Podcasts about csi tv

Caught on camera. Diddy assaulting his then girlfriend? What the shocking surveillance footage reveals. Then, Bennifer breaking up? Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck spotted together after 6-weeks apart? What ET knows about the rumors. Plus, the world's #1 golfer arrested. Scottie Scheffler charged with assaulting an officer in the middle of the PGA Championship. Why he says it's all a big misunderstanding. And, backstage at the ACM Awards. The couples, the surprises and everything you didn't see. Then, only ET is behind-the-scenes of The New Kids On The Block's tour rehearsal as the band releases their first new album in 11 years. Plus, 24 years after the “CSI” TV debut, “CSI: Vegas” says goodbye. We're behind the scenes of the series finale.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of the Data Malarkey podcast, data storyteller Sam Knowles meets Professor Angela Gallop, CBE, the forensic scientists' forensic scientist. Over the past four decades, the teams she's led have solved some of the most complex, difficult, and intransigent cold cases in British criminal history: Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common, Roberto Calvi under Blackfriars Bridge, and Damilola Taylor in Peckham. And perhaps most notoriously of all, Stephen Lawrence, stabbed by a gang of racist thugs on the streets of Eltham.   The details of how Angela and her teams cracked these cases – often bringing pioneering new techniques into play – are recorded in (ahem!) forensic detail in all manner of media. They're in Angela's 2019 book When the Dogs Don't Bark, her 2022 book How to Solve a Crime, and in any number of TV documentaries and specials. Most recently, this included the three-part ITV1 series, Cold Case Forensics, in February of this year. Not to mention Angela's appearance on the legend that is BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs last November. Links below.   Our conversation was recorded remotely, via the medium of Riverside.fm, on Friday 15 September 2023.   Thanks to Joe Hickey for production support.   Podcast artwork by Shatter Media.   Voice over by Samantha Boffin.   Angela tells us how her interest in solving crime was perhaps first kindled by the lurid stories in the now-defunct British tabloid Sunday newspaper, The News of the World, and her love of science was enflamed by an inspirational, sixth-form biology teacher at school “just in the nick of time”. This passion for working things out combined with an intense sense of natural justice saw forensic science take over her life after she joined the Home Office Forensic Science Service in 1974.   As her skills developed and as she founded and scaled some of the country's first and most successful private forensic science businesses, Angela became an international expert in blood and other bodily fluids – who they could and couldn't have come from, and the patterns they make and leave behind at crime scenes.   Forensics cover so many different areas in “offences against the person” – bodily fluids, of course, but also weapons, clothing – textiles, fibres, and fragments – toxicology, drugs, footwear, documents, and firearms. Increasingly, criminals leave digital traces of their activity, but the biggest single development in Angela's long and stellar career has been the rise to prominence of DNA evidence.   In perhaps the most memorable, moving, and intricate part of our discussion, Angela details how – after repeated examination and failures to identify the killers – she and her team unpicked the evidence that led to prosecution in the Stephen Lawrence case.   Angela also maintains that real forensics is much more subtle, time-consuming, interesting, and collegiate than the CSI TV drama series are ever able to portray.   EXTERNAL LINKS Angela's books https://www.waterstones.com/author/professor-angela-gallop/4009171   A ‘Long Read' on Angela's career, from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/mar/24/queen-of-crime-solving-angela-gallop-forensic-science   Angela on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs from 4 November 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001dmpl   2023 ITV1 series Cold Case Forensics covering how Angela and her team cracked the Rachel Nickell, Lynette White, and Stephen Lawrence cases https://www.itv.com/watch/cold-case-forensics/10a1535/10a1535a0002   --   To find out how you rank as a data storyteller, complete our data storytelling scorecard at https://data-storytelling.scoreapp.com. It takes just two minutes, and we'll send you your own personalised scorecard which tells you what kind of data storyteller you are.

In this episode of Real Talk, KJK Student Defense Attorneys Susan Stone and Kristina Supler are joined by Carrie Hull, who founded the You Have Options Program, nationally recognized for providing reporting options for survivors of sexual violence. Carrie also created the Certified FETI® Program, standardizing trauma interviews. They discuss the importance of utilizing effective interviewing techniques in investigations, specifically within the realms of law enforcement and Title IX cases. They also explore the necessity of gathering accurate information and avoiding biased assumptions through neutral questioning. The role of body language and filtering out implicit bias is also discussed.   Show Notes: ·         Carrie's Background (1:30) ·         The FETI framework (2:30) ·         The science and study behind FETI (4:15) ·         The applications of a FETI interview (5:30) ·         How to ask questions using the FETI methodology (7:00) ·         Collecting the dots vs connecting the dots (08:30) ·         Receiving answers without judgement (10:00) ·         Use in different disciplines (11:45) ·         How FETI can be used in Title IX cases (13:50) ·         The importance of framing an investigation (16:30) ·         The role of body language in an interview (18:00) ·         How to prevent leading questions (19:45) ·         How to filter implicit bias (21:00) ·         How a FETI investigation differs (23:00) ·         Conclusion (25:20)     Transcript: Susan Stone: Welcome back to Real Talk with Susan Stone and Christina Subler. We are full-time moms and attorneys bringing our student defense legal practice to life with real candid conversation. Today's episode is gonna focus on a topic that Christina and I really take for granted, and that's the actual interviewing process of somebody who is either reporting a Title IX complaint or a crime. Kristina Supler:  I am excited for today's guest because I think that sometimes when lawyers are brought in for student advisors, in particularly campus Title IX cases, there's so much focus on the hearing. But I know Susan, you and I always talk about how important the interview is, and we spend so much time preparing our students for their interview. Susan Stone:  I agree. And we have seen so many different styles of investigators. It's like snowflakes no two are the same. And I, I really do mean that we've seen people who make our students feel interrogated. Kristina Supler: Sure. And, and then we've also had, you know, investigators who I felt were very impartial and truly there to just have a conversation to collect evidence. Susan Stone: On the flip side, you want your investigator to be impartial, but you also want the details to come out and you wanna make sure they circle back and do a thorough investigation and really try to dig out the truth. Kristina Supler That's right. That's right. Well, I'm excited to speak with today's guest, Carrie Hall. Yeah. Carrie is an Oregon native, a former de detective with the Ashland Police Department and a leading figure in improving law enforcement responses to sexual violence. She created the Certified FETI® Program, which is an interviewing methodology intended to sort of standardize investigative interviews. And through her consultancy, Carrie Hall Consulting, she also offers specialized training to law enforcements across the globe. We're really pleased to have you join us today. Carrie. Welcome. Welcome, Carrie. Carrie Hull: Well, thanks so much.   Susan Stone: We're gonna start with the first question. We like to go broad and then whittle down called the, is that the funnel approach? Carrie?   Carrie Hull: Funnel Technique. Funnel Susan Stone: So describe the FETI framework. How's that? Carrie Hull: Yeah, so FETI stands for the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview, and it really is made up of a series of principles and foundational, you know, metrics that are on the practitioner. So when we say practitioner, we mean the person who is conducting the interview. We don't have any requirements or any restrictions that are placed on what we consider the participant. We don't view our participants as victims, witnesses, suspects, anything like that, because we really want them to remain and us to remain in the neutral. We are fully just a methodology that is about information collection. So it's been very interesting when I, when I was listening to that introduction and you talking about interacting with some of these different investigators, what I think is such a defining piece for me as an investigator of FETI is that it forces me to stay in the interviewer role and not conflate being an investigator at the same time, which lets me gather information in such a, well, more robust way, but also a more accurate way, because I'm not driving towards a conclusion, which is really more of that investigative side. So what FETI does is it asks the practitioners to really just be an interviewer, even if their other roles are also to investigate and to put things together. What the forensic experiential trauma interview methodology allows us to do is stay very, very specifically in information collection. So within that, we have some, you know, pieces of our framework. It's science-based. That's very, very important for us because that as that changes, as the neuroscience and, you know, the information about the brain comes out about memory and encoding and retrieval, we wanna make sure that we are actually are applying that and it's not taking years and years to be able to bring that into our methodologies. And then we have something called opportunities for information, and that's the bulk of the methodology. It's talking about using brain-based cues, very specific, we call them systems of security, to provide a lot of options for the people who are stepping forward and giving information to be able to actually have that information collected, but also have it documented accurately. So for us, it's very, very specifically not an investigations practice. It's all about information collection. Kristina Supler: And what are the, the realms in which the applications for use of FETI methodology, criminal cases, school cases, a mix? Carrie Hull: Yeah, it's definitely a mix. It started out very much focused within sexual violence cases. So this was born out of law enforcement, specifically out of the Department of Defense in the Army. One of our instructors who was very active still with us, Lori Hyman, was the first one to actually use the FETI methodology within an investigation. And that was within the Army criminal command. And, and that was focused around sexual violence cases predominantly. So it started out being used with people who were stepping forward and either identified themselves or identified by someone else as a victim. What it has grown into in mainly because we wanna enhance that neutrality. Our learning was that this needed to not focus so much on what somebody was saying they were, or putting them into a box, but just trying to really gather the experience of what they are saying happened in a really three-dimensional way. Then we take that information and we move it into another system. That could be an investigation, that also could be a hiring process. I do a lot of work, surprisingly. I I did never intend for this to be the case in human resources. We use this a lot within human resources. So the applications are endless. It really is focused on if somebody has had an experience, being able to gather that and document it accurately. Susan Stone: Carrie, I have a question that drives me crazy when I listen to interviews and it's how should fact gatherers? 'cause I'm not gonna call you investigators. I'm learning, try to elicit information as to the ultimate issue without being too obvious. So for example, if you ask somebody, did you steal the cookie? What do you expect? No, no. With crumbs all over. And the reason I say that is we were just involved in an investigation where there were just blanket denials. And I can't help but think that the reason everyone was just denying was because the questions were just too conclusive. Kristina Supler: Did you do this really bad thing? It's true. Yeah. Yeah. Carrie Hull: Well, and, and for me, it's so funny when I hear stuff like this because it just takes me back to the beginning of my career as a detective. Well, even prior to that as an officer. And I wish that I had this understanding then, because I used to, you know, find myself in very similar situations. And it was frustrating for everybody. 'cause you just didn't seem like you were able to do anything with it. Right? You just had people on one end denying people on one end, assuming, and then not a lot of information being shared in between, which is not helpful. So if I just use the cookie analogy, I'll just use that as an example. Let's say you have somebody that has res all over their face, right? And you have somebody who's accusing them of taking a cookie that they weren't supposed to have.  And so what we would say with FETI is move back from looking and making the accusation, because you might be wrong, right? The experience of the crumbs could have come from numerous other things other than a stolen cookie. Some of them might be unlikely, but it doesn't mean that they're impossible. And so we really just focus on gathering what that experience was for the person. So if I was walking up and interviewing the person who had crumbs all over their face, I might start out by saying, you know, help me understand how you feel right now instead of accusing them of doing something. Because just like what you mentioned, that's not one gonna be probably the most fruitful way to do it. But more importantly, you might be wrong. And what you're doing by, by going into that sort of investigative focus, driving towards an answer is you're losing all the information that helps you ultimately get to the answer. So what we've found is by just backing away from trying to, you know, connect the dots, we say in FETI, we collect the dots. We do not connect them. This is a massive shift from where we started when, when FETI was in its infancy, we used to use this analogy of puzzle pieces. And we used to say like, you're gathering the puzzle pieces. And the instructors would go up in front of the room and they would like throw a puzzle up in the air and do this big, you know, explanation of some puzzle pieces are upside down and right side up. And the goal right in the interview is to be able to gather them and put them together. That was so misinformed. And, and this is one of the things I love about this methodology, is we're, we're not guardians of it. We want it to change. And as neuroscientists push back, as practitioners push back, we realized, no, our goal as an interviewer is not to put the puzzle together. Our goal is just to collect the dots. So we, we say in our training that the dots are information, we collect them, we do not connect them. Connecting the dots is what you do in the investigation after you've collected that information. So to go back to that cookie analogy, I would just collect as much information as I could. You know, help me understand what I'm able to see on your face right now, and then let them answer. Right? Let them, even if let's just say they are absolutely fabricating, they, they come up with whatever it is. You know, aliens came down from outer space and rubbed a cookie all over my face, right? I'll just give a ridiculous one. Okay, tell me more about the aliens. And genuinely we're not gonna say that, you know, with any sort of judgment, we're not gonna say anything with that because that's not my role.  My role is to document whatever they're able to share with me at that time, and then to really, really be able to allow them space in that experience. And if that is a fabrication or a lie, that's okay, I'm gonna document that. That's just as important to take forward into an investigative process to be able to corroborate or refute that as, you know, this sort of feeling that we need to solve it in the moment. And once I realized that I didn't need to have the answer in the interview, life just got so much more effective. And it actually got simpler. My job was actually what it truly was, which was to interview. What I see people do instead is they call an an interview, you know, this form of gathering information. But when I review it, when I evaluate these, they are absolutely investigating. They're not interviewing, and they've completely bypassed the interview at all. And they've moved right, to trying to draw conclusions. So that's really what the methodology does, is it, it puts those kind of breaks and those reminders on the practitioner to truly go in and gather. Susan Stone: So you don't make credibility calls. Carrie Hull: We do not within the interview. Now, in other functions of like my work, I will absolutely be part of that process. But what I would say to my team if I'm working with them or myself, is I, have I gathered enough to be able to make that credibility assessment, right? So it is, and it can be pretty fluid, you know, as a police officer, we work all the time with people that are patrol and we work, you know, we don't ever encourage somebody to like say to the person they're interacting with right now, I'm doing an interview with you, right? And hold on, I need to stop and now I'm gonna be doing an investigation. That's absolutely not what we're saying. These are fluid principles and processes that you might be moving in and out of sometimes within a very short period of time. I'll give you a really quick example. We never anticipated this to be used, be used with paramedics. This a hundred percent was first for law enforcement and detectives. And we started seeing these paramedics coming to our trainings, and I remember I got to talk to some of them and I said, you know, one of our cues help me understand using this methodology in your work. And they started talking about just little tweaks that they were able to make to the questions that they're asking of their patients. And, you know, this was always the pushback we got is, I don't have time to do this. It takes too much time. And I love this example because it shows that it's really, the onus is on the practitioner for the words coming outta their mouth for how the data's collected. So they have somebody in the back of an ambulance and they said, they've just modified from before. They would say, where are you injured? Instead, now they've shifted to, what are you able to tell me about your body right now? And it's such a distinct and important difference. It costs the same amount of time to say, but what I'm told is they get so much more valuable information because one is asking for a conclusion, and it's also asking for a patient to be able to assess what injury is. That is a complicated thing for a brain, let alone if they're experiencing some sort of physical event to their body. So instead they say, what are you able to tell me about your body right now? And they're, yes, some of the information may not be relevant, but a lot of it is. And then they can pass all that information off to the ER staff who then are essentially, you know, the equivalent of the investigators that are gonna take that intel and decide whether it's relevant and whether it's needed for their assessment. So I, I really see that as sort of this enlightening of separating out the investigation from the interview. Kristina Supler: It's interesting to hear you speak so much about, I like the phrase collect dots, don't connect the dots. Yeah. It, when students come to us, particularly in the Title IX realm, and we're sort of preparing to embark on navigating the student through the process, oftentimes we're just engaging in information gathering and, and trying to identify what evidence might be out there. And so often, particularly with sex cases of any type, we're met with the response. Well, it, it was just, there was just two of us alone in a room. So who's to say it's one person's word against another? Carrie, I'd like to hear from you what sort of damage can occur when an investigator in Title IX case frames a case as a a, he said, she said, or something along those lines during an interview. Carrie Hull: Oh, it's my most hated phrase, and there's a lot of things that I don't like hearing, but he said, she said is just one that crawls up my back and, and gives me the worst feeling. So what I will say when I'm working with investigators specifically, and, and I get a lot of pushback for this, some of them take it very personally, and I think they should. But I am adamant if you as an investigator are ever saying it's a he said, she said case. Now, again, I'm talking as an investigator. Unfortunately society uses this term way too much. But as a professional, if you are using the term he said, she said, what you are communicating to me loud and clear is that you are very bad at your job. So if I, if I work with somebody, well, because what, what you have communicated, if you say, I have a he said, she said case one, the gendered problem is right there out, out as the front. But let's just say it is somebody stepping forward who identifies as a male and somebody identifies as a female. All you are telling me is that you have done two things in that case at best, you've talked to the female and you've talked to the male, you haven't investigated anything. So you don't have a case. You have two interviews. That's not a he said, she said case. And so that's where I say, you are really bad at your job if you said you have a, he said, she said case. There is always something to corroborate or refute, even in the cases that seemingly have very little information, you need to actually put the time and work in. This requires effort. These investigations require effort. And so if you are just going forward and you're taking a, you know, the report from one person and you're going and talking to the other person, and you're not doing anything else to corroborate or refute the information that's gathered in those, you don't have a case, you have two interviews and you just need to be accurate in your documentation that that's all you did. Susan Stone: 2 What I worry about in terms of what is considered cooperation, it's often bringing up prior mud slinging character evidence saying, oh, well she has a reputation of X, he has a reputation of Y and therefore they must have behaved a certain way at the incident in question. And so I agree with you, there are, it is limited when you frame something as, let's say they said, they said to be more neutral, but I also get worried what we consider to be valid corroborating evidence. Carrie Hull: Sure. And again, that's where I separate out the interview from the investigation, because now we're talking about drawing conclusions, we're talking about bringing that in. And instead, if somebody said to me, I just go immediately to my, my interviewer mind when I hear somebody say like mud slinging, for instance. And that's, of course this happens and it's horrible and it shouldn't, well, let's just go with the reality of it happening. If somebody came to me in one of my investigations and they said something like that, well, this person A, here's the reason that they should not be believed. I am going, Ooh, this is another opportunity for an interview. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask permission, you know, would you be willing to sit down and tell me more about that? Because when it is truly just the quote unquote mudslinging, right, there's no real relevancy. It falls apart in a really good professional interview when you have somebody who's skilled and knows what they're doing, or you can at least get back to this is where that credibility potential comes in. And at least now you're taking all those dots and you're offering them to whoever is the finder of fact or whoever's making that determination so that they have more than just a one or two word statement, which is traditionally what I see now that should not be entered in there, but, but there could be really good intel underneath that, right? Help me understand more about this, whatever that is. And I'm gonna have them explore it. And if it comes into, it's just an opinion, we don't really weigh opinions in our investigations very much. There needs to be more than that. We don't disregard it. We include everything that somebody gives us. But again, it's for that professional finder of fact that needs to determine the weight of it. Kristina Supler: Carrie, what role does body language play in both an interview and then I guess subsequently in an investigation because they're very different roles? Carrie Hull: Yeah, so for us as an interviewer, any sort of somatic response is again, just an opportunity. We, we really, this is a huge part of the framework where we talk about opportunities for information. We don't draw any conclusions about it. We just gather it and we document it. For instance, I do a lot of human trafficking work. There's just a ton of, you know, investigations that I get invited into to do the interviews for both people who are accused of being involved in human trafficking and people who are, you know, stepping forward as a victim of it or identified as a victim. And in those interviews, it is very, very common for there to be body movement, right? So, you know, as we're going in and, and they're, they're sort of inviting us into their experience. We'll do a lot of tell me mores. And as somebody's talking about it, I will might see them touch a part of their body. Sometimes it could be outside of their awareness, sometimes it could, it's not for me to determine that, but for instance, I might see them do this, right? Touch their wrist or do something like this. Now that can just be something that somebody does that could just be that they do that frequently when they talk. Or it might be something that is connected to the memory of what they're telling me about. My job as the interviewer is not to make a determination. My job is to cue to it. Now, what I won't do in an interview is I won't point out, oh, I see you that you're rubbing your wrist because that's leading, that's the same as a leading question. And I don't wanna do that. What I will say instead is, when appropriate, without interrupting them, what, if anything, are you able to tell me about your wrist at that time? Right? If they're talking about a specific event occurring, I'm, I'm going to, as long as they have a wrist, it's not leading right. But I'm not gonna point out that they're doing that movement now based on how that was encoded for them based on their memory. It may be that that then jumps off into a memory that they're able to tell me about or something relating to the event. There may also be nothing there. And so by not pointing it out, but queuing to it instead, I haven't done anything to sort of change their memory or alter it. I've just given them an opportunity to enhance it without me being the director of that. My job as a really skilled interviewer is just to be sitting with them and hearing and collecting not to ever be giving anything back. We call it within FETI unidirectional interviewing. We as the interviewer, should never under any circumstances, put something into that interview. We should walk away from that interview fully, just with things they gave to us. So you would, Susan Stone: Well, it's so funny, your unidirectional interviewing has led me to a thought. And I'm wondering, when you're looking at body language or the way people frame responses, how do you filter in or filter out implicit bias? Kristina Supler: Oh, that's a good question. Carrie Hull: Yeah, it's incredibly hard and it really requires a lot of practice on the part of the practitioner. We rely on something we call the never again 10. And again, it's, it's a system for us that is baked in to hopefully interrupt that and keep it from happening. We do acknowledge humans are human, and so you're never gonna have it perfect, but the goal needs to be neutrality. So for instance, one of the requirements of the never again 10 is you do not ever offer any personal information or advice. So there is just no, it's not at all allowed, especially at an advanced level for FETI, I would say most of our basic practitioners really avoid this as well. That really helps For any of that. Again, going into these interviews, my ideal situation is not to know anything about what happened. That can be harder depending on how involved I've been with the investigation.  But I'll give you a just an example. If I get called to deploy to something, usually something's gone wrong, right? There's usually a mass casualty incident or something's been really bad, they're not usually calling in outside interviewers unless something's gone wrong. And they will often call me up and say, Hey, here's what happened. I have to stop them and say, Nope, I don't wanna know anything about what happened. I try and go into those interviews as blind as possible, as neutral, as much of a blank slate, whatever, you know, you want to use as that. And that's a very different, when I was a detective working on the homicide team, we would sit around for, I mean, days, weeks, coming up with every question that we wanted, reading every report we could get our hands on everything we could to formulate our questions. And what that did was really increased the chances for bias. And what it also did is gave us the feeling like we already knew the answer and we were driving to something. So instead, we really try and go in as neutral as possible. Kristina Supler: So you're making me think back to the anecdote you mentioned of paramedics and like, oh my gosh, we're responding to a 911 call. There's cars and bodies on the side of the road. We don't have time. We have to get information fast. And hearing you talk about going into interviews as a blank slate, I'm just imagining, again, in, in our world, in campus, title IX proceedings interviews conducted with this methodology. I, I would think they take a really long time. Is that accurate? Carrie Hull: I, I mean it, it's everything above, right. You know, so I can go in, I might have been working with a team for three years and our human trafficking work is a really great example. I have tons of knowledge of that case. And so it's on me to remind myself before I go into these interviews, I literally will have a process that just works for me. I'm a very visual person as I'm walking to the interview, even if it's a phone, if it's a, a zoom, whatever it is in person, I actually mentally bulldoze the information I think I know out of my head just for that interview piece to the best that I can. Now you're still gonna have stuff that creeps in and that's when you're gonna see potentially a leading question or something like that. But as my skill has gotten better, I've really gotten better about being able to do that. And it can be quick too. We work with our, you know, like I mentioned, our patrol officers on traffic stops, you know, they, they on viewed something that made them make a determination to, to make that, whether it was a field contact or a, you know, they stopped a vehicle. So they have that information. What we encourage them to do, just very quickly, same as the, you know, paramedics just go up there and just remind yourself that you don't know everything and you're just collecting, you already have this other facts that you've observed. And that's fine. We're not saying throw it away, but go up into that, that sort of interview, even if it's a very quick one, that information collection and just be open because there might be some other reason that this happened that you're not aware of often there is. And it's gonna give you so much more access to that. And you can always bring that other information back in very quickly. Write the ticket, you know, do whatever you need to do, but engage with that person and see if they're willing to share with you about their experience. Because they had an experience too. You observed something, but they also contributed to whatever this interaction is. And we wanna hear from them. We just don't wanna, you know, diagnose it or we don't want to make a determination about it until we give them a chance to engage with us about it. Susan Stone: It's really a mindset FETI. Yeah. Versus, it's not the same as telling an attorney when you frame questions don't lead, right. Open versus closed. Open versus closed question. It's really just having that mindset of being open to whatever you're going to hear. But as we close the investigation of you, oh, any CSI TV moments that you'd like to share with our listeners out there? Carrie Hull: 4 Oh gosh, I don't know if there's anything I'm allowed to share. I'm under about a hundred different non-disclosures. Oh, Kristina Supler: Come on. I bet you've got the best stories at cocktail parties. That's terrible. You can't share anything with our, you know, I literally- Carrie Hull: Don't think I have Susan Stone: Hundreds of thousands of your best friends. They out. No, no doubt. No one Carrie Hull: I wish I could secret. There's a lot of things that I wish that people knew. And you know, what I will say is that you would think that with the work that I'm exposed to and all these things that I hear, 'cause you get, really get to get in to people. A lot of people are surprised that I'm not more pessimistic. And I will actually say this work has made me the most optimistic about just humans that I've ever been. Because when you allow someone to sit down and truly share their experience without judgment, no matter what side they're on, whether they're accused of something or whether they've had something happen to them, you really get such a better understanding of the human behavior. And that has given me a lot of optimism. I see that we're gonna be much better at this, and we have these skills and these tools now that weren't available to me when I started my career. So I do wish that people had the opportunity to hear what I hear. I do think that if you use something like this, it doesn't have to be FETI, right? But something that is truly neutral, truly around information gathering, it's gonna make all this work that we're involved in that's really difficult. Just a little bit better. Susan Stone: Oh, I love ending on that. Kristina Supler: Optimistic. I was just gonna say, I think that's, let's end on a positive note. That's great, Carrie. It was really, thanks Karen, a lot of fun to talk with you today and I'm so interested in your work and what you do. I think it's wonderful. Thanks for joining us today. Thanks for listening to Real Talk with Susan and Christina. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to our show so you never miss an episode. And leave us a review so other people can find the content we share here. You can follow us on Instagram, just search our handle at Stone Souper and for more resources, visit us online at studentdefense.KJK.com. Thank you so much for being a part of our Real Talk community. We'll see you next time.  

Podcast a bécsi TV Kagran kézilabda csapatról. Kettő oszlopos tagja Sándor Tamás és Sándor Ilona, akik az edézseket is tartják a gyerekeknek és a felnőtteknek. Mind a ketten munka és család mellett, mint hobby kézilabdáznak illetve edzősködnek. Szeretnek a gyerekekkel foglalkozni, sok motivációt adnak nekik és csak plusz öröm, hogy a saját gyerekeikkel is együtt lehetnek. Podcast adás is érkezik a kettő alapítóval. TV Kagran kézilabda csapat Bécsben: montázs video: https://youtu.be/QNXezYgmcKw Korábbi podcast a kézilabda csapat kettő tagjával: https://youtu.be/cDErh7Cr8FU #kézilabda #sport #Bécs #Ausztria Vienna Handball / Wiener Handball / Bécsi Kézilabda csoport: https://www.facebook.com/groups/tvkagranhandball/ Minden szerdán edzés Kagranban: 19:30-21:00 E-mail: handball@tvkagran.at A csapat meccsei: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9w9KYZbauZqXX28atZ5_Qw https://instagram.com/tom_handball_coach https://www.facebook.com/Turnverein.Kagran https://www.facebook.com/cafewilheim -----------------------------------

Subscribe to The Bureau with Frank Figliuzzi: https://link.chtbl.com/TheBureau When it comes to the highest-profile crimes scenes in modern history, this FBI veteran Evidence Response Team supervisor has "been there, done that". If you're a fan of those CSI TV shows - this episode is for you. Follow Frank on Twitter https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1 Promo Codes Try Acorn TV free for 30 days. Go to Acorn.tv and use promo code: frank (all lower case) For up to $200 off any mattress purchase and 2 free pillows go to HelixSleep.com/BUREAU Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When it comes to the highest-profile crimes scenes in modern history, this FBI veteran Evidence Response Team supervisor has "been there, done that". If you're a fan of those CSI TV shows - this episode is for you. Follow Frank on Twitter https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1 Promo Codes Try Acorn TV free for 30 days. Go to Acorn.tv and use promo code: frank (all lower case) For up to $200 off any mattress purchase and 2 free pillows go to HelixSleep.com/BUREAU Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi everyone, and thank you for tuning in to another episode of the We Make Books Podcast - A podcast about writing, publishing, and everything in between! This week we have another vintage episode from Rekka's previous podcast, The Hybrid Author.  Rekka sat down with author Jennifer Mace to talk about how you deal with all of those loose ends and dangling plots while finishing your story and the answer is both straightforward and awesome: Murderboards.  We really don't want to give too much away here because this episode is just that awesome, so give it a listen and get ready to add a giant post-it covered bulletin board to your life! We Make Books is hosted by Rekka Jay and Kaelyn Considine; Rekka is a published author and Kaelyn is an editor and together they are going to take you through what goes into getting a book out of your head, on to paper, in to the hands of a publisher, and finally on to book store shelves. We Make Books is a podcast for writers and publishers, by writers and publishers and we want to hear from our listeners! Hit us up on our social media, linked below, and send us your questions, comments, concerns, and a maybe a story about when you once had to take one of your darlings out behind the chemical shed.  We hope you enjoy We Make Books! Twitter: @WMBCast  |  @KindofKaelyn  |  @BittyBittyZap Instagram: @WMBCast  Patreon.com/WMBCast You can (and should) check out Macey on Twitter @englishmace and check out her Hugo-nominated podcast 'Be the Serpent'. Episode 37: Jennifer Mace and Murderboards transcribed by Sara Rose (@saraeleanorrose)   [0:00]   K: Hey everyone, and welcome to another episode of We Make Books, a show about writing, publishing, and everything in between. My name’s Kaelyn Considine, I’m the acquisitions editor for Parvus Press.   R: And I’m Rekka, I write science fiction and fantasy as R.J. Theodore.    K: So this is another throwback episode, a throwback to even before We Make Books. This is another—what do we call this? A relaunch? A re-release?   R: Yeah, we just wanna make sure this episode’s out there where people can access it because it comes up every now and again on Twitter, people asking a certain author how they go through the process of creating an outline for their novels. And the person that I interview in this episode, Jennifer Mace, who goes by Macey, always has this great process and, rather than force her to explain it over and over again, I wanted to make sure that, since the Hybrid Author episodes are no longer available, easily, to find that there was a way for people to get this information and so, I will continue to relaunch this interview no matter how many podcasts it takes.   K: So this is an episode, as Rekka said, sat down and talked with Jennifer Mace, goes by Macey, fantastic author, fantastic person. One of the cohost of the Be the Serpent podcast, the Hugo nominated Be the Serpent podcast—   R: Twice now!   K: Twice now!   R: Yes.   K: So, yeah, absolutely check that out. Fantastic show, fantastic people on it! But Macey has a really great and interesting take and perspective on how to plot and outline your book, and what you’re working on. It can be complicated. And it’s like, “Oh, I’ll just sit down and make an outline,” and then that even sounds easier than it actually turns out to be!    R: So, in this interview, I was using this to create a new outline, but what Macey often does is use this to fix drafts that she’s already started. So she uses this to track the outline of what has been written in a draft, and then use it to find imbalances, visually, and then adjust. So she hadn’t usually used it to create a new outline, but that’s what I was using it for in this interview.   K: Yeah. So, anyway, great episode. A lot of good information, especially if you are struggling with the pacing or story issues or even some story development issues, I think, in this. Macey’s technique can certainly help you. So, anyway, take a listen and enjoy!   [intro music plays]   R: We have, today, Jennifer Mace. We’ll call her Macey for the rest of the episode, but she writes under Jennifer Mace, so once you hear how brilliant she is you are going to want to go find her under the proper author name. I met Macey in 2017 at the Nebulas and we have held a light acquaintance over Twitter for about a year and a half, and then suddenly I got know Alex Rowland, who you’ve heard on the podcast before, and they story of, you know, congealed the whole thing together. As they do.   So, you’ve heard, as I mentioned, Alex Rowland who is one third of the perfect trifecta of the Be the Serpent podcast, who you should all have voted for, if you were capable of voting for a fancast, in any of the awards nominations going on right now and, in perpetuity, for people who come back to listen to this later.    Macey is, as I said, another third of that podcast. And, listening—I’ll have to get Freya on here at some point now. Now I can’t go on without completing the set. So, yes, you’re going to love Macey’s accent and you’re going to love what she has to tell you about today. Because I was gonna try to explain this on my own, but I think it’s really gonna be better that I have the professional here to tell you about it.   But first! Let’s talk about you! You write as Jennifer Mace.   M: I do!   R: But what do you write, how long have you been writing? What have you got in store for us?     M: Sure, so, I write mostly fantasy and I’ve been working on some short stories lately, but for a much longer time I’ve been a novelist. And I started writing longform by doing NaNoWriMo back in 2008 and I’ve completed eleven(?) NaNoWriMos. I’m doing another one right now, in fact!   R: Yes, you don’t follow any of the rules—   M: Nope.   R: —because you’re here in January, and you started—No, it’s February now, who am I?   M: Well, it’s February now!   R: You started a month of your own NaNoWriMo!   M: Yeah! I’m like—   R: Because you just couldn’t be bothered with that online community thing, right?   M: Well, I got a book to finish, you know? I’ve got my fake-married Renaissance lesbians to finally, finally convince that they actually like one another.   R: Yes, I’ve been seeing little clips of your, well, they’re fake-married, they’re not fake lesbians. Just to be clear where the commas fall in that description. So tell us a little bit, if you want, about this project? Or send readers after something else to check out?   M: Well, I think this one’s fairly representative because I am known for always writing queer women. It’s kind of a thing. So this project is called Catalyst and it’s a high fantasy set in Renaissance Naples that follows what happens when a punchy Disaster Bisexual blacksmith accidentally wifes a Slytherin duchal heir and many hijinks ensure. They’re about to foil a magical bioterrorist, international plot.   R: I am there for all of those things you just said! This is fantastic! Now, you are—remind me, because I know you have a book under contract, is that correct? Is that this one?   M: No, not yet.   R: Oh! Okay, I’m sorry.   M: So I have a Young Adult contemporary selkie YA that’s a queer selkie YA set in Edinburough that we’re actually just about to go out on sub with, with my agent again.   R: Oh, okay. That’s the one I’m thinking of, yes!   M: Yes! I love my selkie babies. Yeah.   R: All right, so if you’re a publisher and you’re hearing this, let me know if you’re interested and I will put you in touch with Macey.   M, pleased: Aww.   R: Or you can find Macey at the links we give you later. She is, I’ll tell you know, on Twitter @englishmace.   M: Yes.   R: So follow her because she has lots of awesome stuff to tell you all the time about various things.   M: And lots of photographs of me pulling faces at the weather.   R: Yes! Weather is a whole thing. So, you’ve got YA, you’ve got fantasy. And you said you have short stories?   M: Yes. I have a couple of short stories out. I have a piece called “Cradle of Vines” that’s out with Cast of Wonders and I have another piece called “Thou Shalt Be Free as Mountain Winds” that is currently in an anthology, but keep your eyes peeled because it may be forthcoming somewhere online very shortly.     R: Fantastic! So I will get those links from you and put them in the show notes so people can go find whichever ones are available online now and links to anthologies, et cetera, for purchase.   M: Absolutely.   R: So, aside from queer women and disaster everything, what would you say is the direction that your writing normally takes you? Everyone’s got a thing.   M: Hmm. I did figure out that I accidentally always have magically transformed characters. I love me a selkie. I love me a kelpie. I love magical tattoos and people grafting on wings and all sorts of cool things. I think the short story that is easiest to find involves a small girl deciding to turn into a plant.   R: Oh, fantastic. And you are known a bit for love of plant knowledge.   M: Just… just a little bit.   R: Just a little bit. So that’s more of something you can look forward to on Twitter. I won’t let her go off in that direction too much, except when she starts talking about the process and how things grow as stories.   M, laughs: I promise not to overly abuse that metaphor. I know a lot of craft books really dig hard on the story-is-growth and story-is-seed idea. But, I will resist.   R: Well, you almost go in the other direction because the process you created that we are going to talk about today is called murderboarding.    M: Haa! In my defense, I did not name it that. In my anti-defense, I did post a picture that looked exactly like one of those serial killer boards that you see on all of the NCIS and CSI TV shows.    R: Mhm.   M: Like striiing and targets and pins and dripping blood—there was no dripping blood, I promise.   R: Well, maybe in the future.   M: There we go, goals! It’s important to have goals.   R: Well, if you’re holding the tacks wrong, then you’re bored.   M: I have stabbed myself with the map pins on several occasions.   R: Alright, so, we’ve teased this enough. Why don’t we get into this. WHat is murderboarding? Why do you use it? And why did it make everything so much easier?   M: So I am an inveterate pantser. I had a chat with my agent recently. I sent her the first act of Catalyst a year ago. And she was like, “It’s so well put together!” And I’m like, “I have no idea what happens next!”   R, giggles: That sounds very familiar.   M: Yees! And she’s like, “How are you doing this? Why are you doing this? Stop.” So, what generally happens for my process is that I will cough up a book over the course of maybe three months of intensive writing. I’ll do a couple of NaNoWriMos back-to-back or something like that. And I will have 70 to 100 thousand words of book. And then I’ll be like, “This is made of lots of pieces, which of them go where and why?”    R: Mhm.   [10:13] M: So I tried, when I was editing Hagstone—which is my previous book—to figure out how to piece it together using Scrivener or using spreadsheets or just using my computer in general. What I found for me is that I spend so much of my time on computers that it’s kind of a tired method of thinking for me?   R: Sure, in fact, I’m experiencing myself. And the reason, as I mentioned, that I brought you on  is because I am going through the process of murderboarding, only from the opposite direction. But the habit of being on a computer and the computer screen, you do things the same way because you’ve created a streamlined process for how things work in your brain, related to interacting with the computer.   M: Yeah.   R: So you’re not looking at things in a different way when you do things the same way every time. So that’s been my exact experience. I’ve always outlined the same way, but I’ve never written the third book in a trilogy before and I sort of felt like something had to change because I’ve always written toward some nebulous future ending, but never toward a specific goal.   M: Right.   R: And now I’m in need of a way that I can change the way I think about things because I need to: one, get over myself, because of course I’ve got two books and I’m like, “These are locked in! What the Hell do I do now?” You know? I know there’s an ending. I kinda know what it’s gonna be but I don’t know how to get there.   M: It’s kinda like the difference between setting out on a road trip and setting out to go to a place.   R: Yes! Yes.   M: Right? You know where you need to be. So, my idea when I was starting the murderboarding stuff was, I have a lot of friends who love plotting on note cards and that’s fairly common. But for me, I can’t keep track of the order. I want to see a shape. I’m very visual. So what I did, and how the murderboarding process works—which is a very grand way of saying I really wanted to stab some things. Basically, you break up your book into whatever pieces make sense for you. For me, I use chapters. If you really like using scenes and don’t have too many scenes, that might work, too.   So I broke it up into chapters and I wrote on a little piece of card, just a very brief summary. Enough to remind me of what was in that chapter, and then I laid them all out in order, in their acts, in the four quartile structure that works well for me. And I kind of pinned them on a board so I could see them all in one place, with lots of space around them to add more detail. And then, once you have everything kind of situated, I start asking myself, “What am I trying to do in this edit?” What am I trying to highlight or rearrange or make sure makes sense.   So the first time that I was going through with Hagstone, one of the main thread of Hagstone is a bunch of interpersonal relationships that the main character kind of discovers themselves through. So, I took a color of map pin and I stuck red map pins in every chapter where Graham, one of the other characters who’s important shows up. I stuck another color of purple in every one where Viv, who is a romantic interest, shows up. And then you can take a step back from the board and look at it and see these patterns of color and see where you have frontloaded or forgotten an entire character, if the character pass is what you’re trying to do.   R: Clumps and gaps.   M: Exactly! And, on a later one, when I was trying to figure out a balance between the magical and mundane worlds, I went through and I tagged every chapter that was set in the magical world and saw that I had a big gap in the middle and there was one scene in there that really didn’t have to be in a mundane setting, so I just lifted it and moved it to a  magical one and everything balances better.   R: Yes. And in this—when you say balance, you know, generally we’re thinking pacing and all these other terms that we’ve been taught, in terms of a long narrative. But when you’re looking at it on like a 24 x 36 corkboard which is how you set this up—and we should get into a little bit more of the physical set-up, since this is an audio podcast—   M, laughing: You mean I can’t just gesture and everyone will understand me?   R: I mean you can, you can, but we’re just gonna have to—I’ll illustrate it later or something I suppose. It’ll be stick figures of Macey’s arms just in the air, flailing.   M: There we go.   R: Okay, so, when you’re looking at it on a 24 x 36 board, everything’s within, say, 18 inches of everything else, and suddenly you’re not just trying to remember in Chapter 12, now that I’m in Chapter 36, have I remembered to include this character anywhere else in the book?   M: Mhm!   R: So, and you mentioned the notecards thing, and people who listened to the last episode will know that I just tried notecards for the first time, too! And I always avoided it because I was not a fan of this concept of these loose sheets of paper and one, laying them out seemed like the best way to trigger anxiety—   M: Oh, yeah!   R: And then walking over them. No, it was too stressful. But I was able to do it in my new office because it’s a very confined space, no one else is gonna go in there if I don’t want them to, and it has a hardwood floor.   M: Oh, nice.   R: I think the last time I tried it, it was a carpeted floor and I think that makes a huge difference because you can’t just lay the cards where you want them on a carpet floor. So, I’m trying all sorts of new things. So, now that I’m already willing to look into the physical, now I’m looking at Macey’s Twitter threads from a few months ago about murderboards and I’m going, “Okay, so if I just chop this up into smaller pieces and get sharp things and get some string, I can do this. And maybe it would help me.”    You use it, Macey, to look backward at a plot that you’ve pantsed.   M: Right.   R: And I’m doing it exactly the opposite, to not pants a book, because I’m on a short timeline, and to do it from the ground up. Where I don’t exactly know the details of the book, I don’t know what each scene is going to contain, and I’m trying to build these things from nothing. So let’s—what I always do when I outline is to write down everything I know about the story. So now I’m writing down everything I know about the story on these tiny little cards and I’m putting them in columns where they fall in the story.   So, as you mentioned, it’s the 25 percentile structure, so Act One is the first column, Act Two there’s a build-up and even more build-up in the middle for your next two columns, and then Act Three, your climax and your denouement come in column four. So as I’m writing down all these things I know, I’m putting them approximately where in the story I think they’re going to happen. And then, what I start to see, is I”ve got the denouement locked in, but I don’t know anything else. And, of course, I’ve got the starting point because I’ve just finished the sequel that comes before this new book.   M: But there’s this whole, like, Fog of War in the middle section.   R: It’s a very foggy spot in the middle. So, yes, in these four columns, immediately, I could see that I needed to build out the flesh of a full plot versus just: get them straight from A to B. I cannot do that because that is not a book.   M: No.   R: So, when you look at your four columns, you’re doing something similar but you have all the pieces, you’re just moving them around. Whereas I’m filling them in. So, comment on how you decide what goes where and, if you have gaps where you see, literally, a gap in front of you. Whereas, I had a chasm. So speak to that. From either side of the process.   M: Sure. So, one of the things that I find really helps me, from having this all laid out in a physical way, is that I can look at the proportions of my story in a way that I can’t get a sense for when I’m writing a list. So one of the ways that—And I mean, I do plot a little bit, right? I will have maybe twelve bullet points of what I know happens in a book. And the ones that are near to where I’m writing right now will be pretty good and the ones that are further out will just be like, “And they foil a plot of some kind??? Maybe stabbing??”    R: Because I need them to!   M: Question mark. So, when you’re weaving together enough plots to make a novel. You’ll generally have more than one, and you may have one that’s the main plot and others are the subplots. But I like to think about it as a series of sine waves that are interacting. One is going up and another is going down. So when you’re trying to fill the middle of a book, particularly, if I know that these three things have to happen to advance the main plot, and this one has to be roughly at the midpoint and that one has to be at the 22-percent-through-the-book mark because it has to feed into the swap between Act One and Act Two.    I can put all of those in the right position on my board, based on the proportions and I can kind of tell myself when I’m writing, “Oh, this needs to be within that chapter.” And then, conversely, when I’ve done the writing I can see, on my board, whether those plots are kind of clustered in the wrong places and whether I can rearrange scenes to do that. But I know, in the past, I have—the last time I edited Hagstone, no two times ago that I edited Hagstone, I took the entire third column and I reversed the order of all the chapters.   R, blinking: Okay. Because you saw something happening, in other words?   [19:46]  M: Yeah, because—and this was in part with the advice of my agent—the arc of one of the relationships was wrapping too late, and it gave it too much significance, when it needed to wrap earlier so that the character’s self-discovery took more of the weight, which was the actual weight of the book. And I did that by putting it all together like a puzzle, back on the whiteboard. So it’s kind of like what you were saying about how you plot. You know that you have these gaps here and you need to have something that goes into them. I had all of these pieces, but it was like a pile of Scrabble tiles.   R: Right, yeah. Absolutely. That’s very much what it feels like. That, or a five hundred piece puzzle. I walk by the board, where it’s sitting on a table, and all of a sudden I catch myself leaning over it like people who are on their way out the door, walking past a puzzle. Like, “OH! I know what I see there.”   M: Yeah!   R: What I’m finding, as I’m trying to fill in these gaps, is that I’ll start, on a separate sheet of paper, to just write down some notes of things I’m seeing. And by the time I’ve gotten a few lines into it, I’ve recognized that there’s a parallel that I can build into this book to the first book.    M: Nice.   R: So that it’s going to feel like this event is book-ending the entire trilogy. And these are the kinds of things that I very, seriously doubt that I would’ve caught on to if I were just writing everything I knew in Scrivener and then going between those and New, Return, and fill in something else.   M: It’s just too much information, is the thing. For me, when I’m looking at my Scrivener file and all of my worldbuilding folders and all of my character sheets, I can’t keep it in my head.   R: Mhm.   M: And I know more than I think I do, about these scenes and about these chapters. So when it’s really boiled down, and there’s nothing distracting me around it, I can remember those things. But when I’m looking straight at them, I can’t compare them to other things. There’s just too much going on.    R: Right. There’s also word phrasing that we’ve got, if we’re looking at our draft. You know, all of a sudden we’re in the weeds of: how is this paragraph structured? And we’ve forgotten to be watching the information that we’re communicated to the reader. We’re more concerned about how many times did I use the word “that” in that paragraph?   M: Oh god.   R: So, I wonder if there’s also something—and I’m sure you’ll agree—to the psychology of taking your scene and literally putting a pin in it, and sticking it to a board and saying you’re there.   M: Yeah.   R: Like, you’ve—we talk about using map tacks and I will link to Amazon for the best set of map tacks I was able to find, 15 glorious colors, and a set of flags as well. [M laughs]   Just in case you’re tracking more things. But actually, and I’ll come back to this in a second, when you are taking a piece of metal with a pointy tip and you’re sticking it through the paper, you are making a mental decision.   M: You’re making a commitment, right? And I find this particularly, because I’m doing this at the edit phase, the first thing I will do is go through and decorate and understand my chapters, and say, “Oh, this chapter has lots of magic in it!” or “This chapter is the one with the Guild plotline, versus this one is the Espionage in the Church plotline,” but—   R: And when you say decorate are you referring to the colors of the pins?   M: Yes, so I’m referring to the color of the pins. So,, like, you might use a colored sticker in a planner? On the pinboard you use these map pins. But once I’ve done all of that, I then make an edit plan. For me, that means adding more little note cards in handwriting next to the typed, neat chapter headings. And every time I pin one of those in place, I’m saying that I’ve decided to make this change to my book.    R: Mhm. And it’s kind of empowering.    M: Yeah! It really is. And any time that I’m not sure what I’m doing, or I’m not sure what has to happen next, I can go back and look at my board and be like, “Oh! I pinned that here, that’s the next thing to do. Okay.”   R: Yeah. The amount of decisions that I’ve made just by looking at this board are impressing even me because a week ago I still wasn’t even sure where this story was going to end, and now I have all these decisions. Not only that, but, like I said, I’ve closed openings that I set up two books ago without even saying, “I want to do it in a way that parallels this,” or “I want to do it in a way that satisfies this.” And suddenly it’s paralleling and it’s satisfying and it’s visibly in front of me that I’ve done this and, like you said, you go back and you see that you stuck a piece of metal through that paper and you committed.    M: Yeah!   R: And it’s really satisfying to do. And it’s not just satisfying because it’s called a murderboard, but—   M, laughing: That’s a large part of it.   R: Yeah, it does help.   M: I think it’s also kind of like seeing your city on the street level and then seeing your city from a plane as you take off. Right?   R: Yeah.   M: They’re different things, and you need both of them, but when you’re seeing your city from however many miles above, you can see, “Oh, this is the pattern of the streets, this is where that park looks like that park.” One of the things we haven’t mentioned yet that I love is using string to tie things together. Physically tie them together.   R: Mhm.   M: So when I’m focusing on a particular plot line or trying to add a new plot, one of the things I’ll do is go through, make all of my notes, and thread this new plot through the whole novel which is really how I think about it. Like embroidery. But then I take a piece of string, and I wrap it around the first of those edits and I then, in turn, take it through every pin that is connecting that plotline together. And then I can see, on my book, the path that the plot takes through my novel.   R: Okay.   M: Which is super satisfying.   R: Yeah, no doubt! So, I have a question about that! You referred to sine waves before.   M: Yes.   R: Are you placing things on your board in the order that they happened, or are you placing them in a position that is relative, say, to an emotional arc or to a plot arc?   M: I’m always using word count as my measurement. So, I almost never plot things based on timeline. If we’re having flashbacks, if we’re having characters with overlapping points of view, to me, in the reader’s mind, those happen after one another on the timeline and that’s really what I’m looking for, is the reader’s experience. That’s what I’m trying to create.   R: So in the order that you present it to the reader.   M: Mhm, exactly. And in the amount of text.   R: Okay, so word count is a fantastic way to use—that’s a great metric to use. So, you would say, the first quarter, if it’s 25,000 words, the top is word one and the bottom is word 25, 000 and then the second column, the top, is 25,001—   M: Yup.   R: —and the bottom is 50 thousand. Okay, that’s fantastic. That’s really straightforward. From my point of view, I’m trying to figure out where these things—not only where do they go in the story, but what position on the board is going to signify what’s happening. For instance, right now, because I’m still sort of planning things out, things are grouped by POV. So I’ve got a cluster of things that all happen to the POV A in Act One, but it’s not necessarily the order that I’m going to present it to the reader, word-wise. So that was my next step, was to figure out how to make this a chronological reflection of how the story’s going to go.   M: Right. And I think for me that that’s crucial. The book that I’m working on right now is dual point of view and I got kinda weird with it because I wasn’t intending for it to be. So the first act is all one point of view, and then it kind of splits off into the second one afterwards. But it’s been very important to inweave those chapters on the board, as well as in the book because it doesn’t matter to the reader that one character has spent 20,000 words working on this guild plotline. If the reader is getting 5,000 words, every 5,000 words swapping back and forth with another character who’s doing the church plotline, it feels to the reader like they’ve been getting a mix of things happening. It doesn’t feel to the reader like they’ve been isolated and doing only one plot.   R: Sure. I was even thinking of that. I’m like, “Oh, I have four plotlines, I have four quarters of the board…” and then my concern was if I did take the string and lead it from one plot point to the next, it’s not going to be great for the reader if it jumps and it takes 25,000 words to get back to that next plotline, so that the string goes directly across the board, as we’ve been describing it. That means the reader’s forgotten, probably, by the time that plot point comes up again.    So the mix of POVs, to me, is important. Although I know there are plenty of books that do a part and the entire act is one character’s and then maybe there’s some sort of event that helps you orient yourself to where you are in the timeline of things, like a parade or some kind of holiday or a meteor crashing or whatever. But until you get to that moment, you don’t know where you are in relation to the other characters that you’ve already been visiting.   M: I have far too much fun using this kind of point of view structure and decision-making as another metaphor within the book, right? So this book, Catalyst, is a fake-marriage book and so we start with a single character who has a goal and decides that they are going to take this step of committing to this other person, but not really, just to reach their goal. And so we start in one, very selfish point of view. And then, once they join together, we get a bit of the other person’s point of view, but it’s still very disjointed. And then, as they become more in sync and paying attention to one another and actually acting as partners, we start to get a real balance of points of view.   R: Mhm. So you’re playing with the tropes from two directions.   M: Yeah, exactly, but also the nature of the relationship is reflected in the structure of the book.   R: Right, right. That’s awesome. I’m looking forward to reading this book!   [M cackles]   R: I’m just trying to—Oh, and then you said you decorate your board when you first lay all your cards out. You’ll start putting the pins in that reflect everything. So you’re pretty certain—I mean, obviously, you start this as a revision, but if you stick eight pins in a card, if you need to move that card, you’ve got to pull out eight pins.   M: Oh, yeah.   R: So is there, do you have any advice for how deep into the weeds of identifying things should someone go. Or should they say, “Okay, right now I’m tracking this and there’s four aspects of that. I’m gonna stick to these four pins,” or if you have fifteen pins *cough cough* should you just assign them all and stick them all in there?   M: I would not assign them all because the goal with the board is you’re trying to have something you can hold in your head.   R: Mhm.   M: I think, for me, the point at which I can’t remember which pin means what, means I’ve used too many pins.   R, laughing: Fair enough, okay.   M: Like if I need a map or a key for myself, then that’s no good. Also, you may have fifteen pins, how many of those colors can you tell apart?   R: Right, yes. I remember you mentioning that on Twitter once and I was like, “Okay, I’m gonna have to check that before I start using them.” But then I was thinking, am I going to figure out how to lock these into a position on the board through the story, chronologically, if I can’t see what the trails are. But if I pin everything, fifteen pins on one card, I’m gonna hate myself if I have to move it, because it’s basically perforated at this point.   M: Right. Yep. But also, I feel like authors track a lot of detail when they’re writing. But readers are not going to track that level of detail. Readers are not going to notice fifteen levels of symbolism and different narratives and all of the different plotlines and subplots as distinct.   R: This is why writers drink.    M: Yeah, right? So, I feel like the exercise of boiling it down to the half-dozen things that are really important to you, at least in this round of revisions, or this round of drafting, is actually a really good exercise on its own. Like, what are the things you really want to get across?   R: Okay, so pulling back from… yeah.   M: Yeah, exactly. What’s the impact? Because then you can have other things in there, but you can kind of have made the decision in advance, like we were saying earlier, by committing. Other pieces of the book are there to serve the ones that you decided are the important bits.   R: Mhm.   M: Right? They’re there to echo and reflect and enhance.   R: Right. Don’t tell those other pieces of the book, but they’re not as important.   M: Yeah! Right? I mean, we joke, but it’s kinda true. You can’t do everything in every book.    R: Right. Okay. Now she’s getting harsh, folks.   M, meekly: I’m sorry!   R: I’m uncomfortable now. No, no this is fantastic because it is something where, as you mentioned, we get super wound up, super deep in the weeds to bring it back to plants. When we are finished with a draft and looking back, or in my case, we’ve got two books of details behind us, and we’re looking to wrap it up and stick the landing on a series, too much of this becomes precious to us.   M: Right.   R: And on this board, even though I got the biggest corkboard that I could find at Staples, almost immediately, as I started to write things on it, I was running out of room.   M: Yeah.   R: And I think that’s the most important thing. One, buy a couple extra decks of index cards that you’re gonna cut up into tiny pieces, but, two, be ready to go through this process of realizing that I can’t hold everything on this board that I think is important to this story.   M: Right. And you can’t hold it in your head! I mean, they’re almost more pneumonic devices than they are actual edit notes, right? If I was to give my board to someone who knows my writing style and be like, “Please go implement this edit on my book,” they’d be like, “What the fuck are you talking about? That’s nonsense.” Right? It just doesn’t work.   R: Yeah, yeah. And I like to tease my family members as I’m walking around with this enormous board that I can’t hide and that I refuse to drape over. And I’m like, “Watch out, there’s spoilers on here!” But the fact is, if anyone looked at this, they would probably have zero clue what’s going on, based on what we’re doing. So this is very much a shorthand and I just love how suddenly I’ve gone from being the person who does everything, absolutely everything, in Scrivener to now I’ve got this physical object.    And I said this last week, I was carrying around these index cards. I had one of those index card boxes and it was in my pocket of my sweatshirt all the time and it was like an object of power. It was showing that I was doing the thing and it really changed the way that I went through that process. And now I’m doing that again. And, so—okay, we’ve talked about setting up the board in four columns. To the nitty-gritty of that, you have just a thumbtack in the top and bottom and you run a string around it to create the column.   M: Yeah.   R: Note to everyone else: save yourself the trouble, artist’s tape is not going to stick to corkboard very well. [M laughs] Especially if the weather changes on you and the humidity and suddenly you’ve got a curly thing. Okay. Covered that.   M: When it doubt, string. Always string.    R: String is very well-behaved unless the person who was previously in charge of your embroidery floss was not very good about separating it into individual strands and you have lots of knots.   M: Oh noo.   R: Yeah, that was actually me. So I had a tangle of string and uncurling artists’ tape and I got through it somehow.   M: We’re very proud.   R: It was, yes, it was worth the struggle because now I’m on this side of it. So then you have index cards, I don’t know how big yours are? It looked like sometimes you had computer printouts of your scenes, to start with?   M: Yeah, so, I have for Hagstone—which is the one that I’ve revised six times now—I have a Google doc that’s just a single letter-sized piece of paper that I print out with all of my chapters on it. And that’s the size. So it’s like a quarter of the width of landscape mode of that piece of paper, is the size of my corkboard pieces. I’m actually looking behind me because I have my corkboard propped up against a wall over there, that you can’t see.    R: Right.   M: And I’m trying to remember, “How big are those?” They’re like maybe three inches wide.   R: Okay, okay. So depending on the size of your corkboard, obviously, you are going to have room—   M: Yeah, I mean generally the idea is what you want is the chapter or scene summaries to be no more than half the width of the column. You wanna have enough space to add notes and revision notes or other such things, if you’re plotting.   R: Right. So whatever your corkboard is: four columns; your cards that you’re going to pin to it are effectively one eighth of the total width of the board, if you can fit two to a column as Macey just said; and then if you do not have tight, neat handwriting you are going to have to get really good at shorthand because now as you look at the pieces that you’ve printed out from your spreadsheet, or wrote very neatly, very carefully, now you’re going to see where the gaps are. Then what goes in the second column?   M: The second column is the first half of Act Two. Oh!   R: Oh, I’m sorry, I mean the second half of the first column.    M: Well, so for me my first half is what is in each chapter. The next one is basically edits and changes that I need to make. So once I’ve inventoried what I have—So the first step of this operation is: what is actually in my book?   R: So if you open the draft that you just finished, or the revision that you just finished—   M: Mhm! Literally what’s there. And then—   R: —without any changes.   M: Without any changes. Just what exists. And then the next step is, “Okay, well, what do I need to do about that?” What needs to change or what needs to be brought out, maybe not changed but just enhanced in some way. Though I could see that if you were doing this as a plotting thing,you might have whatever core scenes, like action plot stuff, you might have that in your first column. In the second column you might have Character Notes and Echoes Back to the First Book and other, like, detailed pieces you need to remember to fit in there, but aren’t really defining those chapters.   R: Okay. Alright, cool. I’m cheating here. I’m using Macey to work out my own plot. So you have these notes for just space purposes, generally? Because it’s not gonna fit on the piece that you printed out from your spreadsheet?   M: Um, well—   R: Would you say that’s roughly fair?   M: Also for movability. And I can change my mind easily. I find that having them as separate units—I’ll have like a separate piece of paper for every different planned edit that I have so that I can decide that I don’t like one and remove it—   R: And just tear it off and it’s not half of a sheet that you already put there.   M: Yeah, exactly. You can do very similar things with a whiteboard, it’s just a lot easier to accidentally wipe things off on a whiteboard.   R, laughing: Yes.   M: Whereas with a pinboard it’s a lot harder to discombobulate.    R: Mhm. Okay, so, if you were to decide, for example, that Chapter 2 belongs after the existing Chapter 8, would you write that and put it to the right of your existing Chapter 2, or would you pick up the pin from Chapter 2 and rearrange the chapters?    M: Let’s see. What I would probably do in practice is put another piece next to the existing Chapter 2, or even on top of it with a big X mark on it.   R: Mhm.   M: Put the bits of Chapter 2 that I still wanted, after Chapter 8, because it’s gonna have to change a bunch. Write the scenes, the plot elements that I want to bring over on their own little pieces, and put them between Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 as a new chapter, and put a big piece of paper in the first column between Chapter 8 and 9 called Chapter 8.5.   R: Okay, fair enough.   M: There needs to be a new chapter here, you’ll name it when you get there.   R: And you do make a good point that, in this example, Chapter 2 probably still has some pretty structural worldbuilding going on, so you’re probably not going to be able to delete all of Chapter 2, you’re going to have to work that information into either Chapter 1 or Chapter 3… now Chapter 2, renamed. So that’s a good thing to—   [40:29] M: And when I’m doing that with the five chapters that I reorganized in Hagstone, I definitely did have to break the chapters up and some pieces of each chapter went to different places. So what I did for that rearrangement was, one the left-hand side I had the existing chapters and then on the second column, on the right, I put where the scenes would be and then I tied strings from each chapter to where those scenes were going, so I could see how the pieces crossed.   R: Oh, okay. Right, again, we have this ability to get layered and really deep into the physicality of how these things are gonna connect.   M: Mhm!   R: So, I haven’t gotten to the point where I’m hooking string between things yet on my board and now you’ve got me super excited.   M: I love the string!   R: And I also have a lot of, again, embroidery thread is great because it comes in so many colors. So I’ve got a string for each color in my map pins. Not even on purpose, just because I used to do cross-stitch. But now I have the embroidery floss, so I would recommend getting a starter-kit of embroidery floss if you don’t have a collection already because you can get a bunch of different colors. And, as Macey said, don’t put fifteen pins in your card right away. So you don’t, maybe, need fifteen colors of thread. So, do you do this—do you go through this process, for the example of character arcs, will you figure out what you need to do and then take out the different pins that you’ve got and then put in another set for a different problem that you’re going solve?   M: I generally do all of the problems I’m trying to tackle in a big revision round at once. And so, generally, each time I am convinced that that will be the last revision round.   R, laughing: Of course!   M: It’s all there is! But by the time that I need to do it for the next round of problems—this is not something, or an amount of effort, that you would do for a small edit. This is like a big revision. Some chapters will be getting rewritten, a lot of things will be changing, maybe characters will go away. Otherwise it’s not worth the effort. So, if I need to do another round of revision after that, the first step, the survey-what-you-have-in-your-book is going to be incorrect. Because it’s all changed.   R: Right.   M: So you have to start that again. And this is why I advise keeping your chapter outline in a document online because then you can kind of tweak that in place without having to rewrite it from scratch, which saves a lot of time. But you will have to tweak it. You will have to say, “Okay, well, this chapter once was like that, but now it’s like this!”   R: That definitely helps. I’m wondering, Scrivener has like an index card view. I wonder, does it export into any sort of spreadsheet from that? I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m gonna have to look into that because that’d be pretty handy. Because you can have a little note card-size worth—I mean, honestly, you could write the entire novel in the note card and they would let you, but there’s a certain amount that it will show on the screen if you’re looking in the index card view, or in the outliner view, so if we could export that, then this would maybe help with that.    So, I was just trying to think of—so I’ve worked with it a little bit, so I have little bit of understanding, and we’ve tackled my questions that I would have for you. I just want to make sure that we’re leaving the listener with the full view of this process. So, you’ve mentioned that when your pins are all in place, then you’ll start to fill in the lines between them and tie things through and see—does the way that the string cross ever seem to create any patterns for you, between different interaction sections? Does it reveal anything or is it just too much of a mess and you can really only follow one string at a time?   M: Well, I don’t tend to use a ton of strings and I won’t use strings for everything. It’ll really be about the piece that I’m trying to trace through the whole book. One of the things that it does highlight, when you’re tying it, almost the action of tying it, will show you how frequently you’re using that plotline or not and show you where the gaps are. So that’s something I find really valuable. Another note that I realize I forgot to say explicitly: when I’m adding—so let’s go back to when I was having a problem where there were too many mundane settings in my book and too few magical settings.   R: Mhm.   M: So I chose the black pin for my main magical setting. I went through, put black pins in everything, I’m like “Oh, there’s a gap in the middle here! I’m going to move this scene to be in the magical setting.” I wrote myself a little note, I put it in the second column, and I used a black pin to pin it in place because this is an edit that is about that setting. So you use the same color coding that you used for assessing your novel to annotate the edits and remind yourself of the purpose of those edits.   R: Okay. Great. So one thing that I have done in the past is use highlighter on cards, where I make changes and whether that change is related to a certain POV or maybe whether that change is related to setting, et cetera. Do you ever find yourself making edits about, say, magic and realizing that it also ties up a character arc situation. Would you put two pins in that edit, then?   M: Definitely, yeah. I would put two pins in that. And I prefer using the pins to colors on my note cards just because you can change them. And I can change my mind about whether I wanted that edit to actually have that character in it, or whether that spoils it in a second thought.   R: Right, so if Joe is represented by a green pin and you decide that Joe doesn’t belong in that scene, you take the green pin out and you don’t have to write a whole new card because you used green highlighter on the card.   M: Exactly.   R: Perfect. It’s funny, we’re talking about committing, but then we’re also talking about, “But you can change it!!”   M: Yeah, I feel like decisions are not permanent, right? Hm. How to put that better. There is a—   R: That there’s a gradient of decisions.   M: —strength to making a decision, but there’s also a strength to reevaluating that decision, right? I mean, it’s all the process that works for you in the end.    R: Right, right. So anyone who is listening to this and it’s making them want to try this process, there is no rulebook. I mean, maybe that will be a release that Macey out with someday.   M: Oh God!   R: But there’s no hard-and-fast set of rules for exactly how this works, or else you’re doing it wrong. It’s going to be: is this tool useful for you?   M: Exactly.   R: Is it almost useful for you? What can you change that will make it the tool you need right now? And that might change every time you go back in to use it. Or you may, you know, use it once, it helps tremendously, but then next time something else works. I mean, this whole thing is all about the impermanence of our writing process. And I’ve talked before, I think a couple episodes ago, about how it’s okay if your writing process changes.   M: Mhm.   R: Like, there’s a lot of stigma around: are you writing correctly? Is your process—does it match Stephen King’s? Does it match Delila S. Dawson’s? Does it match N.K. Jemisin’s? It doesn’t matter because yours is interacting with your brain, not that author’s brain. So, as people, I think we all can agree we change pretty frequently. Something that we liked two weeks ago, we’re sick of today. Something that has always worked for us can’t get us through a block. So, maybe as important as finding a system that works for you, and trying something new, is also: be willing to let go of a tool if it’s not working for you one time.   M: It’s like standing on the deck of a ship, right? You’ve gotta keep your knees loose, you’ve gotta adjust your stance, otherwise you’ll get thrown overboard.   R: Yes, yes. And keep your eyes on the horizon or you’ll get a tummy ache.   M: There we go!     R: Yes, absolutely. Alright, so is there anything that you can think of that we haven’t really covered about this process, or any notes you thought of before and skipped over because you do it so automatically now?   M: Um, make sure to have a good cup of tea with you while you’re doing it? It takes a while. It takes longer than you think.   R: And maybe one of those little hotplates you can get from the electronics gift shop where it keeps your tea warm for you, while you’re working on this. Because you look up after a while and you’ve been tying a lot of knots.   M: If you have a kotatsu, then I am jealous and you should use it.   R: Yes, okay. Absolutely. Oh my gosh, that’s very true. Cats, I will warn you, do not like when you are sitting on the floor and your lap is smaller than usual. But, I don’t know, maybe feed them and then hurry. Before they come back to get you.   All right, this is awesome. I know people are going to want to take a look at the murderboard examples that you’ve put on Twitter, so I’m going to find permalinks to those threads or maybe steal the graphics just in case. And put that in the show notes so people can find their way to you. And I’m sure this is going to be something that at least a few of our listeners are going to want to try because I put this on Instagram and I had people that I didn’t even know were writers telling me that they wanted to try this!    Even John Adamus, who’s been on the show before, was my first editor for my series and he even approved and he never hits Like on anything so—it is John Adamus Approved,f or anyone keeping track.   M: There we go!   R: So I know that we’re gonna get some great feedback from this and I will put your contact information, that you’re willing to share, in the show notes for anyone who wants to follow along and chat with you about murderboards, or maybe show you theirs once they try it out for the first time!   M: Absolutely!   R: Alright, so, if someone is looking for you can you let us know where to find you and, again, remind folks what they’ve got to look forward to from you as a writer.    M: Alright, sure! So you can find me most easily on Twitter as @englishmace and these days my most popular piece of output is my podcast, Be the Serpent, we did actually spend a whole episode a few months back talking about our process. The episode is called The Room Where It Happens because we are Hamilton nerds. We talked a little bit more about murderboarding there. And on the writing front, there will be more stories and more poems forthcoming, and I will post about them on Twitter when they exist!   R: I believe you! Alright, awesome. Thank you so much for joining us today, Macey!   M: Thank you for having me.   R: Thank you for creating this process because I know it’s helping me right now.   M: Well, I’m glad that more people can get some joy out of stabbing things.   R: And if anything is the takeaway from this episode, it’s please, go stab something. Not a person.    [outro swish]   R: Thanks, everyone, for joining us for another episode of We Make Books. If you have any questions that you want answered in future episodes, or just have questions in general, remember you can find us on Twitter @wmbcast, same for Instagram, or wmbcast.com! If you find value in the content that we provide, we would really appreciate your support at Patreon.com/wmbcast.    If you can’t provide financial support, we totally understand, and what you could really do to help us is spread the word about this podcast! You can do that by sharing a particular episode with a friend, who can find it useful, or if you leave a rating and review at iTunes, it will feed that algorithm and help other people find our podcast, too. Of course, you can always Retweet our episodes on Twitter.    Thank you so much for listening and we will talk to you soon.   [outro music plays] 

Jakten på smugler kartellene i Afrika Har du sett på CSI? TV-serien hvor politietterforskere bruker avanserte DNA-metoder i jakten på forbrytere. En amerikansk forsker har tatt i bruk lignende metoder for å jakte på elefantkrypskytere i Afrika, og forskningen har gitt klare svar. Reporter Lars Kristian Øverland

Densen Cao, PhD, is founder and CEO of the CAO Group, Inc. in West Jordon/UT and engages in research, development, manufacturing, marketing and sales of products in Medical, Dental, Veterinary, Forensic, and LED lighting. Since year 2000, Dr. Cao has lead the company organically grown into a global company and has created many innovative technologies and products in engaged fields to serve its global customers. Dr. Cao is the inventor of more than 160 issued and pending patents and published more than 20 technical papers.   Dr. Cao came to United States in 1986 from China to pursue PhD degree at University of Utah. Before founding the CAO Group, Inc. in year 2000, Dr. Cao worked as Coordinator of Materials Science at Clinical Research Associated (CRA, now as CR Foundation) and Staff Engineer at Fairchild Semiconductor.   Dr. Cao holds PhD and MS degrees in Materials Science and Engineering from University of Utah and MS and BS degrees in Electronic Engineering from Jilin University of China.   The notable technologies developed by Dr. Cao include LED dental curing lights, modern diode lasers, 360 degree beam LED lighting sources, LED forensic lights, and medicament delivery strips. Each of these technologies has made significant impact on the industry and is described below. Dr. Cao invented LED dental curing light in year 2000 and introduced the first LED curing light to the market in 2001 with a distribution partner.  The key patent is US patent 6,331,111 which teaches fundamental methods to build an LED curing light. There are more than 30 patents issued to Dr. Cao for LED curing light to cover all features of LED curing lights. LED curing light invented by Dr. Cao has been adopted by dentistry and become a standard tool in daily practice. As today, nearly all the LED curing light manufacturers licensed the technology from Dr. Cao. The technology is estimated to save more than $6K each year for each dentist in addition to providing better care for the patients.   Dr. Cao invented 360 degree beam LED light bulbs in 2002 and setup an instrumental structure to build an efficient, 360 degree beam LED bulb to replace traditional incandescent light bulb. Dr. Cao introduced the first 360 degree beam LED to the market in 2006. The key patents are 6,465,961; 6,634,770; and 6,746,885. The structure invented by Dr. Cao is essential to use LEDs to replace traditional incandescent and HID lamps. These teachings are adopted by LED lighting industry worldwide. As known, LED light bulbs will save up to 70% of energy comparing incandescent light source. LED light bulb is a $25 billion industry as today.   Dr. Cao invented modern diode laser systems in year 2003 with features of cartridge fiber management, disposable tips, touch screen control, wireless footswitch, battery operation, and etc. The first product was introduced to the dental market in 2003 with a distribution partner. The key patents are 7,485,116; 8,337,097; 8,834,457; 8,961,040; 8,967,883.  These technologies enable the wide adoption of diode lasers in medical, dental, and veterinary fields to provide much desired patient/client care and become standards for modern diode laser products. The diode laser applications in dental, medical, and veterinary fields are more than $100 million industry as now and growing from year to year.   Dr. Cao invented the LED forensic lights in 2004. The key patents are 6,954,270; 7,252,678; and 7,267,457. The technology enables the investigators to collect evidence timely and efficiently. The products have been widely used in policy community and featured in CSI TV shows. The products have helped to solve many cases worldwide. Notable cases are Taiwan President shooting, JonBenet Ramsey, Lacy Peterson, Kobe Brian, O.J Simpson, and etc. The same principal has been used to oral cancer detection in the dentistry.   Dr. Cao and his colleagues invented advanced medicament delivery strip to deliver different medicaments to teeth surface in 2006. The technology features a flexible substrate and gelatin compound to enable patients to do the applications at anytime and anywhere. The technology was first applied to teeth whitening. The strip technology will be used for fluoride treatment, desensitizing, topical anesthetic, periodontal treatment, caries prevention, tooth remineralization, and any possible medicament delivery to oral environment.   Dr. Cao continues to work in solving critical issues in the dental and medical fields including methods to eliminate first and secondary caries, reversible cement for better bonding and de-bonding of prosthetics including orthodontic brackets, sterile endo process for 100% successful endo, better prosthetic materials for long term clinical success, advanced laser surgical procedures, laser cancer treatment, and etc. with a goal to make practitioners’ daily job Easier, Faster, and Better.   caogroup.com caomedical.com caolighting.com

Bill interviews Editor, Director and Producer of the CSI TV series, Alec Smight.  Mr. Smight is the son of the late Jack Smight, who directed No Way to Treat a Lady.  Alec talks about his father’s directing career as well as his own work on CSI. Get More Legends of Film Subscribe to Legends of Film by RSS | iTunes