Buster Murdaugh denies any role in teen’s death; Lori Vallow avoids death penalty – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Peter Tragos joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Buster Murdaugh publicly stating he was not involved in Stephen Smith’s death, a judge’s ruling to remove the possibility of death penalty for Lori Vallow if she’s convicted, and Sarah Boone’s defense after she was charged with the death of her boyfriend, who suffocated in a suitcase.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily's The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at Joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Thursday, March 23rd, 2023.
In this week's episode, a judge orders that Lori Vallow will not face the death penalty for the alleged doomsday murders of her son and daughter. As well as a surprising defense strategy in a case of a woman charged with the death of her boyfriend after he suffocated in a suitcase while she watched.
But first, breaking news, as the son of convicted killer Alex Murdaugh has publicly denied any involvement in the 2015 death of a teen boy, which authorities are now investigating as a murder.
Today, we are joined by Peter Tragos, a civil attorney focusing on victims of wrongful death. In addition to his criminal defense practice, Peter is also a legal commentator and host of the Lawyer You Know podcast on YouTube. Peter, welcome.
Peter Tragos:
[00:01:19]
Thanks for having me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:21]
Before we jump in, could you tell us a little bit about your background and your current practice for listeners?
Peter Tragos:
[00:01:26]
Sure. Yeah. I grew up in a family with a dad as a lawyer. My dad is a criminal defense attorney. He was a state and federal prosecutor, basically all criminal law. That's what I thought I wanted to do when I go to law school and I still do some of it and did when I started, but I fell in love with representing injured victims. We focus on catastrophic injuries, wrongful death, car accidents, trip and fall cases. Anybody that's been injured when they weren't doing anything wrong, but someone else's mistake, negligence or actions caused them some harm or death in their family. And we fight hard for them to realize how it can be such a catastrophic loss and effect on somebody.
So that's really what we focus on. We do a lot of trial work, which is what kind of drew me in and led me to start talking about these trials that are now being filmed and streamed and such easy access to the public, which I think is really important for them to help understand what this process is like if it happens to you or a loved one. So it can be less daunting when you go into that courtroom.
And I think that, as you know, I'm sure a lot of people text you and ask you questions when cases are going on. A lot of people don't necessarily know a lawyer, which is where I came up with The Lawyer You Know slogan or name to our channel. I wanted to be a resource for people that might not know a lawyer within their circle of friends or a group of people that they know. And we could just be that resource for them to try to offer them some answers or some explanations as to why things happen the way that they do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:44]
Fantastic. I like that. The Lawyer You Know. Well, we are going to call upon your vast trial experience in these cases. I know that you follow these closely on your podcast yourself. So let's jump right in.
First, we go to Hampton County, South Carolina, where just a couple of weeks after Alex Murdaugh was convicted of the murder of his wife and youngest son, the eldest son is publicly denying his involvement in the 2015 death of a teen. Buster Murdaugh has not been officially linked to the death of 19-year-old Steven Smith. However, news outlets and a Netflix documentary, The Murdaugh Murders, have suggested that the pair attended high school together and may have had a relationship.
Steven Smith was found dead in Hampton County. His body was located on a county road about 15 miles from the Murdaugh home. Smith, who was openly gay, had allegedly died in a hit and run, but many in the community found the circumstances suspect. This is the interesting evidence surrounding it here, Peter.
Reportedly, Smith's loosely fitting shoes were still on when his body was found. He didn't appear to have any road rash and there was no evidence of tire tracks or broken material near where his body was discovered. All highly irregular findings in a hit and run death. Smith's mother, Sandy Smith, has crowdfunded an independent medical examiner to take a look at the case, and his body will reportedly be exhumed.
Buster Murdaugh is publicly pleading with the media to keep his name out of the investigation. He has issued a statement saying these baseless rumors of my involvement with Steven and his death are false. Adding, I unequivocally deny any involvement in his death and my heart goes out to the Smith family. In the latest development, authorities have announced through the Smith family attorney that the case is now being investigated as a murder.
Peter, jump right in. What are your thoughts on how this investigation seems to be developing and especially how quickly things seem to be advancing recently?
Peter Tragos:
[00:04:45]
I mean, with all the attention, things are going to move quicker, right? And with money, you can sometimes grease the wheels. And now both of those things are happening in this case at the same time. All the attention on everything surrounding the Murdaugh family and the Go Fund Me or whatever it was that she set up, had a $15,000 goal. It's over $70,000 that have been donated.
These attorneys that she has are the same attorneys that represent other victims of the Murdaugh family. Many of the viewers of this show, I'm sure, met the Satterfield children, Gloria Satterfield, the housekeeper of the Murdaugh family, the Bland Richter Law firm represents them. And now they represent Stephen Smith's family. So this is a law firm that knows the Murdaugh family very well. They know how to get past certain obstacles that may be in place, and they are not afraid to take them on.
However, at this point, they are saying all the right things and not putting Buster Murdaugh in the middle of this investigation, not accusing him, not blaming him as they are giving interviews on different shows. They have not to this point said that it was Buster Murdaugh that had any involvement in it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:52]
Yeah, and you're right, very smart. They're being very careful about it because he hasn't been named. They've got to worry about defamation and libel and everything else. But I want to point out some things and get your thoughts on this.
One, apparently, at the time of Stephen Smith's death, Alex Murdaugh reportedly reached out to the family. The Smith case was "reopened". This case had been closed. It had been considered a hit and run and closed for several years. It was "reopened" by SLED, the South Carolina Law Enforcement at after the time of Alex Murdaugh's arrest for the murder of his wife and child.
So those are the coincidences there. And then it's now declared a murder. And we'll talk about how that happens. But they're now investigating it no longer as a hit and run, but an accidental death, but as a murder within weeks of Alex Murdaugh being convicted of murder. So it just seems like there's this intertwined timeline between the Murdaugh's and the death of Stephen Smith. What do you think?
Peter Tragos:
[00:06:56]
No doubt about it. I mean, the timing is not coincidental. This case is eight years old. If they really felt like they had evidence that this was a homicide four years ago, they would have reopened the case. But with all the attention and the money coming behind the Murdaugh and on the wings of the Murdaugh case now, that's why this case is getting reopened, no doubt about it.
It's so difficult to think of what they're going to find with a body that is eight years old, with testimony that's eight years old, with witnesses that may be eight years old, with evidence that may be eight years old. It just seems really tough to try to prove a case like this at this point, but they're going to try because they want justice for Stephen Smith and his family. And I agree with that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:35]
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So here's something that's curious to me, and I hope you could explain this to listeners. We all understand that there's a difference between cause and manner of death. So cause of death is, in this case, some sort of blunt force trauma about his body and had caused him to die. Manner of death is what a medical examiner might conclude based upon that evidence. Was this an accidental death? Was this a suicide? Or was this a homicide?
And so now, they're saying this has gone from what they've considered an accidental manner of death to a homicide. They're investigating it as a murder, meaning by believing that somebody did this on purpose. My question is, what changed in all that time? They haven't exhumed the body yet, so they haven't performed another autopsy. So I'm assuming they're going off of the old evidence, the old autopsy, the old reports. What -- and I know I'm asking you to kind of do a little guesswork here, but what do you think could have changed in the meantime for them to have made this big change in the way they've used this investigation?
Peter Tragos:
[00:08:42]
So some of the evidence you pointed out, I think, can point to the fact that maybe he was killed somewhere else and taken to the spot where he eventually laid to rest. He had a working cell phone, did not call any family members, didn't call his twin sister if his car "broke down", which is kind of how the story went when it was ruled an accidental death. And when you talk about it being ruled a homicide now, you can still have a homicide by vehicle.
So the way that he died or what caused him to die could still be a motor vehicle. Like you said, blunt force trauma, some kind of crash, but it could have been intentional. We don't know that. Or many people -- and we've dealt with a lot of death cases where pedestrians are hit by cars. And many times, it's not the impact with the car that causes the death, but the impact with the ground or the head with the street.
So it could have been blunt force trauma to the head that they ruled as part of a pedestrian accident being hit by a car and then landing on the street where now maybe there's something to indicate or there will be something to indicate, or they will be looking at if it was some kind of tool or weapon or something used for the blunt force trauma at the head. But it would seem at this point, the only thing that could change this investigation without another autopsy would be the evidence you mentioned off the top that would indicate the body was killed somewhere else and moved, which would then rule it a homicide.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:59]
Yeah. This is purely speculation, what I'm about to say here, but my thoughts were too, because the law enforcement is not being entirely forthcoming about any kind of developments. They're just saying, hey, we're taking another look and we're looking at this as a homicide. My thoughts are the Murdaugh family is no longer the dynasty and has control over that low country that they once did.
Alex Murdaugh is now locked away. I'm wondering, are witnesses who were perhaps reluctant to speak way back when, when this death first occurred? Are people perhaps more feeling free to speak and are people perhaps coming forward? Again, this is speculation, but to me, that would be a significant development that would explain, one, this kind of recent activity. And two, they're now changing of the way that they view this case. What do you think?
Peter Tragos:
[00:10:57]
I mean, witnesses and law enforcement both look at the Murdaugh family very differently now than they did eight years ago. So I think that's very plausible. And I think that's the type of thing that would turn around an eight-year-old case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:09]
Absolutely. Last point on this before we move on. We're seeing this a lot. We're seeing where podcasts have played roles in cases and investigations and bringing to life old cases. We saw that with Kristin Smart. A podcast had a lot to do with why that case had another look taken at it, and now it led to a conviction.
This case has had a lot of attention as well, especially this Netflix documentary which talked a lot about the death of Stephen Smith. Do you think that played a role? Do you think stuff like that should play a role? Is this good that we're starting to see this trend?
Peter Tragos:
[00:11:48]
So as with most things in life and in our world, right, you see a lot of positives and negatives to the media attention, the podcast, YouTube, whatever it is, where people are talking about these things. There's a lot of positive. We understand the system. We can help get a lot more potential witnesses and a lot more evidence that may not have come forward in the past without the technology and things like media attention like we have today. A lot of justice has been served by media attention.
But then we see the flip side where we see people get crucified in the media, people get maybe canceled too quickly or inappropriately. We see wrongful accusations and very direct and strong accusations that just happen to be absolutely wrong and could potentially ruin people's lives. We've seen people who are accused of crime, get convicted in the court of public opinion before in a court of law, which is the exact opposite of how it's supposed to be in our free country.
And we're also seeing the influx of cameras and recording audio and video equipment in the courtroom, like trials like Johnny Depp and other high-profile trials that we're able to watch together and discuss. But people take it too far and they abuse a good thing. And now courts are reacting. And multiple courts like this, Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell case, we're going to get to, had cameras and microphones in the courtroom and the judge removed them.
And there are other trials where lawyers are filing motions to remove cameras. The Gwyneth Paltrow trial that's going on right now, they have a court order that cameras cannot be pointed directly at Gwyneth Paltrow because people get a little bloodthirsty and they want their money shot and they want to look directly at every single facial expression, either a celebrity or a criminal defendant makes.
And we are moving too far into the sensationalization. What is that? What is that word I'm looking for? As opposed to just watching a trial as the public. And so I do think there are positive and negative elements to all of this.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:43]
Yeah, excellent points. All excellent points. Well, this case seems to have a media fever that doesn't seem to be going away. So we will continue to watch it and the developments on the investigation of Stephen Smith's death.
Let's move on to the case you alluded to out of Boise, Idaho, as the trial for alleged doomsday killer Lori Vallow draws near. A judge has ruled that Vallow will not face the possibility of capital punishment. The ruling comes from Judge Steven Boyce after prosecutors announced back in May of 2022 that they would seek the death penalty, noting that the murders were particularly heinous and exhibited, pardon me, utter disregard for human life.
Vallow, along with her latest husband, Chad Daybell, stand accused of the murders of Lori's children aged 7 and 16, as well as the killing of Chad's late wife, Tammy Daybell. Lori's children were missing for several months before they were found buried on Chad Daybell's Idaho property. It is believed that the couple shared extremist beliefs based on apocalyptic novels authored by Chad, which loosely referenced aspects of Mormon ideology.
In their motion to dismiss the death penalty, Vallow's defense cited Lori's documented mental illness and the prejudicial effects of extensive media coverage that you alluded to on potential jurors. Vallow's defense also argued that there were discovery violations committed by the prosecution and that the state of Idaho itself, and this is interesting, was unable to execute death row inmates due to a lack of the necessary chemicals.
To that end, Idaho recently passed legislation to reinstitute the firing squad if execution drugs are not available. While Vallow has gone through multiple hospitalizations and attempts to restore her competency, her trial now has a start date of April 3rd, barring any further setbacks.
Peter, does this ruling surprise you? Here, putting aside wherever your politics fall on, the death penalty itself. Here we have an example of one of the more heinous types of murders you can think of. Two innocent children, killed at the hands of their own mother, according to the allegations. And the judge takes the decision to pursue death out of the hands of jurors. What are your thoughts on this?
Peter Tragos:
[00:16:05]
So it surprises me to the extent that in the beginning of the case, the judge was pretty hard line saying, I'm not going to sever these two cases between Lori and Chad. That's been a big discussion throughout multiple times. Her husband has asked to sever the cases. Judge kept saying no. He continued pushing this case along, allowing the death penalty, kind of giving the state everything they asked for based on the fact that the charges were heinous and showed utter disregard of human life.
However, the tone has kind of changed. And it's because of, I think, some of these discovery violations, the speedy trial issues, Lori Vallow demanded a speedy trial. Chad Daybell continues to ask for continuances, so he was forced to sever the trials in the interest of justice. And I think because of that, because of those issues, because of the mental health issues, I think he made the right call by taking the death penalty off the table as difficult as that is to hear from the victims families and everybody that wants justice.
There are a lot of things going on in Idaho right now, and you listed a lot of them to where it all kind of points in the direction of let's get this case tried. Let's not waste any more time, any more resources on this case. Let's get it tried. Let's get it tried appropriately. If we get a conviction, let's have it protected from any appellate issues or major appellate issues, and we'll move forward without the death penalty.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:21]
Yeah. Peter, to that end, something I thought was a little curious in the argument by the defense and it was alluded to and picked up by the judge was this idea of the unavailability, pardon me, of the drugs necessary to perform an execution. And it was almost like they said, well, the argument being, well, listen, we're not going to be able to follow through on this anyways because of the unavailability of these drugs. So what are we going through all of this for?
In my view and I want to hear your thoughts. That to me doesn't seem like a very appropriate consideration. The idea is if we're going to have a death penalty, if it's going to be the ultimate punishment, put it in the hands of jurors to say what is the kind of behavior that is so unacceptable that that's where we're going to invoke this penalty. And that doesn't really have to do with the resources or logistics of getting that done afterwards. But it's about the carrying out justice "at the time". Do you follow what I'm saying here? What are your thoughts on that?
Peter Tragos:
[00:18:33]
So I absolutely think that it is a totality of the circumstances type of decision. I don't think any of these individual arguments may have been enough to push it over the finish line. And I agree with you that that alone does not seem like enough. But when you think about how much longer it is to handle a death penalty case, just picking the jury, which the lawyers in the Alex Murdaugh case, they said that's why the prosecutors didn't go for the death penalty in that case, because we would have been able to individually question the jurors, would have taken a lot more time and a lot more effort and a lot more funds from the state.
Well, similarly here, if they were going to seek the death penalty, the jury selection process would have been much longer. Secondarily, there would have been a penalty phase, which is basically a second trial. I don't know if you followed the Parkland shooter in South Florida, the Nicholas Cruz trial. That was just a penalty phase trial. And you saw how long it took and how excruciating it was.
And then to add on top of that, there are serious mental health concerns with Lori Vallow in this case. And again, referencing Nicholas Cruz, it seemed very shocking in a case like Florida, where you have the death penalty, that a school shooting case under those circumstances would not end up with a jury deciding for the death penalty, but that's exactly what happened. And many people think it was based on the mental health issues.
So Judge Boyce is considering all of this, all of the extra time and money, the lack of chemicals, the additional funds to have somebody on death row. And I think he just thought at this point with the mental health issues, maybe it's not worth going through all of this extra procedure for a death penalty case, that maybe he's looking at it and seemingly thinking this is just not the right case for the death penalty because the mental health issues.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:13]
Yeah. Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I guess a part of me still feels like this is up to the prosecution. They represent the people of the state of Idaho. They've decided this is the type of case that they should pursue this type of penalty, and for the judge to kind of remove that even from the ability for the jurors to consider.
But you make excellent points about all of the things he did have to consider in coming to this decision. I want to dovetail off of one point that you made there about her mental health. Idaho does not have an insanity defense, but do you think her mental health will play a role in this trial, nonetheless? And how do you see that playing out?
Peter Tragos:
[00:20:56]
So I don't think it's going to play out in the guilt phase of the trial. That is what Lori Vallow's attorneys have filed in court documents that they are not necessarily going to have some kind of mental health defense they have not put on. And they said that that was at the request of their client.
So it seems like from reading some of the court documents that there are some medical professionals that think that she may not have the mens rea appropriate or the mental capacity to commit certain crimes based on her mental health issues, which still exists in Idaho, even though they don't have a like Florida, a not guilty by reason of insanity, but it seems like they are not going to make those arguments. And if they were, they would have to notify the prosecution to prepare accordingly.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:38]
Yeah. Well, and it's a risky strategy, too, right? Because in order to bring in that defense, you have to essentially say, my client did it.
Peter Tragos:
[00:21:47]
Exactly.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:48]
So who knows what defense they're actually going to bring? It could be, hey, this is all Chad, had nothing to do with me. And therefore, the mental defense doesn't really play a role. You have to kind of accept the fact that you did this in order to bring in that type of evidence. So we'll see how this all plays out. It's a really horrible tragedy of a case, but it's also fascinating from a legal perspective.
But let's move now to Orange County, Florida. Lawyers for Sarah Boone, who's been charged with second degree murder for the 2020 death of her boyfriend, have indicated they intend to use a battered spouse defense when her case goes to trial. Boone's boyfriend, George Torres Jr. was allegedly zipped inside of a suitcase for hours before suffocating.
According to police, Boone told investigators that she and Torres were playing a drunken game of hide and seek before she passed out in bed and later found Torres dead. However, authorities claim video evidence taken from Boone's phone contradicts her story. An affidavit released in the case claimed that Boone was filming the suitcase as her late partner screamed that he couldn't breathe. Allegedly, Boone can be heard laughing on the video and reportedly saying, that's what I feel like when you cheat on me. We have some of that footage. It is disturbing. And we will play some of that for you now.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:12]
[00:23:12] For everything you've done to me.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:14]
Sarah.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:15]
For everything you've done to me.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:17]
Sarah.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:19]
Fuck you.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:22]
Sarah.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:23]
Fuck you.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:25]
Sarah.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:26]
Stupid.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:29]
Sarah.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:31]
That's my name. Don't wear it out.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:36]
Sarah, I can't fucking breathe. Seriously.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:41]
Yeah. That's when you do and you choke me.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:43]
Sarah. Sarah. Sarah, I can't breathe.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:53]
That's on you.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:55]
Sarah, I can't breathe.
Sarah Boone:
[00:23:57]
It's on you.
Jorge Torres Jr:
[00:23:58]
Sarah. Sarah. I can't breathe, babe.
Sarah Boone:
[00:24:06]
Oh. That's what I feel like when you cheat on me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:10]
So that is chilling stuff, Peter. While the State of Florida does recognize battered spouse syndrome, that defense is typically applied to female victims of spousal abuse. In order for Boone's defense to prove their theory, they would have to determine a demonstrate, pardon me, to a jury that the abuse she suffered was chronic and ongoing.
A pretrial conference for the case is set for March 28th with a possible trial beginning the week of April 10th. Peter, for listeners, could you explain how does this defense work, this battered spouse or battered woman syndrome defense? How does that play out?
Peter Tragos:
[00:24:51]
It's not a ton different from self-defense, but it's in the context of intimate partner violence, which a lot of people learned about in the Johnny Depp case or domestic violence, where you have a relationship where there is an abuser and like you said, it's chronic and ongoing.
And to put it in this context, Sarah Boone would have had to felt like they were playing a game. She zipped him in there. He's obviously getting mad and now she just kind of snaps and thinks, if I let him out, he is going to abuse me like he always does so badly, maybe even to the level of death. So I don't know what to do, I freak out, I go upstairs, I pass out, I do nothing. And it's based on the fact that there was ongoing and chronic abuse so severely that it may have even caused her death in this situation. And that's why she didn't let him out.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:40]
That's an interesting way of arguing it. I hadn't thought about it that way. Yeah, perhaps she felt the argument being, I'm not saying I buy it, but the argument being that in that moment she was just frozen because it's the first time she's been free from his abuse.
But again, they're going to really have to show a strong track record of abuse to explain what to me looks like a torture. It looks like the torture of a person resulting in their slow, suffocating to death. Is all of this smoke and mirrors when it comes to that video? I mean, is that video just really going to be what this case is all about?
Peter Tragos:
[00:26:21]
That video is going to be tough. Her statements made to police are going to be tough. She went through hours of interrogation, made all sorts of admissions and said things that weren't necessarily going to line up with what the evidence that they were going to find later was. But I think the biggest issue in this case is, you're right, they are going to have to prove some serious abuse and a history of that. And I think that they'll be able to.
However, it goes both ways. Both of the individuals in this situation, the defendant and the victim, have both been at least accused of domestic violence, had law enforcement show up where they were the aggressor, or they were the abuser. It is not a one-way type of abuse situation. And this relationship, as documented by prior police calls and court records.
So they're going to have to deal with that and they're going to have to deal with it going both ways. They're going to have to deal with, why didn't you just call somebody? Why didn't you call the cops? Her ex-husband and the father of her child showed up the next morning when police were there. Why didn't you call him to come and protect you and make sure this didn't happen or whatever it may be. When you let George out, why did you make the decision to leave him in there? And what did you think was going to happen, I think is a very important question, if she takes the stand.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:31]
Yeah. You mentioned the statements she made to police. Talk to us a little bit more about that and why you think those are going to be problematic for her.
Peter Tragos:
[00:27:39]
So she was really inconsistent in those statements. One minute everything was so great. They had such a great relationship. The next minute George was abusive and she was scared of what he was going to do. And she was always trying to help him and he was always so negative. Don't tell his family because they think she's the devil. It's like, why do they think that? She said that they were not drunk.
And then if you listen to the video, some people have said it sounds like maybe she's slurring some of her speech. She said it was a joke and they were just playing hide and seek and everything was great and they were happy with each other. You watch those videos. It does not seem like she's very happy. It definitely doesn't seem like he's having a good time. And she does admit zipping him into the suitcase. She does admit that to law enforcement.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:23]
Yeah. I'll tell you, to me, that video and just the idea of a person slowly suffocating to death while they're trapped inside of a confined space like that, that is so nightmarish and horrific. That to me, the jurors see that, and they start to imagine what that is like, I cannot see them really tuning into much more of what the defense has to say in this case. But we will continue to watch it. Again, another tragedy that's very fascinating from a legal point of view, but that is all we have for this week. Peter, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Peter Tragos:
[00:29:06]
YouTube page and the podcast is The Lawyer You Know on YouTube. And @TragosLaw is my handle on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram. TragosLaw.com is my firm website. Lots of ways to get a hold of me so however you guys can come check it out, we'd love to have you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:20]
Fantastic. And thank you again. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ. And please check out my website, Joshuaritter.com. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at The True Crime Daily Sidebar.
