Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Canadian Man Flew to California Intent on Killing Woman He Met Online

Transcript

Canadian Man Flew to California Intent on Killing Woman He Met Online · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: So picture this for a second. Okay, it's November, right,
• 0:04
  November twenty twenty four, right just before Thanksgiving, exactly. You're
• 0:08
  sitting in your house in this quiet neighborhood bolts and
• 0:11
  knoles down in Sleinas, California, and you know, there's a
• 0:15
  knock at the door, the very normal thing, totally normal,
• 0:18
  and you look out or you open the door, and
• 0:20
  there's a guy standing there with an Amazon delivery.
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: Box, right, which I mean we all get those every day.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: Exactly. It's the most mundane, low risk scenario you could
• 0:29
  possibly imagine. Maybe it's a holiday gift, maybe it's just
• 0:32
  like paper towels. Yeah, but this box didn't have a
• 0:36
  package inside.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: No, it definitely did not.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: No, it held handcuffs, duct tape, and a whole bunch
• 0:42
  of knives. Just horrified, and the guy holding it, this
• 0:45
  twenty six year old guy named Devin Wolfgang vander Hoof,
• 0:48
  He had actually just flown across an international border to
• 0:51
  execute this like year long obsession, which.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: Just completely shatters that fundamental assumption of safety we all.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Have, right because you just don't expect it.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: No, you don't. We categorize a knock at the door
• 1:02
  during the day especially from someone holding a corrugated cardboard
• 1:06
  box as like a zero level threat.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah, totally zero.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: So he didn't just break into a physical house. He
• 1:12
  basically hacked the psychological heuristics that we all rely on
• 1:18
  just to get through our daily lives.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: And that specific concept, that weaponization of our modern routines.
• 1:23
  That is exactly why we're doing a deep dive into
• 1:26
  this case today.
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: It's so important to unpack.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: It really is so for you listening. We've got this
• 1:31
  massive stack of sources today. We're talking investigative reports, court transcripts,
• 1:36
  and the final sentencing documents from June twenty twenty six
• 1:40
  that officially put vander Hoof away.
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: A lot of heavy material.
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, super heavy. And our mission here is to basically
• 1:46
  reverse engineer this absolute nightmare. We want to trace how
• 1:50
  this totally anonymous interaction in an online video game just
• 1:54
  you know, metastasized into this international premeditated attack.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: And we also need to look at the legal mechanics
• 1:59
  of it.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, the jurisdictional nightmares of cyberstalking, the California legal
• 2:05
  framework that you finally drop the hammer on it.
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: Because the timeline of this case is just it's a
• 2:10
  clinical study and how a digital fixation bleeds right into
• 2:14
  the physical world.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: I've actually been mapping out the logistical friction required to
• 2:20
  move this violent idea from a basement in North Vancouver,
• 2:24
  a British Columbia, all the way to a doorstep in
• 2:27
  Monterey County.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: And it's a long way.
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: It's a huge distance, and the sheer volume of deliberate
• 2:33
  choices he had to make is just staggering.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: So you're definitely gonna want to stick with us through
• 2:38
  the very end of this deep dive because the way
• 2:40
  this story unfolds, especially the chaotic collision when the attackers
• 2:45
  fantasy hits the real world, it defies basically every expectation.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: It really does.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: But okay, let's unpack this. To figure out how vander
• 2:52
  Hoof ended up on that porch on Bullenbacker Drive, we
• 2:56
  have to start at the origin point.
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: And that point isn't physical, right, It.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Doesn't this on a map that exists on a server somewhere.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the investigated documents actually leave out the name of
• 3:05
  this specific video game and the platform just to protect
• 3:10
  the female victims privacy, which makes sense, totally makes sense.
• 3:13
  But the architecture of that space is super clear. It
• 3:16
  was this persistent online multiplayer environment, and that is where Vanderhoof,
• 3:23
  a Canadian citizen, first met his target.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: And I really want to dig into the mechanics of
• 3:28
  that specific environment for a second. Okay, let it because
• 3:31
  I think a lot of people here online gaming and
• 3:34
  they picture something super casual like, oh, you're just playing
• 3:38
  a quick game of chess with a stranger on your phone.
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: Right, like Words with Friends or something exactly.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: But these persistent worlds, they're engineered to function as a
• 3:48
  what's the term a third place?
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the third place. It's a sociological term for a
• 3:52
  community hub outside of your home and your.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Work, right, So you aren't just playing a game. You
• 3:56
  are spending I mean hundreds of hours talking through a
• 3:59
  head set, beating digital obstacles together and building this pseudo community.
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: It feels very real, it does.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: But the fundamental flaw is the bandwidth of information.
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: What do you mean by that?
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Well, you're getting audio, right, you're getting the cooperative gameplay,
• 4:17
  but you are completely blind to the actual human being
• 4:21
  sitting on the other side. Oh. Absolutely, It's almost like
• 4:23
  a masquerade ball. You feel this intimacy because you're sharing
• 4:26
  an experience, but you only know what they're avatar projects.
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: Right, You're interacting with a mask exactly.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: It's like falling in love with a voice on the
• 4:35
  radio and convincing yourself the DJ is speaking exclusively to you.
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: That radio analogy is perfect actually because it touches on
• 4:42
  the core psychological mechanism play here, which is the parasocial relationship.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: Parasocial right, can you break that down for us?
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, So, in a physical environment, human interaction is regulated
• 4:55
  by this massive subconscious data stream like body language exactly, microexpressions,
• 5:01
  body language, pheromones, even just the physical distance someone keeps
• 5:04
  when they're talking.
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: To you, right, personal space.
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: Right. So, say you develop a fixation on a coworker,
• 5:09
  If that attention is unwanted, you get immediate visceral feedback.
• 5:15
  They back away, they step back, they avoid eye contact,
• 5:18
  their tone shifts. That social friction automatically corrects the behavior
• 5:23
  for most people.
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: But in a voice channel on a gaming server, that
• 5:26
  friction is just entirely absent.
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: It's completely gone. It's basically a sensory deprivation chamber for
• 5:32
  social cues.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Wow, a sensory deprivation chamber. That's a creepy way to
• 5:36
  think about it.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: But it's true, and when the brain is deprived of
• 5:40
  that regulating physical data, it just invents it. It fills
• 5:44
  in the blanks exactly. It fills the vacuum with its
• 5:46
  own projections. So for someone who might be dealing with
• 5:49
  social isolation or a lack of emotional regulation in their
• 5:52
  real life, that digital avatar becomes this blank canvas for
• 5:56
  their deepest psychological needs.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: So they're basically having a relationship with them just projected
• 6:01
  onto this core woman.
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: Precisely the teamwork and the adrenaline of the game. It
• 6:04
  creates this artificial bond. It's a dopamine loop that feels
• 6:08
  incredibly intimate to them, but in reality it's completely one sided.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Which really explains the escalation here, because the sources state
• 6:16
  that this obsession grew over the course of an entire year,
• 6:20
  a full year, a year of projecting this totally fabricated
• 6:23
  relationship onto a woman who realistically probably just viewed him
• 6:28
  as a reliable teammate.
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: Just someone she gamed with.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, right, And eventually the dissonance between his crazy fantasy
• 6:35
  and her actual reality hit a breaking point and she
• 6:38
  cut off all communications. You said, a boundary, a hard boundary,
• 6:41
  and Honestly, if you look at any Internet safety guide,
• 6:44
  that is step one. If someone gets weird, block them,
• 6:46
  mute them, and just sever the connection.
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: And in a neurotypical brain, a severed connection is processed
• 6:53
  as a rejection.
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it hurts, but you get over it, exactly.
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: It stings, it causes emotional distress, right, but you're cognitiate
• 7:00
  of executive function eventually kicks in. You accept the boundary,
• 7:03
  you reregulate, and you move on.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: But vander Hoof didn't.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: No, in Vanderhof's case, that complete lack of emotional regulation
• 7:10
  meant the rejection wasn't processed as a boundary at all.
• 7:13
  It was processed as a catastrophic injury to his constructed reality.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: An injury like he was attacked.
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: Right, And when an unregulated ego suffers an injury at
• 7:23
  that magnitude, the response often mutates. It goes from despair
• 7:27
  into this intense need for punitive control.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: Okay, I have to challenge the timeline here though, because
• 7:33
  getting angry about being blocked online is one thing. Sure,
• 7:37
  smashing your keyboard, screaming into your headset, I mean that's.
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: A tantrum, right, impulsive anger.
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: But there is a massive leap from being an angry,
• 7:45
  rejected gamer to buying handcuffs and crossing a national border.
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: It's a huge escalation.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: The investigation showed vander Hoof spent more than a month
• 7:54
  meticulously planning this.
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: Retaliation, more than thirty days.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he wasn't just sitting in his room still. He
• 8:00
  was gathering intel, surveilling her workplace, figuring out where her
• 8:04
  house on Bollenbacker Drive, was, buying weapons, booking flights.
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: It's terrifying, it really is.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: My question is, how does someone sustain that level of
• 8:13
  dark focus for a whole month without snapping out of it? Like,
• 8:16
  if your reality is that fractured, how do you maintain
• 8:19
  the executive function to plan international travel?
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: Well, what's fascinating here is that the law actually has
• 8:24
  a very specific framework for analyzing that exact contradiction.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: Really, how so, when we look.
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: At the prosecutor's charging documents, they utilized the legal threshold
• 8:36
  of deliberate, willful, and premeditated.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: The big three words.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: Right, And those aren't just decorative adjectives. They represent a
• 8:45
  psychological baseline that completely negates the idea of a temporary, impulsive,
• 8:50
  manic state.
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: So a defense attorney couldn't just walk into court and say,
• 8:54
  you know, my client suffered a psychic break because he
• 8:58
  was digitally isolated. He didn't know what he was doing.
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: No, that defense evaporates the moment you introduce bureaucratic friction
• 9:04
  into the timeline. Bureaucratic friction, I like that. Let's look
• 9:07
  at the legal definition of deliberate. It actually requires the
• 9:10
  careful weighing of considerations for and against an action.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Do you have to stop and think about it?
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: Exactly? It means you recognize the consequences and consciously chose
• 9:18
  to proceed anyway. A sudden loss of control might explain
• 9:22
  grabbing a weapon in the heat of an argument.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Sure, a crime of passion, but it.
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: Cannot explain the process of applying for a passport if
• 9:30
  you needed one, or navigating the booking system of an
• 9:33
  airline online.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Right when you laid out like that, Every single logistical
• 9:37
  step acts as a cognitive checkpoint.
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: Every single checkpoint is a moment where the brain has
• 9:43
  to actively choose to sustain that violent intent. Wow, think
• 9:47
  about the friction of crossing a border.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: You have to pack a bag, but you can't pack
• 9:51
  the knives yet exactly, you.
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: Hold off on packing the weapons because you have to
• 9:55
  clear TSA or the Canadian air Transport Security Authority.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: You have to fall the rules of travel to commit
• 10:01
  the crime.
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: Right, you navigate the airport, you sit in a pressurized
• 10:05
  metal tube for hours, surrounded by other people, with absolutely
• 10:09
  nothing to do but sit there and think about what
• 10:11
  you're gonna.
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: Do, just marinating in it.
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: Yes, you land, you navigate a foreign transit system. You
• 10:16
  locate this specific three hundred block of Bullenbacker Drive, and
• 10:21
  then you have to go to a physical retail store
• 10:23
  in California to purchase the knives, the handcuffs, and the
• 10:26
  duct tape.
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: Honestly, that retail purchase is the part that genuinely chills
• 10:31
  me the most.
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: So visceral, just standing in line at a register, you know,
• 10:36
  making small talk with a cashier, maybe sliping your credit
• 10:39
  card or handing over cash for items that have literally
• 10:42
  only one combined purpose.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: It's horrifying.
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: That requires a terrifying level of compartmentalization.
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: It demonstrates that his executive function was entirely intact. He
• 10:52
  wasn't experiencing a break from reality at all. He was
• 10:56
  hyper focused on manifesting his violent fantasy into reality.
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: It was writing a script exactly.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: He was meticulously scripting this physical encounter where he would
• 11:06
  hold ultimate control over the woman who had stripped him
• 11:09
  of it digitally.
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: And what complicates this script immensely, and I think makes
• 11:13
  it even scarier, is that he didn't fly to California alone.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: No, he casts a supporting actor.
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Darius Avery White.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: Right, another Canadian national roughly the same age as Vanderhof.
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: The sources show White accompanied him on this whole trip,
• 11:28
  and initially when investigators caught up with White, he tried
• 11:31
  to play the role of the oblivious.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Tourist, which is pretty standard. Yeah, he claimed he was
• 11:36
  just tagging along for a sunny California vacation, totally had
• 11:39
  no idea his buddy was planning a targeted assassination. And look,
• 11:44
  I get why he'd say that to save his own skin.
• 11:46
  But from a legal perspective, if I drive my friend
• 11:49
  to the bank and he suddenly jumps out and robs
• 11:52
  it while wearing a ski mask, I didn't technically commit
• 11:55
  the robbery. True, So how did investigators break down that
• 11:59
  defense for White?
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: The legal concept you're circling right now is accomplice liability,
• 12:04
  and it basically hinges on the intersection of two things
• 12:07
  Actus rheus, which is the guilty act and mensraa, the
• 12:11
  guilty mind.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Okay, Latin terms, what does that mean in plain English?
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: To be held liable as an accomplice. The prosecution doesn't
• 12:18
  actually need to prove you held the knife. They just
• 12:21
  have to prove you had knowledge of the primary perpetrator's
• 12:24
  unlawful purpose and that you intentionally gave aid, encouragement or
• 12:28
  support to facilitate that crime.
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: So it's essentially like providing the server hosting for a
• 12:34
  malware attack.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: That's a really good way to look at it.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: Like, you didn't write the malicious code, and you didn't
• 12:39
  trick the victim into clicking the fishing link, but by
• 12:43
  providing the infrastructure, the server space, the bandwidth, you made
• 12:48
  the execution of the attack possible.
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: The law treats your infrastructure as an extension of the
• 12:53
  weapon itself.
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: That is a brilliant way to frame it. Yeah, White
• 12:56
  provided the logistical and the psychological infrastructure so well. Navigating
• 13:02
  foreign rentals, mapping out surveillance roads, securing lodging, all of
• 13:06
  these tasks are significantly easier with a second person there
• 13:10
  managing the cognitive load.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: Sure just split in the chores.
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: But more importantly, his mere presence provided a huge psychological
• 13:17
  validation to vanderhoof.
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: Ah, like an echo chamber.
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: Effect, precisely the echo chamber. In forensic psychology, there's this
• 13:24
  dynamic where sharing a dark, obsessive plan with a peer
• 13:28
  acts as a stress test for the delusion.
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: Oh that makes sense right.
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: Because if the peer expresses horror and calls the cops,
• 13:34
  the delusion is punctured immediately game over. But if the
• 13:38
  peer just nods, packs a suitcase, and boards the flight
• 13:41
  to San Jose with you, their silent participation acts as
• 13:46
  this massive permission slip.
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: Wow, it normalizes it.
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: It completely normalizes the extreme behavior. The delusion becomes a
• 13:54
  shared reality, and White's defensive ignorance completely crumbled under the
• 13:58
  weight of the digital foot and the logistical reality of
• 14:02
  the trip.
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: He couldn't hide behind being a tourist.
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: No, which is why he eventually took a plea deal
• 14:06
  for assault in being an accessory after the fact.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: Which brings up a totally massive logistical nightmare for the investigator.
• 14:14
  Jurisdiction exactly, we have two Canadian citizens plotting a crime
• 14:18
  in British Columbia, communicating over gaming platforms hosted on unknown servers,
• 14:23
  and executing the crime in Monterey County, California.
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: It's a mess.
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: If I'm a detective down in Salinas, I can't just
• 14:30
  drive my squad car up to Vancouver with a search
• 14:32
  warrant and demand an internet service provider hand over their.
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: Chat logs to absolutely cannot. That jurisdictional boundary is a
• 14:39
  massive shield for international cyber criminals.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: It's like a brick wall.
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: It is. When Detective Airis Wilson and the Monterey County
• 14:47
  Sheriff's Office took this case, they ran headfirst into the
• 14:50
  bureaucratic wall of international law because gathering digital evidence across
• 14:55
  a border requires navigating these things called mutual legal assistance
• 14:59
  treaties ormilates.
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, walk us through how an MLOT actually functions, because
• 15:05
  the way you say it, it sounds like a process designed
• 15:07
  to move at the speed of dial up Internet while
• 15:09
  the suspects are flying on jet planes.
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: The speed is absolutely the primary vulnerability. If a local
• 15:15
  detective in California needs data from a Canadian tech company,
• 15:19
  they can't just email them. They have to route their
• 15:22
  request all the way through the US Department of Justice's
• 15:24
  Office of International Affairs.
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: So it goes to DC.
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: Yes, the OIA reviews it, translates it into a formal
• 15:31
  request and sends it to their counterpart in the Canadian government.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: That already sounds like it takes weeks.
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: Oh, it gets worse. A Canadian judge then has to
• 15:39
  review the request under Kadian privacy laws just to issue
• 15:42
  a local superenia.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: They're hitting.
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: No, this process can take months, sometimes over a year,
• 15:48
  just to get a single IP address log.
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: But wait, in this case, they intercepted White on a
• 15:53
  plane at Santa se Moneda International Airport the very next morning.
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: Yes they did.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: They didn't wait months, which.
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: Points to incredible fast on the ground police work and
• 16:03
  likely the use of emergency disclosure requests number those well.
• 16:07
  In life or death situations or when a suspect is
• 16:10
  an active flight, law enforcement can sometimes bypass the formal
• 16:14
  m l AT process.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: Oh, thank goodness, right.
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: They appeal directly to the tech companies or cross border
• 16:19
  task forces. Citing exigen circumstances. They managed to freeze the
• 16:24
  physical scene, identify the accomplice, and coordinate with airport security
• 16:28
  and potentially federal border agents to physically pull White off
• 16:31
  that outbound flight before he could escape the jurisdiction.
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: So they locked down the physical borders because the digital
• 16:36
  borders were just too slow.
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: Man, That is intense, and that brings us to the
• 16:41
  actual execution of the plan on the night of November
• 16:44
  twenty five. So Vanderhof is in California. He has surveiled
• 16:48
  the victim's workplace, he has surveiled her home in the
• 16:51
  Bolsonole's neighborhood. He's bought his weapons, He's ready. But a
• 16:56
  house is a fortified structure. You can't just turn the
• 16:58
  knob and walk into someone's living room.
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: Most people lock their doors.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: So this is where he deploys that trojan horse strategy
• 17:03
  we mentioned earlier.
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: The cardboard box.
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: The cardboard box, he approaches the house holding an Amazon package.
• 17:09
  He doesn't wear a ski mask or like black tactical gear.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: Which would trigger alarm bells immediately.
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: Right. He wears the invisibility cloak of the modern gig economy.
• 17:20
  And I want to dissect the psychology of why this
• 17:23
  specific disguise is so devastatingly effective.
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: It it basically exploits these cognitive heuristics right mental shortcuts exactly.
• 17:32
  The mental shortcuts our brains use to process information quickly
• 17:36
  because we are bombarded with thousands of micro decisions every
• 17:39
  single day.
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's exhausting.
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: To avoid cognitive overload, our brains categorize certain visual cues
• 17:45
  as safe based on repetition, and over the last decade,
• 17:49
  the massive influx of home deliveries has trained our brains
• 17:53
  to associate a person holding a cardboard box on our
• 17:55
  porch not with danger, but with a reward.
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: Brain it sees that cardboard box and just instantly thinks, Oh,
• 18:03
  the thing I ordered is here. It completely bypasses the
• 18:06
  threat detection system.
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: The object itself becomes a cognitive bypass. Think about it.
• 18:12
  If a man in a trench coat knocks on your
• 18:13
  door at eight he er oo pm, you're a Migola
• 18:16
  spikes you check the dead bolt. Yeah right. But if
• 18:18
  a man in a generic polo shirt holding a brown
• 18:21
  box knocks, your brain classifies him as a delivery vector.
• 18:25
  You don't even perceive the human, You perceive the service.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: Wow. Opening the door just becomes a reflex rather than
• 18:31
  a conscious decision.
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: Exactly, And Vanderhof utilized this heuristic perfectly to bridge that
• 18:36
  final physical gap between his digital obsession and his real
• 18:39
  world target.
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: By the time the door was opened, the perimeter was
• 18:42
  already breached.
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: It was too late.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: But here's where it gets really interesting, because this is
• 18:46
  where his meticulous, year long script goes completely off the rails.
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: The fantasy hits reality.
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Vanderhuf expects the door to open, and he expects
• 18:56
  to find his target alone, passive, and just totally overwhelmed
• 19:00
  by his sudden physical presence.
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: He wants that power dynamic.
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: He expects the power dynamic of the fantasy to manifest perfectly.
• 19:07
  But instead, the boyfriend opens the door the.
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: Introduction of an unknown, massive variable right at the moment of.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: Execution, and rather than aborting the mission upon seeing the
• 19:19
  wrong person, which you know most people would do, Vanderhof
• 19:22
  forces entry and immediately initiates a lethal assault, stabbing the
• 19:26
  boyfriend multiple times brutal. The legal documents refer to this
• 19:29
  as inflicting great bodily injury, which isn't just a legal
• 19:33
  catch phrase. It means he hit vital areas.
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: It was a targeted attempt to eliminate the obstacles right.
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: The decision not to abort reveals the depth of the fixation.
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: Absolutely because a rational burglar, upon losing the element of
• 19:46
  surprise or facing an unexpected male occupant, retreats.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they just run away.
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: The goal of burglary is property acquisition with minimal friction.
• 19:56
  But vanderhof'skull was violence. The boyfriend wasn't a deterrent. He
• 20:00
  was just collateral damage in the way of the primary target.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: And here's where the narrative shifts from a story about
• 20:06
  a digital predator to a story about unbelievable human survival.
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: It really does.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: The female victim, the woman he has spent a year
• 20:15
  obsessing over, the woman whose boundaries he refused to accept.
• 20:19
  She hears this violent struggle happening at her front door.
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: She hears the man who came to kill her actively
• 20:25
  stabbing her partner.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: Right, And the physiological reality of this moment cannot be overstated.
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's immense. When a human being is thrust into
• 20:33
  sudden lethal violence like that, the sympathetic nervous system just
• 20:36
  initiates this massive dump of adrenaline and cortisol fireflight right,
• 20:40
  blood is shutt it away from the extremities to the
• 20:42
  core organs. Fine motor skills degrade instantly, auditor exclusion and
• 20:47
  tunnel vision set in.
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: It's pure chaos in the body.
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: The body prepares to either flee for survival or just
• 20:53
  freeze in shock.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: But she does neither.
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: No, she doesn't.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: She grabs a sharp metal object from inside the house
• 20:59
  and charges into the absolute chaos to defend her boyfriend.
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: It's incredible.
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: She weaponizes whatever is in her immediate environment and engages
• 21:08
  in hand to hand combat with an armed attacker who
• 21:11
  has been planning this exact moment for a month.
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: It is the ultimate disruption of the attacker script. Because
• 21:18
  perpetrators of premeditated violence, they almost always build their plans
• 21:23
  around the assumption of a compliant or paralyzed victim.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: Right they never imagine losing control.
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: They rehearse the attack in their minds, and in those rehearsals,
• 21:32
  they always win. They always have total control. But she
• 21:35
  fought back when the female victim counterattacked. She introduced an
• 21:40
  overwhelming level of physical and chaotic friction that vander Hoof
• 21:43
  simply had not budgeted for.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: And the struggle is so violent that it actually spills
• 21:47
  out of the house, out onto the lawn, yeah the outside,
• 21:50
  in the dark. The boyfriend has sustained multiple critical stab wounds.
• 21:55
  His body is actively bleeding out, his blood pressure is
• 21:57
  dropping dangerously low.
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: It's dying.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: But out there on the lawn, the boyfriend somehow manages
• 22:02
  to physically disarm vander Hoof. He rips the knife away
• 22:06
  and stabs his attacker multiple times in self defense.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: The somatic resilience required to execute a complex motor function
• 22:13
  like disarming a knife wielding attacker while suffering from hypovolemic
• 22:18
  shock due to blood loss is just astounding. It's superhuman,
• 22:22
  it really is. The couple effectively utilized a dynamic, coordinated defense,
• 22:27
  and while Vanderhof had the advantage of premeditation and weapons,
• 22:30
  he completely lacked the desperate, chaotic energy of two people
• 22:35
  fighting for their immediate survival.
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: But even after being critically wounded with his own knife,
• 22:39
  vander Hoof's obsession still overrides his biological drive for self preservation.
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: He's still on stop.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: He doesn't flee. He tackles the woman as she attempts
• 22:47
  to run back inside, and he begins to strangle her.
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: And strangulation is a highly specific, intimately violent act.
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: How do you mean?
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: Well, it requires sustained physical exertion and extreme proximity. Unlike
• 23:00
  a gunshot or a quick stab wound, which could be
• 23:04
  inflicted in a fraction of a second from a distance.
• 23:06
  Strangulation requires the attacker to physically feel and watch the
• 23:10
  life leave the victim's body over a period of minutes.
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: That's horrifying.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: The fact that vander Hoof resorted to this method while
• 23:17
  he was critically injured himself underscores that his ultimate immovable
• 23:22
  goal was the elimination of the woman who rejected him.
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: Thankfully, neighbors and the victims themselves managed to contact authorities.
• 23:31
  Monterey County Sheriff's deputies arrived at a scene that honestly
• 23:34
  must have looked.
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: Like a war zone, blood everywhere.
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: All three individuals, the two victims in the attacker required
• 23:39
  immediate transport to the hospital with critical or moderate to severe.
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: Injuries, but they made it.
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: Against all odds, the couple survived. They bought themselves the
• 23:48
  only thing that matters in a lethal encounter, which is
• 23:50
  time time for the sirens to arrive.
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: The refuse to let his digital fantasy dictate their physical reality.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the aftermath and arguably one of
• 23:59
  them the most bizarre elements of this entire case, the
• 24:02
  cushion yes, So vander Hoof is stabilized at the hospital
• 24:06
  and taken into custody. Investigators are frantically working the scene.
• 24:11
  They secure the cardboard box, the duct tape, the handcuffs,
• 24:14
  They pull White off the airplane in San Jose.
• 24:16
  Speaker 2: They have a mountain of physical and circumstantial evidence, a.
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: Huge mountain, and then vander Hoof just talks. He confesses,
• 24:22
  he gives it all up. He explicitly tells investigators that
• 24:26
  his intent was and I quote, to actually kill someone.
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: Just unbelievable.
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: As someone who analyzes legal strategy, why on earth would
• 24:34
  a suspect hand the prosecution the exact definition of premeditated
• 24:38
  intent on a silver platter.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: To understand that, we have to analyze the psychological collapse
• 24:43
  of the ego, okay, lay it on me. So for
• 24:45
  a year Vanderhof lived inside this grand narcissistic delusion where
• 24:49
  he was the protagonist. He's been a month meticulously designing
• 24:53
  a master plan. He crossed borders, he bypassed security.
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: In his mind, he was like a tactical genius.
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: Yes, exactly. Then the reality hit. He was beaten, disarmed,
• 25:05
  and nearly killed by his own intended victims.
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: It's the ultimate humiliation.
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: A total shattering of the self image. When investigators sit
• 25:14
  down with a suspect in that state of cognitive collapse,
• 25:17
  the suspect often experiences a bizarre compulsion to explain the
• 25:21
  brilliance of the plan that failed.
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: Wait, they want to brag about a failed plan?
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: Yes, it is a desperate attempt to reclaim a sense
• 25:29
  of agency. By detailing the surveillance, the travel and the
• 25:33
  explicit intent to kill, he is subconsciously trying to prove
• 25:37
  to the detectives that he isn't a failure, that his
• 25:40
  plan was actually incredibly sophisticated, and that the victims only
• 25:43
  survived by a fluke.
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: Wow, So it's like, look at the masterpiece. I bill
• 25:47
  just ignore the fact that it burned.
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: Down exactly that dynamic.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: Furthermore, skilled interrogators know exactly how to present the illusion
• 25:55
  of an air tight matrix.
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: What's that mean?
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: Detective Wilson's team would have systematically laid out the avadence.
• 26:00
  They would present the travelogs, the receipts for the handcuffs,
• 26:03
  the digital communications mapping, the obsession, letting.
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: Him see the walls closing in right.
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: When faced with the suffocating amount of empirical data, the
• 26:12
  confession basically becomes a psychological capitulation. The suspect realizes the
• 26:17
  lie requires more cognitive effort to maintain than.
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: The truth, and with the confession secured, the digital forensics
• 26:25
  basically become the concrete poured over the coffin of the defense.
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: There's no way out.
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: Fast forward to the trial. In February twenty twenty six,
• 26:33
  a Monterey County jury can fix Vanderhoof of two counts
• 26:37
  of wilful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder along with residential.
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: Burglary a clean sweep.
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: And they slap on enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily
• 26:47
  injury and using a.
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: Weapon, which is crucial for sentencing.
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: Right then, in June twenty twenty six, Judge Mark E
• 26:54
  Hood delivers the sentence, and this is where California penal
• 26:57
  code gets incredibly specific, and I really want you to untangleis.
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: For us sure?
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: The judge hands down two consecutive life sentences plus five
• 27:04
  consecutive years for the enhancements.
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: It's a massive sentence.
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: Let's start with the base charge. Why is a failed
• 27:10
  murder treated with a life sentence?
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: It hinges entirely on the jury's finding of those three
• 27:14
  words we talked about earlier, wilful, deliberate, and premeditated. Right.
• 27:20
  In the California penal system, a standard attempted murder, say,
• 27:25
  a bar fight that escalates and someone pulls a knife
• 27:27
  and the heat of the moment is typically categorized as
• 27:30
  second degree.
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: Okay, and what's the penalty for that?
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: The sentencing guidelines for that impulsive act usually range from
• 27:37
  five to nine years in a state penitentiary, a significant penalty.
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: But I mean it has a defined end date exactly.
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: But the legislature recognizes that a mind capable of sustained
• 27:48
  cold blooded planning over a period of a month poses
• 27:51
  a fundamentally different, permanent threat to society.
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: It's a whole different level of danger.
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: The premeditation elevates the crime to the first degree. Under
• 28:00
  California law, premeditated attempted murder triggers a mandatory life sentence
• 28:04
  with the possibility of parole.
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: So the fact that he fail doesn't matter.
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: Right, The physical failure of the murder doesn't mitigate the
• 28:11
  psychological danger of the perpetrator.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: Okay, So he gets a life sentence. But the judge
• 28:16
  gave him two of them, and he specified that they
• 28:19
  must be served consecutively rather than concurrently, and that.
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: Distinction between concurrent and consecutive is the mechanism that ensures
• 28:27
  he will likely never breathe free air again. How So,
• 28:31
  if a judge orders concurrent sentences, multiple life terms are
• 28:35
  served simultaneously, the clock runs on all charges at the exact.
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: Same time, so it's basically like two for one exactly, but.
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: Judge hood ordered consecutive sentences. This reflects a core philosophical
• 28:47
  pillar of the justice system, the isolation of harm.
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: Meaning you don't get a discount for attacking a second person.
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: You do not get a bulk rate on violence. Right,
• 28:57
  the attack on the boyfriend was a catastrophic harm to
• 29:00
  an individual. The subsequent attack on the woman was a separate, distinct,
• 29:04
  catastrophic harm.
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: So they treat them completely separately.
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: The law demands that the perpetrators serve the full penalty
• 29:11
  for the first destroyed life before the clock even begins
• 29:14
  taking on the penalty for the second. You stack one
• 29:16
  life sentence on top of the other.
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: And then you add the enhancements.
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: Yes, California uses enhancements, specifically sections one total one two
• 29:25
  Tote five to three and one twenty twenty two point
• 29:28
  seven of the Penal Code to severely punish the methods.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: Of violence, the weapons, and the injuries.
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: Right but personally using a deadly weapon and by personally
• 29:38
  inflicting great bodily injury, the court is legally mandated to
• 29:42
  tack on additional consecutive years.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: So if we do the grim math here, it's a
• 29:46
  lot of math. Even if, say, forty years from now,
• 29:50
  a parole board looks at an elderly Vanderhoof and decides
• 29:53
  he has served enough time for the first life sentence,
• 29:56
  he doesn't get to go home.
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: Not at all.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: He just walks out of that parole hearing actually begins
• 30:00
  day one of his second life sentence, plus the five
• 30:03
  years for the weapons.
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: The mathematics of consecutive life terms are literally designed to
• 30:07
  exceed the biological limits of the human life span.
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: He's never getting out.
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: No, the judge utilized the full weight of the jury's
• 30:13
  findings to eliminate any possibility of mitigation. His youth, his
• 30:17
  lack of prior convictions. None of it mattered in the
• 30:19
  face of the premeditation and the sheer brutality of the Act.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: The sentence is a permanent quarantine.
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: That's the perfect word for it.
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: But while the justice system successfully quarantined the threat, the
• 30:29
  blast radius of this crime is still expanding for the survivors.
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: Right, it doesn't just end with a gabbl drop.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: No. Sheriff Tina Nietto and District Attorney Jeanine M. Pacioni
• 30:39
  made it very clear during their press conferences that while
• 30:42
  accountability was achieved, the community needs to view this case
• 30:45
  as a massive flashing warning light, a wake up call.
• 30:49
  Neetto explicitly warned that online interactions carry real world consequences
• 30:55
  and this is where we really have to evolve our
• 30:57
  understanding of digital footprints, not just about accidentally posting picture
• 31:01
  of your house online anymore.
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: Is it not even close. We have moved far past
• 31:05
  the era of simply warning people not to geotag their
• 31:08
  coffee cups right.
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: The early Instagram day.
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the threat landscape is evolved into the aggregation of microdata.
• 31:15
  Open source intelligence or OSEND is a methodology typically used
• 31:19
  by investigators, but it is so easily weaponized by fixated individuals.
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: And they don't even need you to post your address.
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: No, they just need you to leave a trail of
• 31:28
  digital exhaust.
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: Okay, break down what digital exhaust actually looks like in
• 31:32
  practice for us, How does an anonymous gamer pinpoint a
• 31:36
  house in Salinas?
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: Consider behavioral metadata? You log onto the game every day
• 31:41
  at six point zero pm and log off at eleven
• 31:44
  zero pm.
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: Okay, so what does that tell them?
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: The stalker now knows your time zone and your likely
• 31:49
  work schedule. Then, say you mentioned offhand in a voice
• 31:53
  chat that it's raining heavily or that there's a mass
• 31:55
  of wildfire nearby.
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: Just casual conversation exactly, But.
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: The stalker cross refer and says real time meteorological data
• 32:02
  or local news feeds to narrow your location to a
• 32:04
  specific region or county.
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: Wow, So they are triangulating environmental data against your login habits.
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: And then they look for username reuse. This is actually
• 32:13
  the biggest vulnerability, like.
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: Using the same handle everywhere.
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: Yes, a user might have a highly anonymous profile on
• 32:19
  a gaming server, but they use the same handle or
• 32:22
  even just a variation of it on a niche hobby forum,
• 32:25
  a Spotify playlist, or a Venmo.
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: Account, and Venmo shows transactions with real people right by
• 32:31
  running that handle through automated scraping tools, a stalker can
• 32:34
  link the anonymous avatar to a real name, and once
• 32:38
  they have a real.
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: Name in a general county, it's game over. Pretty much,
• 32:42
  public property records, voter registrations, or data broker sites will
• 32:46
  provide the exact physical address on Ballenbacker Drive for a
• 32:50
  few dollars.
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: It requires zero hacking skills liter all. It just requires
• 32:55
  endless obsessive patients. The stalker simply collects the puzzle pieces
• 33:00
  you are unknowingly dropping across dozens of different platforms over
• 33:04
  the course of a year, and they assemble the map
• 33:06
  straight to your front door.
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: This is why the concept of a shadow profile is
• 33:10
  so incredibly dangerous.
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: A shadow profile, right, you might.
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: Think you are maintaining strict privacy on the game itself,
• 33:17
  but the telemetry data of your life is leaking everywhere.
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: Else, So what can you even do?
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: The defense mechanisms required today go far beyond simply using
• 33:26
  a fake screen name. It requires aggressive compartmentalization, like unique
• 33:30
  emails for different services, utilizing VPNs to mask IP addresses,
• 33:35
  and actively going in and scrubbing your information from data
• 33:38
  broker registries.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: It requires physical protocols too, right, absolutely, we circle back
• 33:43
  to the trojan horse. The psychological hack of the Amazon
• 33:46
  box only works if you allow the heuristic to override
• 33:50
  your security protocols.
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: You have to break to reflex.
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: If a delivery driver knocks and you aren't expecting a package,
• 33:55
  the protocol must be to verify through a reinforced barrier
• 33:59
  like a.
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: Video doorbell or an intercom right rather.
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: Than just opening the door to inspect the box. It
• 34:04
  introduces friction into your daily life. Sure, but friction is
• 34:08
  literally the only thing that slows down an attack.
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: We're essentially asking civilians to adopt operational security mindsets for
• 34:15
  mundane everyday tasks, which is awful. It is a grim reality.
• 34:20
  But when the platforms hosting these digital communities failed to
• 34:23
  adequately police the behavioral escalation of their users, the burden
• 34:27
  of survival falls entirely on the individual.
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: We have covered an immense amount of ground in this.
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: Deep dive, so much to unpack.
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: We've explored the neurochemistry of parasocial obsession, the stark legal
• 34:38
  boundaries between a sudden impulse and a month long, premeditated plot,
• 34:43
  the bureaucratic maze of cross border investigations.
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: And the cognitive vulnerabilities exploited by a simple cardboard box.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: Right. But when you strip away the legal terminology and
• 34:53
  all the digital forensics, the core of this entire nightmare
• 34:56
  comes down to the chaotic, unpredictable reality of human survival.
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: Devin Vanderhof meticulously optimized every logistical variable he could control.
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: He thought he had it all figured out.
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: He did. He calculated the travel, the disguise, the weaponry.
• 35:13
  The single variable he completely failed to calculate was the
• 35:16
  indomitable will of the two people he intended to victimize.
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: They refused to abide by the script he wrote for them.
• 35:21
  Speaker 2: Period.
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: They're resilience, both in surviving the sheer physical trauma of
• 35:25
  the attack and in navigating the grueling legal process that
• 35:28
  culminated in that June twenty twenty sixth sentencing is honestly
• 35:32
  the only reason this steep Dog doesn't end as a
• 35:34
  homicide case.
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: It's a miracle they survived because.
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: They fought back. Vanderhof has been permanently removed from society,
• 35:41
  totally unable to inflict his unregulated fixations on anyone else.
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: It is a profound testament to the fact that while
• 35:49
  technology can facilitate the darkest aspects of human nature. It
• 35:53
  cannot override the primal instinct to protect the people we love.
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: I completely agree. As we close out this, dear, I
• 36:00
  want to leave you the listener, with a final thought
• 36:03
  to maul over on your own.
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: It's an important one.
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: We have spent the last two decades aggressively integrating the
• 36:09
  Internet into the physical infrastructure of our lives. We live online,
• 36:13
  we really do, and we view the cloud as this ethereal,
• 36:16
  weightless space, safely insulated from the tangible reality of our
• 36:21
  homes and our physical bodies.
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: But the architecture of the cloud is built on physical servers,
• 36:26
  and the avatars we interact with are operated by physical humans.
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: With physical bodies, physical flaws, and sometimes incredibly dangerous physical intentions.
• 36:34
  Speaker 2: The digital world does not exist in a vacuum.
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: No, it casts a very real, very heavy shadow directly
• 36:39
  over our front doors. Moving forward, the question we all
• 36:43
  have to critically evaluate is this, how much of our physical,
• 36:47
  real world safety are we unknowingly trading for the illusion
• 36:51
  of digital convenience?
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: And when the knock comes at the door, is that
• 36:54
  a trade you are still willing to make?
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us on this deep dive. Stay
• 36:59
  curious may tain your boundaries and above all, stay safe.