Law&Crime Sidebar - 7 Times Lawyers Blew Up in Court During High-Profile Trials

Episode Date: May 23, 2024

In the pursuit of justice for their client, lawyers on both sides of the courtroom can sometimes get pretty heated. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the top 7 outbursts from attorneys.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson

delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible.

The only reason why I'm not done if I could be heard without being interrupted and hijacked by this mistake as it continues to try to hide a law on the stakes. He indicated to you. Is that a crime? I ask the questions here. If you think I'm here to put it around with y'all, God. All right, Mr. O'Neill, please stop using swearing language. It's not appropriate in a closing argument. Lawyers sometimes get quite heated in court, so we're going to break

down some of the top outbursts by lawyers in the trials that we have covered here at law and crime. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Attorneys, we are passionate at times, passionate about our clients, our arguments, our reputation being heard. And that is always on full display in courtrooms all the time across this country. Sometimes these can lead to outbursts, some good, some bad. Now we're going to talk about some attorney outbursts. in trials that we have covered here on law and crime, and there are quite a few.

So we're going to start this off in Delaware County, Ohio, back in August of 2022. A man named Matthew Moore was on trial for the murder of his wife, Emily Noble. Now, her body was discovered four months after she was reported missing in the woods, hanging from a tree by a USB court. Prosecutors alleged that Moore staged the scene to look like she did this herself. Defunds counsel argued that it was possible that Noble had, in fact, taken her own life. Well, as that back and forth was happening between both sides on testimony and evidence, the trial was also notable for this outburst from the prosecutor.

You see, Mark Sleeper and Melissa Schiffel were acting as prosecutors for the state. And on the seventh day of trial, the judge, Stephen Walliver, wanted to move forward with the proceedings, despite the fact that Ms. Schiffel wasn't in the courtroom. Now, according to Mr. Sleeper, the court knew about this. The court was informed two weeks earlier that Schiffel would not be in a time. attendance due to some scheduling issue. Well, Mr. Sleeper let the judge know that he had a major problem with these proceedings going forward without Ms. Schiffel there.

And it's not only what he said, but what he physically did. No, I'm sorry, but I would object to going forward anyway right now about the elected county prosecutor who's on this case. But she chose not to be here. That's not accurate, Judge. Okay. Okay. Your objections noted.

We had a phone status conference two weeks ago. in which mischief will... Your objection is noted. Okay? I'm not going to participate in this proceeding without the elected county prosecutor. I think this is a shaman that you're going forward. When the court was... You're going to sit here.

You're going to sit here. You were told about her unavailability and specifically told her on the phone not to cancel that appointment that it wouldn't be able to... I'll tell you what. If you want to be here for the decision, that's your business. Well, Your Honor, I think this is outrageous here going forward without the prosecutor. You saw that. right, he straight up left the courtroom, left the courtroom, turned his back on the judge,

walked out, shocking, brazen, right? How many often do you see a attorney doing that to a judge? By the way, an attorney doing that and not getting penalized for it, you have to show the court a level of respect, even if you disagree with the judge. But no repercussions for Mr. Sleeper, as far as we saw. Now, without having had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Sleeper, who knows what really happened here. But I do know that this is a case that wasn't the best for the prosecution because the jury in the end sided with the defense. That's right. Matthew Moore was acquitted of the murder of his wife, Emily Noble, and was free to go. Next up, we have a series of outbursts from an attorney, and it happened during cross-examination of a defendant. This was back in 2019 in Ohio, Claudia Herrig was

on trial for the murder of her Air Force Major husband Carl Herrick. Prosecutors say she shot him to death back in 2007, then fled to her native country of Brazil until she was finally extradited back to the United States. And during her trial, she seemed to suggest that this wasn't murder, but more a spontaneous act as a result of years of what she claimed was physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband. By the way, we did a great prime crime on this one. I hope everybody can check it out on our YouTube page. Anyway, prosecutor Christopher Becker was questioning Herrick when she decided to take the stand. And he seemed to be getting... quite annoyed and quite loud when it came to Herrick's answers to his questions.

And keep in mind, he is trying to prove his case that she intentionally, deliberately killed him. So this is an outburst that I got to say, I love, I love. And in my opinion, is necessary. Take a listen. Before you shot, Carl Herig, you were upset that he had an engagement party for you in putting back, correct? I thought that was very weird. That was a sign that something was... Yes or no? I'm not asking for an explanation. Before you shot and shot him, were you upset that he trapped you or tricked you into marrying him? No, I take blame for stuff. Yes or no? No. Before you shot him, were you upset that you had to pay for everything except for the mortgage and the electric bill?

I was a little upset. I mean, but it wasn't before. I'm not. I'm only asking yes or not. No. No. You're not. No. You're not. No. Before you shot him, were you upset that his son moved in with you? I don't know if I want to understand the question. I'm going to answer not what's your not understand the question. We're getting to the point. You were asking me if I was You asked me the questions and not argue with me please. Before you shot him, were you upset that he picked out the clothes you wore? I didn't realize at the time that yes or no. All I want to know is yes or no. These are simple questions. I didn't like that very much. Carl Herod cannot come in here and explain any of these situations that you testify to, correct?

Yes, he can't through the voice. No, he can't. He can get on this witness now. Does he testify? Don't testify, Ms. Miller. Go ahead. Well, can Carl Herod come in this courtroom and testify? No.

Okay, thank you. You would already talk about getting a job back in New York with your old accounting firm, correct? Yes. And that would be with, I believe, Mr. Andy Wilder. Yes, he was one of my options. And he was also another boyfriend you had, correct? Never. Never?

Would you like to see the... Yes. There were some emails between you, correct? Yeah, yeah. There were? Yeah. Some kind of leading on like you should get it. Men and women, they can float, but I never had anything with him.

And I have no reason to hide that. Right. So he indicated to you... Is that a crime? I asked the questions here. Oh, I'm sorry. Before you shot him, before he shot him, before he... you shot him, before you shot him, really keeping that image in the minds of the jury about what

she did. And clearly, getting annoyed at her seemingly trying to dodge the questions. And then listen to this. You shot and killed Carl Herod by putting not one, not two, but three shots into his bomb, correct? Yes. All right. You walked one, two, three, four, five, six, six, seven, eight, nine, ten steps down to where his body was, and you put the gun 12 to 24 inches from his head and pulled the trigger, correct? Probably. Well, did somebody else break into the house and shoot him too? An outburst, loud, emphatic, I don't know what we want to call it, but I will tell you

what it all was, effective, very, very effective. In the end, Claudia Herrig did not convince the jury that she was innocent. No, she was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but with the possibility of parole after 28 years. Hey there, everybody. So I want to thank Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this episode of Sidebar. Always love talking about them. Now, here is the incredible thing about Morgan and Morgan,

and one of the reasons why I like talking about them so much. Hey, say something about our big win. I'm not supposed to come on camera. The reason, Morgan and Morgan, America's largest personal injury law firm, is so big, and I'm sure you can guess it, is because they win a lot and that's don't forget huge verdict yeah they've won big verdicts uh six point eight million dollars in new york 26 million dollars in philadelphia you see the thing

about them is they don't settle for low ball insurance offers from insurance companies which is mentioned that you can submit a claim from your couch at home and on your phone and they've completely modernized the process by submitting your claim talking to your legal team it's all done straight from your phone again that's something that clicks a clicks or less eight clicks or less yes you can see if you have a case in just a few minutes a thousand lawyers all right you know what dan if you really think you can do better maybe you should just do it yourself what jesse was getting that is if you've ever been injured in an accident you can check out morgan and morgue you can submit a claim in eight clicks or less start your claim

just visit for the people dot com slash lc sidebar You came a little too close to me. It hurt me a little bit. I'm probably actually going to have to hire you guys now, but that was well said. That was well said. Now, we're better to talk about attorney outburst than with the Young Thug trial out in Atlanta, Georgia.

We focused upon that here on sidebar before. Rapper Young Thug, whose real name is Jeffrey Lamar Williams, was indicted on what is essentially a laundry list of charges that accuse him of leading a criminal organization known as YSL or Young Slime Life. The main underlying charge is conspiracy to violate the state's RICO statute, racketeering, basically a criminal enterprise. Conspiracy, meaning that there was an agreement to break the law, and there were overt acts or steps taken in furtherance of that. Overt acts don't have to be crimes.

There just have to be certain actions that were taken. The idea is that Williams and others had an agreement to participate in gang activities, and there were 191 overt acts taken in furtherance of the YSL gang. defense suggesting that YSL is merely a record label, that there is no gang here, and maybe that whatever alleged crimes were committed, they weren't done in furtherance of this grand criminal enterprise, but were more specific individual actions. That's my take on the defense. Now, at the time of this recording, this trial is still ongoing. Jury selection took, what, almost a year. We saw plea deals, cases being severed or separated, and all of the changes in developments have caused a lot of friction between Judge Ural.

Glanville and the attorneys and this all led to some attorney outbursts but also i'll tell you what outbursts from the judge too if we're playing balls and strikes here let's call it like this exchange between young thugs attorney brian steel and judge bureau glanville over an interview regarding an alleged getaway driver named adrian bean and what questions mr steel can ask says he lied about who he's talking about the car this but we still don't know whether or not He had a conversation with Detective Lewis. And I made it clear. It's 10 years ago.

But you said in your conversation with Detective Lewis, that's what you proffer. I said, or any other detective or law enforcement, read the transcript. I made it clear. I don't know. He doesn't remember names. He says it was Detective Quinn. Also on the recording, on January, Sunday, January 22, 2023, Mr. Bean is the one who said this happened in the hospital.

Your Honor, I'm the one complaining about, I don't have the statement. Six days later, Detective Quinn and Adrian Bean are on recording where Adrian Bean tells Detective Quinn, I lied. About what? I lied about what. Who was driving the car, he gets cut off. Detective Quinn says, yeah, tell me about it. Where's that statement?

That's what I've been asking for. It doesn't work that way, Mr. Steele. I'm sorry. It does work that. No, it does not. Yes, it does. it doesn't. And you haven't present any case law to tell me how to do that. And I'm telling you, as the judge presiding over this case, if you do that, it's misconduct. I'm not doing anything.

I'm telling you right now. I don't know what you're telling me. I am telling you you have no good faith basis at this point in time to ask that question right now, or to intimate that. I can ask any question. You are listening to the Supreme Court. I'm ready to cross-examine. I'm going to play the recording you just heard. This gentleman tells me, on recording, that he was at the hospital speaking with law enforcement. I want that.

It is backed up because on recording, six days after the crash into that side of the building, Your Honor, Detective Quinn and Mr. Bean are talking about this statement that Mr. Bean made prior. I don't have it. And when the court asked me, well, you've got to find it, find it, or if I find it, it wasn't given over. Then we'll have some problems.

Then we'll have some issues. I have some issues now. Or how about this back and forth between Judge Glanville and defense attorney Max Schart, who represents defendant Shannon Stillwell, because this issue concerns a motion in limine. That's when you're asking the court to exclude something from coming into evidence during trial. And here it's all about whether he could have filed this months ago. You see, Judge Glanville is never too happy about anything that delays the trial.

That's what it means to be prepared as an advocate. Okay. The state's giving you this, okay? You knew about these. Murder, the state. You knew about this issue, right? Perhaps the state, knowing that it's an issue, would not want to admit evidence of an individual being a prosecutor. I get it.

I get it. But you know. Perhaps it's not on me. Perhaps the state should not be. Oh, it's on you and it's on them. It's on me. It's on me. That's when I'm telling you, in terms of just having to stall the proceeding so I can go ahead and take this up. I'm not trying to stall anything you're on.

No, no, no, no. And I don't mean you, and I don't mean you, listen, listen, I don't mean you like just filing this to stall it, okay? Okay, all right, but you, but you, but my angst with you, I don't have any angstly to file the motion. I don't. I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, annoyed that you didn't file it in 2023? The state has been fully aware that their colleague who was a gang prosecutor was serving as a defense attorney on this case. And I don't understand why it's my job to flag that issue. But I have flagged the issue. Okay. And so if I'm going to take now, now, now you flagged the issue now on the 9th, the 10th of April of 24. Have a seat, sir. Then there was this motion to suppress evidence. So Doug Weinstein, who's representing

Diamante Kendrick, also known as Yak-Gadi, Weinstein wanted to suppress a 2015 police interrogation video of Kendrick because he claimed that the investigators violated his client's rights by asking him more questions after he asked for a lawyer. So the judge, Judge Glanville, watched the police interview outside the presence of the jury and was wrestling with this issue. And that is when there was this interaction between prosecutor Adrian Love and defense counsel. And it was so bad, even the bailiff had to get involved. Where it specifically says that a lawyer, a suspect who asked for a lawyer at any time during a custodial interrogation may not be subjected to further questioning, as the court has said,

by law enforcement until an attorney has been made available or until the suspect re-initiates the conversation. Your Honor, at some point, Your Honor, I'm sorry, I'm talking. And I don't know why I am being interrupted. I will not stop. Hey, hey, hey. I was speaking. Ms. Love, y'all got, y'all.

I'm sorry, I was speaking. Both y'all can't talk at the same time. I know. I was speaking, and I was able to speak when I'm speaking. Hey, both you all need to just take it down a notch. And so, Your Honor, if I may finish, because I was the one speaking before Mr. Weinstein. But you have, you have, you have, you continually engaged in this pattern of behavior, Ms. Love. You don't want to accept my ruling.

Judge was adamant about it. Serious issue. Suspect asking to speak to counsel. Questioning stops. Back and forth over. happens and if he initiated the conversation but the judge was not persuaded felt that law enforcement improperly softened him up and properly got him to say things not good okay this next one i have to put in quotes attorney outburst the reason i'm doing that is because this isn't a lawyer no it's a

defendant who tried to act as his own lawyer he represented himself i'm talking about ronnie o'neal who was on trial for murdering his girlfriend kenyatta baron and their nine-year-old special needs daughter, Renivia, and he was also accused of stabbing his eight-year-old son, Ronnie O'Neill the fourth. Oh, and then setting the house on fire. Horrific. That's what we're dealing with here. The little boy, by the way, miraculously survived this whole ordeal, and one of the investigators

in the case actually ended up adopting him. So O'Neill goes to trial in 2021. He decides to represent himself. And talking about outbursts, he just can't seem to stop yelling and screaming when making his points. The evidence is going to show that we are under some of the most vicious, fabricating, fictitious government you have seen. The evidence is going to show my son did not see me murder his mom.

The evidence is going to show he did not see me shoot his mom. The evidence is going to show my son said many things that are not true. If you think I'm here to put it around with y'all got . . . . . all right, Mr. O'Neill, please stop using swearing language. It's not appropriate in a closing argument. So loud. So loud. You know, being the loudest person in the room screaming your point doesn't always. make it so true felt almost like he watched maybe too many legal dramas thought that was the way an attorney is supposed to act and while he may have claimed that police fabricated evidence manipulated 911 phone calls he was found guilty on two counts of first degree murder one count of attempted

first degree murder two counts of aggravated child abuse one count of arson and one count of resisting a law enforcement officer and just two days later o'neill was sentenced and that is when judge Francisco, let O'Neill know what she thought of him and his actions. 19 years I've been at this job. I've seen human beings killed at the hands of others in every way imaginable. You name it, I've seen. Shooting, staggots, drownings, suffocatings, blown apart by cars and DUI manslaughter cases, horrible things. This is the worst case I have ever seen as far as the facts go.

was sentenced to three life sentences plus 90 years in prison. He's currently housed at Liberty Correctional Institute in Florida. Now let's talk about Alex Jones. I haven't talked about him in a while. The Alex Jones civil trials, we remember these. This was when the Info Wars founder and host was sued by the families of those who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as well as a former FBI agent for comments he made regarding the massacre, namely that it was staged, that it was fake,

that it was a hoax, that the parents were crisis actors. you know, just insane stuff to say. So they sued him under various legal theories such as defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. And Alex Jones actually had default judgments entered against him, meaning the court automatically ruled against him. He lost. And this was because he failed to abide by court-ordered discovery obligations.

So the question of liability was already decided. These trials that we covered here on law and crime and sidebar, they were purely about how much he would owe the plaintiffs and damages? How much would he have to pay up? That's what the juries had to decide. And there were two cases, one in Texas and one in Connecticut. How much would he have to pay up? Now, for this particular instance of an attorney outburst, one in which I will tell you I have never seen before in court, it concerns Jones attorney and Dino Raynall and Mark Bankston, who represented the plaintiffs out in Texas. And this happened after court was adjourned for the day. Luckily, the judge was not in court to see this and the jurors did not see

it. But the cameras were there. The cameras picked this up. And it came after a discussion with the judge over playing certain videos of Jones. Let's see what happened. Will you talk to me? Anina, will you talk to me? What you talked to me? Are you said that hallway, you said to me, are all your videos on this? I said this is a summary exhibit and we're agreeing to all.

Hey, guys. Maybe now's not the time. Maybe we can cool off and I'll have a phone call later. Okay. Yeah. I don't like a bit of it. Anything you're going to say to me? No, no. I'm just, I'm going to say it. Did Mark, do you have this phone number?

I don't know. I don't have it. We're having a fight right now. Why your phone number down so we can get it? We'll call you after everybody cools down a little bit on both sides. Exactly. Why? I'm trying to get you both.

No, you can give me your phone number, Federico. I don't want to talk to you anymore right now. Give me your phone number. Write it down and we'll text it to you. I'll text it to you. You have my phone number? I'll email it to you. That'll be it.

Yeah, again, can't say I've seen that too many times. An attorney flipping off another attorney in court, not great, not great. And what happened in the end was more bad news for Alex Jones because he was ordered to pay almost $50 million in that trial and almost a billion dollars plus $473 million in punitive damages in the Connecticut trial. Just massive verdicts. Let's talk about Alex. Murdoch, the disgraced South Carolina lawyer who went on trial in 2023 for the 2021 murders of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul. They were gunned down on the family property. It was a really

interesting case. Very high profile. Everybody was following it. It was interesting because there were no eyewitnesses. There was no murder weapon. The forensics were arguably not entirely helpful. What was helpful was the prosecution's smoking gun, a key piece of evidence, a recording taken off of Paul's phone, minutes before the shootings happened, where you can hear Murdoch's voice at the dog kennels of the property. That's where Maggie and Paul were killed, the crime scene. This, after Murdoch had denied for so long, including to police, that he was there. Quit, Cash.

Come, quit. Come, come. Come, go, come, Cash. Come, gosh. Come on, gosh. Caj. Hey, he's got a burn his mouth. Baba.

Oh, Baba. That's a guinea. There's a chicken. Come my bottle. Come my, gosh. Come my, gosh. Quit. Yeah, that basically put him at the scene.

And the prosecution argued that the motive here was that Alec Murdoch was stealing from his clients in his law firm, that he was facing a civil lawsuit in regards to a girl who was killed in a boat accident allegedly caused by his son Paul a couple years back. As part of that civil lawsuit, he would have had to disclose his finances. He was about to be exposed. for his financial misdeeds. And the prosecution argued that as a way to buy himself more time to keep himself from getting caught, to gain sympathy, to distract away from these financial issues, he killed his family. Now, before the trial, there was a hearing. And this was back in 2022.

And there was a bit of a heated moment between the attorneys, Murdoch attorney Dick Routley and Prosecutor Creighton Waters. It centered around what this hearing was even about. Was it the state's motion for a protective order? You know, to keep certain information from being made public or how it shared. with the other side. That's what it seemed the state wanted to talk about. Defense said, no, this is about a motion to compel. You're saying, that's when you're saying the other side didn't hand over evidence that you need in the case. So you have this back and forth about what,

what's the true purpose of this hearing? What do they need to address? What's the other side doing? Take a listen to this outburst. We're here for the state's motion. We're here for that. We're here for the defense motion to impel and I object to the state by high practice proceeding by taking over and saying this is to put a motion to that work we made a motion to compel weeks before they made a motion to protect the order not as to work about before there is a new for motion to control your honor we have a motion to tell we filed by deferred on and then if they want to respond your honor obviously but hear that the

If I was going to police after they failed to comply to its rule by and grave. And you should ignore that, I think, does a disservice in the criminal justice. No reason why they're not done. I could be heard without being interrupted and hijacked by the state as they continue to try to fall on this case. I'm sorry if I'm here upset, but I can tell you

that every time we turn around, they're trying to hide little tense there, right? Well, this case did go to trial. Alec Murdoch was convicted of the murders, sentenced the life in prison without parole. And then aside from the life in prison, he was sentenced in a separate case to an additional 40 years in prison for his financial crimes. All right, let's end our discussion about attorney outbursts with this one. This time, we're in California, and it is the trial of Robert Durst. In 2021, the real estate heir went on trial for the murder of his friend Susan Berman, who was found shot to death in her home back in 2000. Prosecutors alleged that Robert Durst killed Berman so she wouldn't speak with police about what

she perhaps knew regarding the disappearance of Durs' first wife, Kathy Dirst, who went missing back in the 1980s, not to mention that at one point in Dirst's life, he shot and killed his neighbor Morris Black when he lived out in Texas. He actually went on trial back in the day for that murder, but was acquitted of murder, argued he'd acted in self-defense. Ders pled guilty to tampering with evidence for chopping up the body. Yeah, so stay with me there because my gosh, what a saga that was. But now we have the trial for Robert Durs for the murder of Susan Berg. And there was this very heated exchange between defense attorney Dick Degarin and prosecutor John Lewin happened outside the presence

of the jury. And it seemed to concern whether the defense was using a piece of evidence for improper reasons. Let's listen. Wait a minute, hold on. Mr. Bailey. Hold on, hold on, please. We're on. Let's be sick. The hearing us loud.

He's got his end-like. Both. Look, this isn't some late-arrived theory. We've known from the beginning that Eddie Lopez saw Kathy Durst on February the 1st. They say they offered to stipulate to that. No, they offered to stipulate to anything that was otherwise admissible. This is a clear. Are you going to hear same statement?

So we couldn't stipulate it. So. But that's a lot. That's not a lot. It's a lot. Did you put down down, down, down, down. Yeah, everybody, be seated. No, no, be seated.

Sit down. Sit down. No speaking. No speaking. Sit down. Yeah, the judge had to calm everybody down. sit everybody down wow in the end the jury convicted robert durst of the murder of susan berman and robert durst died in prison shortly after yeah some wild outbursts huh i'm sure this is not the

last that we will see and we will make sure to cover them here on sidebar that's all we have for you here on the show everybody thank you so much for joining us as always please subscribe on apple podcast spotify youtube wherever you get your podcast i'm jesse weber speak to you next time You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.