the CEO came out and said he wants to make some changes to help find that middle ground between privacy and solving crimes. Two months ago in a video on YouTube, Flock founder and CEO Garrett Langley announced three big changes. Tools this powerful must come with guardrails this strong. The default setting for storing data will now be seven days, not 30, although police departments will be able to override that time frame if they want to. Police will be required to enter an active case number before running a plate, and any questionable use of the system will be flagged. We have instituted automatic lockouts for users who are flagged for potential misuse. Do you think that we will, Harry, see legislation, going forward? I think so, but I think more powerful than federal legislation is the local city councils. I think that's where we're going to see the most impact because that affects Flock's revenue. Harry, thank you so much. This is clearly a topic that is on the minds of Americans, so I'm so glad you broke it down for us. Thank you. Absolutely. That's it for this episode of Dateline True Crime Weekly. But if you love Dateline podcasts, and we hope that you do, subscribe to Dateline Premium. It's a great way to get early access to all of our latest podcasts. You can listen ad-free, and there's bonus content. Coming up this Friday on Dateline, Blaine has an all-new story about the murder of a beloved New Mexico waitress and the stunning twist that led investigators to her killer. Such an evil mindset. This was going to rock the community. He had caused so much pain. I wasn't going to let him take anybody else. Watch Hunted, Friday at 9, 8 central, on Dateline on NBC. Thanks for listening. Dateline True Crime Weekly is produced by Carson Cummins, Caroline Casey, and Keanu Reid. Our associate producers are Ellery Gladstone-Groth and Aria Young. Production and fact-checking help by Carol Chen. Our senior producer is Liz Brown-Kurloff. Veronica Maseka is our digital producer. Rick Kwan is our sound designer. Original music by Jesse McGinty. Paul Ryan is executive producer. And Liz Cole is senior executive producer of Dateline. Bye, everyone. Bye, everyone.