Law&Crime Sidebar - D4vd Private Investigator EXPOSES Drama in Case

Episode Date: July 28, 2026

D4vd, whose real name is David Anthony Burke, will face trial for allegedly killing and dismembering Celeste Rivas Hernandez, a 14-year-old with whom he was reportedly having a sexual relationship. This comes after a five-day preliminary hearing revealed graphic autopsy photos and obscene text messages. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber sat down with private investigator Steve Fischer to find out what he saw at the Los Angeles courthouse during the days-long hearing.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Taking care of your health just got easier – start here with Zocdoc: https://zocdoc.com/JESSE  #sponsoredHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest 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/lawandcrimeTwitter: 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.

We are bringing back on Steve Fisher, the man who's been investigating the David case from the very beginning. He was inside that courtroom for the preliminary hearing and was actually asked to leave. But we're going to get his take on what happened and what all this means for the prosecution's case against the accused child murderer. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So look, there was a lot that came out of this multi-day preliminary. hearing in the David case. Not only did a judge officially determined that there was sufficient evidence, sufficient probable cause to support the charges that David faces for this now to go to

trial, this is all in connection with the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, but we also got a sense of what this trial could look like, the evidence, the defenses. And I got to tell you, there were aspects of the prosecution's case that were surprising. There were aspects that make me wonder whether, as of right now, they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that David committed first-degree murder. There is a caveat to that. This preliminary hearing is limited. It's not all the evidence the prosecution has. And as we're about to show you, they maybe gave a hint at something they didn't present. But there's a lot of questions that came out of this preliminary hearing. And remember, prosecutors allege that this singer, Lord Celeste to his home in April of

2025, stabbed her to death, and then dismembered her body. Her remains were found in a Tesla allegedly registered to him. That he did all this, the allegation is, to hide an alleged illegal sexual relationship that he was having with her that began when she was 13. You know that David, David Anthony Burke is going to be scheduled to appear in court next on August 31st. This is for his arraignment. This is where the formal charges will be read. Attorney Patrick Steinfeld, who represents Celeste's family, said that they are relieved that they, this is moving forward. Now, to be clear, these are all allegations. David is innocent unless proven guilty, but I want to talk about this preliminary hearing. I want to talk about what happened in court.

I want to talk about what we can expect next. So let's get into this. Okay, so I want to talk about this case now with someone who has not only been investigating this case, seemingly from the very beginning out in L.A., represents the owner of the property where David had been purportedly staying, but he was in the courtroom for some of this preliminary hearing. There is nobody that I can imagine that knows this case better than private investigator, Steve Fisher. Steve, good to see you again. Thanks for taking the time.

Let me just start here. Your reaction that this is going to officially move forward, that he's going to move forward to trial, as somebody who's been on the case, your immediate reaction to the judge's decision. Yeah, so that person on a big surprise. you know, we finally got to look at what some of the prosecution's evidence is. And there were some surprises there. And there's also some, a lot of questions I still have. But I guess that's part of the process.

And without having those grand jury transcripts open to the public, I think there's going to be some questions. Yeah, I have a lot of questions about the evidence. I have questions about the, what kind of evidence they have to support the charges. I mean, particularly the murder charge. I have some questions about. So we'll get into that. But to be there, to be there, to see David, to see Celeste's family, what was it like? I mean, there's one thing for us to read notes from that courtroom, to read reporting on it, but to be in that courtroom, what was it like for you? What was it like to be there? What was your impressions of David? What were your impressions of

Celeste family? You know, it was hard to be there at times. You know, I have been there for most of the proceedings leading up to this as well. And because of the way they do the seating, you know, I've been right behind David each time. And it's a really, even though this is the business item, it's a really strange feeling to be within feet of somebody that, you know, is accused of taking someone's life in such a brutal manner during and after. And that he's within arm's reach. and doesn't seem to really have, it doesn't seem to be weighing too heavily on him. I think that that's maybe there's some acting going on there.

I can't believe he spends all day in a cell and it's not weighing on him, but he tries to play it off like it's not. And he's such, and I don't mean this is a demeaning way necessary, but he's so small in stature that it's, I just think, how could he have done this completely alone? You know, and that, that, in itself does not mean that he did it. I'm just saying he's a, he's very, very small.

Like, he's not much bigger than Celeste. And, you know, it's, it's hard to be there. And then to see the parents so close to him as well, knowing that, you know, they're not comfortable being in the spotlight either. And then there's a huge spotlight on them in that courtroom, leading into the courtroom anyway and leaving. I'm glad that they are represented by counsel. he's able to deflect some of that and guide them.

But it's a surreal, you know, experience. And, you know, I remember being on your show when this whole thing started at the very, very beginning. And I couldn't even disclose about the burn cage or the chainsaw yet. And I just said, you know, it's really sadistic. There's going to be some things that we're going to disclose. They're going to be really sadistic in nature. And that's now I think that, like, it really is. I mean, this whole thing is just so sad.

Look, I know this is a 180, but it's important. Got to address it. How many of you out there hate calling to make a doctor's appointment? I know I do. It is so easy to procrastinate it either because of phone anxiety or having to play phone tag, wait for the callbacks. Our sponsor, ZockDoc, makes it all so much easier. Zock's free app and website lets you search and compare local in-network doctors,

which means you can make an appointment without an anxiety-inducing phone call. They also have more than 150,000 providers within more than 200 specialties across all 50 states. You know how simple that is to pick a doctor with Zock doc doc? Real patient reviews, detailed doctor profiles. It takes the stress workout, takes the guest workout, and leaves anxiety at the door. Your health matters. Take care of yourself. It shouldn't be complicated.

Find the book the right doctor with Zock Doc today. Head on over to Zock.com slash Jesse to get started. Check that appointment off your to-do list. That is ZOC, doc.com slash Jesse. When I was reading the descriptions of, you know, photos. of her body parts and graphic photos of them allegedly engaging in sex acts as her as a minor. It made me wonder, is this really going to go to trial? As a jury, really going to have to see this?

Is the family going to have to go through a trial, which would include more evidence? It's a really difficult thing to be thinking about it. Look, at the same time, and I've said this before, he is innocent unless proven guilty, and I will get into the charges. But I also, Steve, want to have you on because I want to give you a platform. something happened in court. I want to give you to a minute to explain the circumstances of you being asked to leave the court. It was something that happened last week. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to explain what happened. Yeah, so, I mean, I can talk a little bit looser about this

because Beth Silverman, the prosecutor in the case, actually said this on the public record. I was a witness to a grand jury on two separate occasions. I have to throw this in there. You know, Beth and I don't get along. She does not want me investigating the case. She did not like that before anything was moving in this case that we put out things like the burn cage was at the house, a chainsaw. We asked why these things weren't in evidence and why there was a four terabytes worth of surveillance footage from the house across the street that wasn't captured, you know,

wasn't gotten before it was overwritten. And when I was initially served, I was told that by law, and this is not the law, but I was told this, I can no longer ever speak about. the case again because I'm a graduate wordist, not even to my own client. And that's simply not true. I'm an investigator. I can talk about the case and the grand jurors that are bound by the secrecy of the grand jury. I can speak about my own witness testimony if I want to. I just can't speak about anything that I learned from the grand jury, which I haven't even spoken about my own testimony because I did get this handwritten note at one point, which I talked

about on your show. It kind of was, people could read in between the lines that possibly That was part of the grand jury. So the reason I have to bring that up is on the second or third day, I was in the hallway waiting to get to the courtroom and a gentleman came up to me who I had no idea who he was in a suit. And he said, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Celeste Family's attorney. It was Mr. Steinfeld.

And I was sitting on the bench seats and there's a lot of reporters around. So we went to the middle of the aisle of the courtroom. And he said some very nice things. He thanked me for keeping the story in the news. and I asked how the family was doing. And at that point, Beth Silverman came storming, and I mean storming down the hallway, and physically grabbed him, pulled him away,

and said, you are not allowed to talk to him. That is illegal. And I was really confused, and there was a lot of reporters around that were very confused what happened. But I didn't, you know, say anything, but I didn't ultimately go in that day. But I went in the next day, and I was seated, and we were on the record already.

And Beth Silverman said that you want to put something on the record. And she turned around and pointed to me and said he is not to be in this courtroom. He is broken grand jury secrecy laws. I'm having a warrant issued for his arrest. Said that he went up to the family who are witnesses and he knows he's not allowed to talk to witnesses. He went up to the family yesterday and was trying to talk to them. And the judge, I got to say the judge was super professional. She said, listen, she can have you excluded because the grand jury thing.

She's like, I can't get into grand jury issues. And I said, listen, Your Honor, I find leaving. I'm completely fine. I understand. And then that's when Beth through the, he was trying to talk to witnesses. And I just asked her if I said, Your Honor, can I put one thing on the record? And she's like, if it has anything to do with the grand jury, please don't. And I said, no, it doesn't.

But I was actually approached by Mr. Seinfeld. I didn't even know who he was. And I didn't try to talk to them, even though I'm allowed to as an investigator. And at that time, I got to say, it was also very professional. He stood up and said, Your Honor, I want to put on the record as well, that I did approach Mr. Fisher. And at that moment, when he did that, Beth spun around and just started mouthing things to him. And she didn't even take the time to learn if it was the case that I came up to them. She just made these assumptions.

Anyway, so I did exit the courtroom, but I'm glad it was least put on the record that I wasn't breaking any rules or anything like that. But so, you know, I did leave and we'll see if I'm on the witness list or not. They mean it, I will say that the reason I felt comfortable going is because it was made very, very clear to me that I offered, she said I offered nothing as a witness, and I wouldn't be called. It was to keep me under, suppose, the subpoena, so I couldn't talk to the media anymore. Let me ask you a question about that. So you were never asked at one point to testify during this preliminary hearing? Never, never, never. I've never been talking. I've never even been, I've never been subpoenaed. I've never been

talked by email, phone, or anything about this prelim at all. And I've been at the other hearings leading up to the prelim. And by the way, just so everybody knows, like, Steve never confirmed to us whether he had, you know, was ever part of the grand jury proceedings or not. So this is the first time that we're learning this. I just wanted to ask you, and I know you're going might be limited in what you could say, but the value of your testimony was it that you discovered things that law enforcement hadn't discovered? In other words, is there, is there something, there's a piece of your investigation that would provide evidence that law enforcement, LAPD, didn't have? I don't believe so. Okay. I think that the purpose of me being subpoenaed was

because they immediately told me as soon as I was handed to subpoena by detectives. They're like, Beth wants to know that you can never speak to the press about this case again, period. You can't to speak to your own client about this case anymore. And I talked to a couple attorneys. I said, this can't be right. I'm a license investigator. They're like, that's not the way it works. Maybe she thinks that she has that type of power.

Maybe she thinks that, or these are the grand jury rules, but they're not. And so the thing is, is that, like, by keeping me under that constant to be saying, okay, we're bringing you back in another couple months. It was to say, you can't talk in those couple months. But I did anyways. And that just really, really upset her. And she made that very clear to me off, not in the grand jury room, by the way, outside of the grand jury room. She made that very, very clear that she did not appreciate the fact that we're calling out LAPD or the investigation or anything like that.

I look, I guess her perspective, it's a big case and she doesn't want to taint it in any way. But this arrest warrant, though, this idea that you're a warrant out for your arrest, is that, is anything materialized from that? I don't know. She's saying that I failed to appear for this order to show cause hearing, which was on a handwritten note, had no case number. I went to the clerk's office. There was nothing that wasn't on any docket. I was not going to show up for a handwritten note thing. I had to be served properly so I could get counsel if I needed it and know what I was defending myself against.

So if there is, I will say the bailiff walked me out of the room, not like he just, you know, they stand a procedure. They just walk side by side with usually, even the courtroom. And I said, there's not a warrant for my rest. He's like, no, there's not a warrant for your rest. So I think it's just, but, you know, that's a pretty, that's not something that is very professional for her to say on the rest. record and now is in an official transcript against somebody who is a licensed professional because it's not true. So, you know, it raises a number of questions. It raises a number of questions about the prosecution and

the evidence in the case. And we got a glimpse of it. Now, to be clear, and I've said this before, the prosecution doesn't have to present every piece of evidence that they have in a preliminary hearing. You know, it's just the bare minimum to get past that threshold to say there's probable cause to move forward. I'm curious, and I want to have a conversation with you about the evidence and what we saw. And before we even do that, I just want to play you something. This is where L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hockman was talking about the strength in the case, but also seemed to say this is not everything they have. So the other idea that you need to have is that a preliminary hearing is not designed for the prosecution to present all its evidence.

Mr. Quilley is correct from the Los Angeles Times that there was additional evidence that was actually considered in this case that we anticipate being presented at trial. I'm not going to go into the specifics of that additional evidence, only to say that we presented a significant but small fraction of our evidence in this preliminary hearing. At a trial, we will present all our evidence because the proof at a trial will be beyond a reasonable doubt. We will not be allowed to use certain hearsay that you can use in a preliminary hearing that you cannot use in a trial. It has to be admissible evidence, and the witnesses will need to come in to establish all the foundation, the relevancy and overcome any objections to the type of evidence. So you are correct that there will be additional and significant evidence presented at a trial that wasn't presented here at this preliminary hearing. Now, Steve, they didn't cover everything, which made we wonder if there

seemed to be gaps in the prosecution's evidence. You even caught something. I saw your post on X, where Hockman talked about potential witnesses who didn't testify at this trial. What do you mean by that? Well, he used the word recipient witnesses, and these are people that have direct knowledge of something that happened. And I think that's important here, because, you know, keep in mind going back even to the brief that was filed, which isn't really even a standard practice to have these briefs filed like they did. But they said that he, paraphrasing here, but they watched her bleed out or should buy as she bled out or something to that effect, which makes it seem like, is there a witness or did he confess to somebody that, like, hey, I did this? and I sat there, I watched her die or something. But then he uses the word precipiative witnesses, which I don't think he meant to use,

because he did seem to try and, like, almost cover that up. So I do think that there's other people. And in the first day testimony, we have this financial witness, the financial advisor, who had to admit that he lied during his grand jury testimony and said that he originally said he never asked Rob Morgan Rath what happened because he didn't want to know. But Beth was forced to get him on the record,

to clarify that. And he actually clarified it and said, I actually did ask Rob and he did tell me what happened. Yes. And then she moved on. But the next part was how they immediately started to raise $2 million in bond money before Celeste was even, it was even identified that was Celeste. So I do think people had direct knowledge. I think, you know, they're basically saying he didn't know how much he was worth. It wasn't the idea of like, you know, he wasn't killing for financial gain. I don't know. We'll talk about that. Look, in terms of why, her bleed out, it seemed there was a back and forth from the medical examiner how long it would have taken Celeste to die. And two, whether it was, you know, no emergency services were called.

So they make the assumption that he watched her bleed out. I want to talk about the different charges and see from this preliminary hearing how strong you think they are. To me, I'm just going to tell you right now, my legal opinion, the strongest one is continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14. When you was presented, these alleged graphic sexual photos reportedly found on David's phone, seemingly of him and Celeste allegedly engaged in sex acts, the text seemingly about abortion. To me, that feels like a slam dunk for the prosecution. I don't know if you agree because it came up yesterday this idea about what did Celeste tell him about her age. But you had Beth Silverman who said, that's not a defense. even if she lied about her age or didn't know her age, it doesn't absolve him of liability.

So would you agree that after what you saw in these past few days, that seems to be the toughest charge for the defense? Yeah, I mean, I don't see any way of overcoming that. Listen, you have the West Hollywood Sheriff's deputy who told him she was a 13-year-old runaway. You know, listen, he knew where she went to school. You know, these phones that were passed to her, these are through classmates at that school. And so I think this is something like, and I think they even kind of, admitted that because in the closing, from what I understand, I wasn't in there yesterday,

but they said David was in love with her. And so right there, I mean, they're essentially admitting it. And I listened, I talked about this the other day on my Twitter feed. I think that they may try to say, you know, our client's a predator. Yes, he had an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor, but he did love her and then try to use that as a way to almost get this down to like secondary murder and say this was, this was something that was not premeditated. It happened in the heat of the moment, you know, and because I don't see any way of, I don't see any way of overcoming the sexual abuse charges. The murder charge, I think that I saw where they're going with this, and I'm going to talk about it. The cleanup, so the unlawful mutilation of human remains, to me,

I also feel that feels pretty strong, although there's aspects of it. So like, you know, the evidence presented by the prosecution alleged that this Tesla, there was a strong odor, that there was 11 air fresheners, why would you have 11 air fresheners, that her passport was apparently found on a road in Santa Barbara, that they tracked him allegedly. There are multiple times going to that area through phone and Tesla data the first time on the night of April 23rd, right after prosecutors say that he killed her. That was the allegation, that he allegedly bought chainsaws, a mop system, cadaver bags, a blue inflatable pool that was delivered to his home under an alias.

The pool allegedly found in his garage had cuts. They said there's blue plastic fragments that were reportedly found embedded in Celeste remains. the matching tattoos on her finger, that David's name was a tattooed on her left ring finger. That finger was missing. So the idea would be he was doing this so she couldn't be identified. But at the same time, Steve, the defense says he didn't buy all these items before. So he didn't plan to kill her. Do you know who actually drove or used his devices? The two chainsaws found in his home tested negative for blood.

No murder weapon. We don't have the actual murder weapon. There was a conversation if there's a missing chainsaw, fake blood in the home. So I don't know the idea. All these items were purchased for what, a music shoot. But I thought the defense kind of raised some points there that I wonder is going to be paused for a jury. I give it to you on that charge. What do you think?

Listen, I do agree. You know, I do think there's strong evidence on the mutilation. You know, these things were ordered. But these were known alias as his. we actually, the Trayvion Davis, we have evidence of him talking about in my investigation. We have evidence of him using that for several years. And actually disclosing to some of these other miners that he was involved in, that was his alias that he used.

I don't know why he would tell them, but we have that name for a very long time. And so, you know, that can all be tied back to him. I think that mutilation charge is going to be strong. But I agree with you, that's not murder. I mean, there was 12 days, according, even the prosecution. admits that there's at least 12 days in between when these events happened. And I think that's pretty significant. And there's still questions, confusion.

We have on our end on a few of these. What are important, you know, the facts. Like, I, you know, these Santa Barbara trips don't make total sense if she wasn't in that vehicle. I think she could have been in that vehicle that first trip. But again, you know, according to the prosecution, I'm wrong. But I haven't seen anything that's changed my mind. Can you explain how they don't have the weapon that was allegedly used to stab her, how they don't can't definitively say what tools were used to dismember her?

Well, the medical examiner said, you know, because of the state of decomph, they can't say for certain exactly, like, how long of a blade or sharp instrument that was or whatnot. And listen, I think everybody assumes it was probably a knife. But there was a lot of time that passed in between. And so to get rid of a knife, at least it's mind-boggling. to me that there was any evidence such as pool or anything still in that garage. I mean, the stupidity, right? If you're trying to cover this up.

And part of me wonders, like, if he just knew he was going to get caught and was just kind of waiting. Because this was not... Do you think the missing chainsaw is the key? Yeah, I think that chainsaw might be in Santa Barbara, you know? Really? I think on the second or third trip, I think he could have been, you know, getting... Because if you look at that second trip, they're contending that it happened. around like May 5th, around Cinco de Mayo, and May 8th, I think he took another trip up there.

And that makes me wonder if it was the dispose of things near that lake or something. But, you know, I don't know that for sure. I just think that that could be a reason that the, you know, the ID was ultimately found up there as well. It's like a disposal spot. But why he picked out how he knew about that place is really my muggy is. I've been there. It's remote. It's just a road that really goes through that area.

The roads that go off of it, there's somebody to go to like a Boy Scout camp and stuff like that, but they're not well-traveled roads. So I don't know how he even knew about this place in the middle of the night. And it does make me think about who else they may call as these witnesses, as Nathan Hockman seemed to suggest, because there was a part in their brief where they said that he lied to friends and associations about the spell of decomposition and the odor. We didn't hear too much about that. So now I go to the biggest charge, okay? I go to the one that carries the most penalties here, the potential severity, the murder charge. This is the one that I think was very gray. based purely on what we saw in the preliminary hearing.

I don't know more of the prosecution is going to have at trial. But to me, what did you see as the strongest evidence of first-degree murder and the special circumstances allegations of lying in wait, killing a witness, killing for financial gain? Because I'm curious what you thought was the strongest there. Clearly, the judge felt there was enough to go forward. But the defense highlighted a few things, right? The defense highlighted that Celeste allegedly threatened him

over text, that she allegedly invited herself over, not that he lured her, that they were limited in what they could present now regarding this alleged violence on the part of Celeste or her mental health. But I mean, are they setting up an argument? You don't know what actually happened in that house. You don't know if he acted in self-defense. You don't know if she hurt herself. That's where I thought the defense was going, particularly since they also said the Uber driver can't tell exactly where he dropped Celeste off. There's no surveillance footage of her coming into the house. So you tell me how strong, based on this, this first-degree murder charge with special circumstances is. So first, let me be very clear. I think David did this 100%. I believe that. I really do. I've been

very vocal about that. However, there is a difference between and doing this and possibly being overcharged, you know, to a point where can they prove that? I think that, you know, let's talk about on the special circumstances first. I think the luring, I don't see it myself, I think that she was willing to come to the house. I didn't see any, like, desperate attempt by him to get her there at that moment, or I don't think he, like, conjure, you know, by saying, making her certain promises.

I think that's going to be a tough one there. And even the premeditation, you know, the mens rea of this whole thing is, I question because, you know, David comes out, he's playing virtual reality video games while she's on her way there. He's like, hey, I left the door open. He doesn't seem like a guy who's like waiting, rehearsing, you know, getting mats down or anything like that. And also we hear his parents were possibly in town. And in the past, they have stayed at that house.

It makes you wonder who exactly was there at the time. But it could be tough on the premeditation side. I do think it opens a door for the defense to say, listen, he did love her. It was inappropriate, but he loved her. And they got there and there was a heat of the moment battle. and to try and knock this down to like second degree or something like that. You know, I don't know if he intended from the time he sent her that Uber for this to happen. I 100% believe in my heart and know my heart he did this,

but I do hope that they have more to actually back up those first degree premeditated, you know, death penalty case of claims. Possible death penalty. I think where they may rely is saying, okay, we can show that she showed up. and he texts her shortly after she allegedly arrives at that home. And so if there was this drawn-out battle, he's going to think that quickly after a drawn-out self-defense battle to cover his tracks as opposed to suggesting, and this is what I imagine the prosecution would say.

He had a plan. He knew what he was doing. And, you know, the idea is that there was no phone activity after April 23rd from her that his alleged last message to her was April 26, 2025. So I think where they may go is you really expect this. jury to believe that this was a drawn-out fight. She hurt herself. He reacted too quickly in that moment to make all these decisions. They would say he was thinking about this. He was deliberating on it. He planned this in a certain way. I don't know, but that's where I think they may go.

Yeah, I agree. You know, on the financial killing a witness part, you know, she definitely says, you know, I can ruin you or not, but she doesn't say anything specifically about going to law enforcement or anything. It makes it sound like it's more like so just kind of let word out. You know, we'll see. I know that all those charges have been held over, but you know, when he's formally arraigned, we'll see maybe they're not all there when he's formerly arraigned now. So I don't know. It'll be interesting to see.

I do have some doubts there, but let me be clear, like, having some doubts doesn't mean it's like, oh, they didn't prove that. The case is thrown out. He walks free. These are like technicalities, you know, of are we talking about death, possibly being plead down to life without parole? Or are we talking about life without parole, possibly being plead down with something else. It's not, in my mind, whether he's

guilty of that killing her or not. It's just a matter of the charging levels. I hear you. And again, let me just put this out there because it's important. He has not been found guilty of anything. He is innocent, less proven guilty. This is just the next stage. This now moves forward, presumably, towards a trial, but we'll see what happens between now and the arraignment, between the arraignment and trial. We'll follow it. Steve Fingham. Fisher. I really, really appreciate you coming on and talking to me. Yeah, thanks for having me.

You got it. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, a podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, ex-instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.