Law&Crime Sidebar - Ruby Franke: 5 Revelations from Divorce Petition Against Disgraced YouTube Mom

Episode Date: November 30, 2023

Just a few months after his wife Ruby was locked up for allegedly abusing their children, Kevin Franke filed a petition for divorce. The disgraced YouTube mom faces six felony charges of aggravated child abuse in Utah. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber sits down with high-profile Atlanta divorce attorney and founding partner of KS Family Law Randy Kessler to take a deep dive into what we know so far about the divorce proceedings.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:To learn more about the Genetic Witness Program and how to join GEDmatch, head over to www.gedmatch.com/Sidebar. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo 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 Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. If there's one thing, there's one thing that those who are watching today could take away from this, this workshop, that'd be really simple that I think could make massive improvements in your parenting and in your interactions with your children and and with your spouse and then is is becoming aware and conscious of your motive. Kevin Frankie has filed for divorce from his wife, Ruby. Now let's dig deeper into the paperwork to understand what each side can and can't do,

including with respect to the kids. We get into it with divorce lawyer Randy Kessler. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. What an update we have for you in the Ruby. Frankie saga. Kevin Frankie, the husband of accused child abuser Ruby Frankie, has filed for divorce. And before we get into this any further, we did do a previous sidebar on the divorce very briefly when the news just broke, but we weren't really able to do a deep dive into it, which we're about

to do. So we're going to get into more of the details, the key details in this divorce filing, or what we have of this filing, with famed Atlanta divorce attorney Randy Kessler in a minute. But first, I want to give you a little bit of back story. So, Ruby Griffiths met Kevin Frankie, and they got married having their first child in 2003. Now, Kevin had graduated from Utah State University for undergrad and then got his graduate degree from Brigham Young University in civil engineering. He went on to teach engineering at BYU as an associate professor. Kevin and Ruby, they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They end up having six children together, Shari, Chad, Abby, Julie Russell and Eve, so they're living in Utah, and you fast forward to 2015, Ruby and Kevin started a channel on YouTube called Eight Passengers. And the videos are all about their family and parenting, homeschooling, marriage. The channel became so popular that it had over 2 million subscribers. But those videos received a lot of criticism. Many felt the way that the kids were being treated wasn't right. Give an example, here's Ruby talking about how her young daughter who I believe was six years old at the time didn't pack her lunch for school and it's her fault. I know that her teacher is uncomfortable with her being hungry and not having a lunch

and it would ease her discomfort if I came to the school with a lunch. But I responded and just said Eve is responsible for making her lunches in the morning and she actually told me she did pack a lunch so the natural outcome is she's just going to need to be hungry and frankie would defend herself from all this criticism here here's an example of a video where you can actually see kevin in the video however listening to all of your comments and your feedback i i think i understand where some people are coming from the like oh the parents don't give their kids beds and i totally agree with that i know there are lots of children out there whose parents are neglectful We got accused of child when we sent Chad to Anasazi.

Guess what? The first thing that they did was take a bed away. They don't have beds. So Chad slept on the hard ground for months. And it's, you know, it's run by psychologists and therapists. And if not having a bed was psychologically damaging, then they wouldn't have suggested that. Hey there, everybody. So I want to talk to you about something that I am so excited about.

And that is that Jet Match is now sponsoring Sidebar. Many of our true crime fans will know exactly who they are. I actually interviewed their co-founder a few years back. Had a chance to meet them at this year's CrimeCon. I'm telling you, they were like rock stars. Everybody was coming up to their booth. They are just so popular in this industry. Jedmatch is the largest public DNA database.

And since 2018, Jedmatch has played a crucial role in helping law enforcement solve over a thousand cases like the Golden State Killer, the NorCal rapist, the Buckskin girl. And it's really all because of you, because you take a DNA test, you upload the data to Jedmatch, and you become a genetic witness, helping identify serial killers or unknown descendants. It is 100% free to sign up and upload. And also, you get all these tools for your own genetic genealogy research, which is just really cool. This is a unique way that true crime fans can actually help fight crime. So if you want to learn more about the genetic witness program and how to join Jedmatch, head over to www.gadmatch.com slash sidebar or click the link in the description.

Okay, well, now you fast forward to August 2023, and Ruby Frankie and her business partner, Jody Hildenbrand, they had been working together at an organization called Connections. It's like a service offering therapy and guidance. In fact, Ruby was titled as a, quote, certified mental fitness trainer. Well, they are both arrested in each charge with six counts of aggravated child abuse. This happened after Ruby's two children were found in Hildebrand's home, the son, who actually escaped the home, ran to a neighbor who called 911. He was found emaciated with wounds, lacerations, evidence that he had been tied up. The daughter was reportedly found in similar condition.

She was also taken to the hospital to be treated for malnourishment. And Kevin Frankie has not been criminally charged, according to his attorney, Randy Hester, not to be confused with Randy Hester, who we'll get to in a minute. Randy Kester, who we've interviewed a few times at law and crime. Kevin was distraught. He denies any knowledge of this abuse. He had been living separately from Ruby for 13 months before her arrest. Here's what Kester told us. Kevin very much loved his children and loved his wife and had a strong bond and exceptionally strong bond with all of his kids.

You've seen pictures of their family together. He was involved in all sorts of activities. He was a great dad, but Ruby felt like there were differences in their marriage. And at one point, in conjunction with Jody Hildebrand, it was sort of like, we have to separate to save our marriage. You know, we'll keep working on our marriage, but for now, you know, if we're going to repair our marriage and be back together as a family, you have to be away. And you have to work on yourself and don't have contact with the kids. don't have contact with me unless I initiate it. Oh, he was just horrified by what the reports were,

and he actually went there to get his kids when he found out about this. He drove all the way to southern Utah, which is 250 miles, and met with law enforcement and gave statements and made an effort to try to get his kids out of that mess. Yeah, so according to Katz, Rustor, Ruby told Kevin to stay away, not be around the kids. And when we asked Kester why Ruby and Kevin separated, he said, probably shouldn't get into it, but they had a difference of opinion about their family, specifically parenting

and their own personal dynamic. Now, when we talk about Kevin filing for divorce, that's a big component. By the way, Kester also explained that prior to Ruby's arrest, she actually called Kevin. She had heard what was going on and knew they were coming for her and called him and said, this is an emergency, even though she hadn't reached out to him for months and months and months before that, she reached out to him when it was an emergency, knowing she could rely on him to help his kids. All he knows is he got a text from her that said,

urgency. I need to speak with you. He was at work and text back and said, I'm at work. What's up? And she said, I need to speak to you immediately. Now, she didn't directly say the police were coming. Nonetheless, it's pretty fascinating that she called him before her arrest to come get the kids. Now, in terms of the conflict in their marriage, Kester indicated that Jody Hildebrand definitely didn't help the situation. I don't think he's made that parallel. I don't I think that he believes that is what led up to this. But what I can say, at least it's my observation, that while the family may have had some struggles

prior to Jody coming into their lives, it just kind of seems like to me, and this is my personal opinion, that once she got involved in their lives, it just destroyed his family. The focus has been on Kevin, where was he? Why was he absent? How does that all happen?

So he was doing that at Ruby's direction, who I think was being directed by Jody. This is the way that you've got to repair your marriage and repair your family. So they were all sort of kind of being manipulated, and this is just my opinion, by Jody. And I think she knew what she was doing, and it was causing significant damage. And so when Kevin's critics are out there saying, you know, where was he? He was acting at the direction of what he thought was a competent mental health care provider and advisor. And to me, the better question is what kind of mental health care provider would advise a family and a husband and wife and a husband or a father and children, that this can repair your family if you just stay away from each other.

And I'm confident that she told that to Ruby. I'm confident that the children are being told that. that and Kevin was certainly being told that that I know what I'm doing, you need to stay away. And by the way, at the same time as Kevin filed for divorce, as we talked about our previous sidebar, he is actually seemingly petitioning a state legislator in Utah to change the law in the state to create more stringent requirements for mental health counselors, seemingly implying at least to me that what his wife was doing as part of her work with connections maybe wasn't right. But Kevin Frankie files for divorce on Wednesday, November 29.

while his wife is locked up behind bars awaiting trial. And to talk about this, now let me bring in high profile Atlanta divorce attorney and founding partner of KS family law, a 30-person family law firm in Atlanta. Randy, Kessler. Randy, so good to see you. I think this is your first time on Sidebar. Am I right? Yeah, I've been all with you for, you know, it's been a while since I've seen you and we've done stuff. But, yeah, not on Sidebar.

And it's good to be here with you. Good to be here as well. You picked the name that couldn't confuse people more. This is Randy Kessler, not Randy Kester, who is representing Kevin Frankie. Now, you've represented a lot of clients over the years, including celebrities and athletes. So Kevin Frankie files this petition for divorce and a domestic relations injunction in Utah's fourth judicial district. We are going to get to that injunction in a minute. first talk about the divorce we don't have any details it's completely private is that normal

that we don't have any details about the actual actual divorce petition well generally nationwide it's not common right we divorce public has a right to know that's why you know there's people in the courtroom watching if you want open door policy Utah has some special rules in about 10 years ago they said that only certain documents like the final agreement the final divorce should be made public. But in this case, it seems like they wanted it sealed. They asked to keep it sealed and keep it private. And the judge agreed. And, you know, there's a lot of reasons for that. Of course, you know, public speculation. I could argue both sides like you could too, Jesse. Sometimes letting the public know, you find other witnesses you might never have found. So you may lose

something having it sealed. But when you have high profile cases, it's probably better to keep it sealed, keep it quiet. So you can focus on the law, the evidence of that case, not the, you know, public noise. Is there anything in that filing that could jeopardize Ruby's rights in her criminal case? You know, it may not jeopardize her rights, but it may jeopardize her position. You know, is he going to be a defendant of hers? Is he going to defend his wife in the criminal case? Or are they on the outs? You know, he's filing for divorce. So obviously, something's not right in Mayberry. But, you know, it's when you have a civil case, it's really interesting, Jesse, because in criminal cases, there's a lot you can't do, right?

You can't take depositions, certain discovery you can't do. Now that there's a civil case, you know, you can start to do a lot, and a lot will depend on how does he really feel about her? Does he want to help her in the criminal case or does he want to hurt her? She's still the mother of his children, you know? That's an interesting question because let's say, we don't know when this trial's, this criminal trial is eventually going to happen. But let's say he finalizes the divorce before the criminal trial.

could he be called as a witness against her? Because we know that there's some sort of privilege, right, between a husband and a wife and whether they can be compelled to testify against another. If they are fully divorced by the time her criminal trial starts, what happens then? So my understanding is that the privilege still applies as to what your status was when the conduct occurred. They can't say, what did you tell your then husband? What did you tell your then wife?

They can both agree to waive that privilege. They may do that. She may want him to explain or to be an alibi or just. do say that I didn't do this. The reason this child was treated this way was because of some other person's influence. So, but unless they both waive that privilege, my understanding is you can only talk about things that happen when you weren't married. So things that happen after the divorce is finalized.

So I think the privilege will remain intact or the relevant time periods. What are some of the grounds, as far as you know, in Utah, to file for a divorce? Again, we don't have the details, but what could be some of the reasons that he filed? So, you know, there's two things, right? the emotional reason why does he want a divorce. Then there's the legal basis. And every state now has the right to get a divorce based on no fault, right? You don't need to have fault to have a divorce. And every divorce almost across the country gets granted on the grounds that one person wants to divorce. That's the no fault basis. So there are reasons. You can get a divorce for a lot of

reasons. Of course, you know, Utah's got some special rules about maybe you can marry a few people down in Utah. But you don't have to plead that you want it because of adultery or because of child abuse or cruel treatment. That may be why he wants to divorce, but the judge is going to take the easy way out in the divorce they always do, which is, sir, do you want a divorce? Is your marriage over? Yes. I don't need to know anything else in order to give you the divorce. And when you go to dividing property and money and awarding custody of children, then the judge can start to talk about, well, what did she do wrong, what's the misconduct? But as far as the basis, for the divorce, all he has to do is say, my heart, I can't live with her anymore. My marriage is

irretuevably broken. The judge is obligated to grant him a divorce. So it's sort of an interesting nuance there. That's interesting. I do want to talk about this domestic relations injunction that's part of this filing. So let me go through different parts of it. You tell us what it means. Part of the injunction emphasizes that the two of them, the two parties cannot harass, intimidate, or disturb the piece of the other party by any means, including electronically. What does that mean? So it means you can't go out in bad mouth. You can't post things and say the other person is this criminal and this horrible person.

It's a very good order. But I do want to point out that this was granted, you know, at the same time as he filed, this wasn't like they had a hearing and the judge decided one side had already done that. This is a preventative measure. It's a good measure. It keeps people from escalating things publicly or privately. but it means that you can't go out and say bad things and do bad things and paint the other person horribly, or you will then not only be doing something bad, you'll be violating that injunction.

You'll be violating a court order, and then you're subject to the contempt powers of the court. So it is a powerful order. Isn't she in a weakened position, though, because she's behind bars, right? I mean, he files while she's locked up. How does that change the dynamic of all this and what we're about to get into? Yeah, it's sort of easy to be on the side where you walk in and say, judge, I want a divorce, and the judge sees the other person in jail, you're usually going to look at me and my client and say, what can I do for you? Because you're on the side of right. You do

have an advantage. And she's also got the criminal case pending. And her lawyer is telling her not to talk, not to say anything that might jeopardize that case. So it's a double whammy for her. She's really not, you know, what's more important to her, her freedom or maybe getting a little bit of alimony or, you know, she's probably not going to say anything. There's another part in the injunction says they cannot commit domestic violence or abuse against the other party or a child, which I got to say, you know, considering what she's accused of, kind of sent shivers down my spine. Now, it doesn't seem that she's going to be in any position.

Again, she's accused of abusing her children. She doesn't seem to be in any position to be able to abuse them further, right, while she's locked up, although I do wonder what you take from that because, you know, I still, it's such there's nothing different about this injunction it's pretty standard right pro forma but that aspect what do you make of that well it's pretty interesting you know it's sort of like saying you are not allowed to do illegal drugs well you're not allowed to do illegal drugs anyway even without a court order so it's really the court just reminding people going through divorce especially these people not only should you not do it you now have a court order that you specifically should not do this

and not only we be punished or committing a crime if you do it it's easier to punish somebody for violating a court order. It's a lot easier to say, look, judge ordered you not to do this stuff, and you did it. So whatever crime prosecution may bring against you, you're now violating my civil court order do not do this. So it gives an extra reason to be safe. And really just to err on the side of caution, if there's something that you consider discipline, you better be really sure that it's proper discipline. Well, that's what's so interesting. People look at this case. And although Kevin Frankie has not been criminally charged or implicated, you know, he and his wife were criticized back in the day for the videos. So now the fact that he would never be an

abuse, like you said, if he ever abused the children moving forward, he'd get in trouble. But now that this has been put in place as well, you know, look, from a PR perspective, I look at it is he's, his attorney has come out and say, Kevin had no idea what was going on to his kids. He was just as shocked as everybody. Now he is divorcing this person who was doing this to the kids. From a PR perspective and a legal perspective, it seems like the right move and not, surprising move. But there now seems to be, you know, extra emphasis put on to the well-being of those children. Right. I agree with you 100%. It sort of insulates him a little more because, you know, when the fingers start pointing at him and we see other trials where they're family members that get

implicated, well, if you didn't agree with what mom did and you didn't have anything to do with it, why he's still married to her? It's so easy in America to get a divorce. If you're so offended like the rest of us, just fall for divorce. He has to check that box at a minimum and filing for divorce certainly checks that box, insulates him a little bit publicly, and maybe, you know, to the prosecution. If I was a prosecutor and he didn't file for divorce, why he's sticking by her? Well, I do think it's interesting. It's not like he filed for divorce back in 2016, right?

When they were both, when these videos were happening, he said he hadn't been living there for 13 months and she's with Jody Hilderbrand. So the idea that he didn't know what was going on, sees all this, it makes sense. And I could see how that could be an advantage. Now, this one I thought was really interesting. In the injunction, it says you cannot use the other person's name, likeness, image, or identification to get credit, open an account for service, or appean a service. What's that about? See, I love that one.

I wish that was in every order and every divorce across the country and across the world because what happens when someone files for divorce is you're allowed to take people's names off of bank accounts and families may have a joint bank account. what happens to the person that's left without any funding, sometimes they go ahead and say, you know what, I'm going to sign up for a credit card and use my husband's credit or use my wife's credit. And that's just not right. That's what the court's saying is, uh-uh, uh, don't think about it. You know, I know this is common. This is something that's going to enter your mind because it's happened before in divorce cases. You cannot go out. You now are on your path to becoming strangers. You will be legal strangers. You will be independent people. You can no longer apply for credit in the spouse's name. The truth is, even during a marriage, you shouldn't do it without your

spouse's permission, right? But now it makes it a court order. It makes it harder to do with more consequences if you do it. What about this one? They cannot cancel or interfere with telephone utility or other services used by the other party and they can't cancel or change any shared insurance policies like in health insurance or auto insurance without permission from the other party. You know, all of these provisions, you can go to the court and ask for special permission to do this or you can ask the other side to do this. I think this is really just a question of historical situations the court has found itself in where someone comes to the court and says, Judge, he cut me off the cell phone and now I can't go pick up my child in an emergency.

So now the courts have decided, the Utah courts have decided that we're going to make it that you cannot cut someone off of cell phone or textability unless the other side agrees or unless the court gets involved and says, okay, I understand why. Basically, we like to keep the status quo. Judges don't want to be dealing with little minor emergencies. Keep it the way it was. Don't change anything unless you all can agree to it. or come to me, I'll listen and I'll make a decision as the judge.

It sort of keeps law and order a little bit better than if you didn't have anything in place. That makes sense. And we've been talking so far about kind of what they can't do to each other. I want to talk about the children. So there's another part that talks about property and certain rules to abide by, but then it talks about the children. And it says one of the things that the Frankies are also prohibited from doing, or I should say, you know, heaven and Ruby, they are prohibited from making derogatory comments about each other in front of the children. They also can't influence the children about custody.

They can't involve them in the divorce or do anything that would affect their love of the other parent. What about that? So why in the world would a judge feel a need to issue such an order? You think that's ever happened in the history of people? You know, it's just such common sense. You know, we look at it as outsiders. It's not my case or your case, Jesse. But you look at it as objective people, and we say, that's common sense.

Why would you do that? It's not good for the children. Being a divorce lawyer for 35 years, people do it. They say to their children. And also, if you think your wife is bad or your husband is bad, you can get your children to agree with you. Some people think, well, see, I must be a good person because the children agree with me. You want to persuade them. It's not healthy for the child, but it's just common human trait to say, listen, I'm on the side of right,

mother's on the side of bed and the courts are saying don't do it don't do it don't do it and now it's a court order not to do it not just common sense not just good parenting it's a court order it brings it to a whole other level the problem if you had two civilians i get it but when you have one of those parents accused of abusing the children she's locked up in jail she's innocent until proven guilty but you have potentiality of any of those children becoming witnesses or Kevin Frankie becoming a witness. I feel like that complicates that prohibition. You know, there is a dilemma because what happens, for instance, in a normal divorce

or even in this divorce, when dad says, I can't pick up today and the children say, why? Are you not supposed to say because I have court against your mother? You know, you want to be honest. You don't want to lie to your children. There's a balance. And I think what the court is basically saying is don't bad mouth the other side. Don't unnecessarily involve the children. But obviously, it's okay.

And I, what my clients use, and I try to convince them to use therapists and get some therapeutic help with the therapist to say, how do we address this with the children? What's best for the children? And I think if you say to a judge, the reason I explain it to the child is because the children's therapist told me this was the best way to do it or they needed to know, I think the judge would be okay with it. Just to go out there and say, I'm going to tell my side of the story to the children because I'm right and she's wrong, that's what courts don't like.

And I think that's what this is trying to do. Don't involve the children, unless absolutely necessary for some of the children. logistical reason. Yeah, it's definitely complicated here. There's another part of it that I thought was interesting where you can't take the children on non-routine travel unless written consent from the other party or a court order. She is in jail. Is there any way she can block where Kevin takes the children?

No, but now there's a court order that says, and really the reason for this, Jesse, is sometimes people kidnap children. They take their own children. They move and they sit up in California or Oregon or wherever they are for a few months. And then they say, well, Judge, I've already been living here. Why don't you just let me keep the kids here? That changes the facts on the ground. It's not fair to the other side.

So they're trying to say basically, you know, vacations are okay. If you have a Christmas trip that you usually do with Grandma down in Florida, that's fine. But you're not allowed to change the situation so that when you come in front of me as a judge, I have to say, oh, the children have been in New York for the last three months. well, why are we going to change their lives? That's not fair to the other side. So it's a generic useful provision, but you're absolutely right. She's not taking him anywhere anyway. This can only hurt him if he had a trip that he wanted to take. He's now going to ask permission. So if I'm understanding it correctly, because I am not a divorce law expert by any means,

is there anything unusual about this filing or this paperwork from that you've seen in other cases? I don't think so. I mean, the fact that it's, that it exists, and sometimes you have to ask the court to add a standard order, the thing that makes me think that it's not so unique to this case, is that it went into play as soon as the case was filed. There was no opportunity. I don't think that the husband and his lawyer went to the judge and said, judge, let me tell you about this case, I need some emergency release, put something in here. Had it been like that, and the provisions would have been against her, they would not have been neutral. So I don't think it's terribly, you know, imposing that it's not tell-tale that mom did something wrong and that's why the judge imposes.

I think the judge just said, this is a divorce. Yeah. Issues. I'm going to make sure nobody messes around. We talked about a little bit, but just to put a bow on it, why do you think Kevin Frankie filed for divorce at this point in time? Wow. In 35 years, I'm still trying to figure out why people file, when they file, you know, what is

that last straw? Sometimes it's, I just woke up this morning and I realized I couldn't do it anymore. Maybe he was hoping against hope that she would be vindicated and that she would be the person that he loved and he finally realized that it wasn't the case. Maybe he's been planning it or maybe he's just being strategic. I think if he wanted a divorce and he's known it, he probably should have done it a long time ago. You know, there's so many different excuses and explanations and the mother of their children. Some people don't want their children to grow up a divorced family even though moms in jail. at least the children have an intact legally family it's it's impossible to answer i am just so many

answers to that question unless i'm in the room with him yeah you know it's hard but but doesn't it make it seem like either a he really doesn't believe her that she or assuming she's telling you know she says she's completely innocent that he he thinks she did all this or or be um he doesn't think she's getting out or or c you know like you said it could be a financial kind of benefit, a kind of financial kind of strategy. It just seems from her legal case perspective, based on what we're hearing from his attorney, and kind of the comments that, you know,

he is not siding with her at all. Yeah, it doesn't help her. And, you know, you've covered so many criminal cases where the spouse is the one person that still believes in the defendant. And they come forward and they're giving interviews and they're saying he's an innocent man or she's innocent. You know, they certainly don't have this anymore. This is not a good sign for her.

I mean, absolutely. You don't want to be in jail when your whole world's falling apart. And then one more thing falls, which is, oh, you know, at least I have my husband. At least he believes in me. At least we're still married. Now that's gone, too. It's just not a good place for her. Randy Kessler, so good seeing you.

Thanks so much for coming here on Sidebar. We really appreciate you breaking all this down for us. Thanks for having me. All right, everybody, that is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. 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.