Children’s author accused of killing husband; Horrific crime scene photo suppressed – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Andrew Lieb joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the denial of bond for a children’s grief book author accused of killing her husband, witness testimony in defense of Parkland school resource officer Scot Peterson, and a woman accused of the brutal murder and dismemberment of a Green Bay man.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:06]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime Daily, 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 on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Thursday, June 15th, 2023.
In this week's episode, we discuss several controversial motions to suppress evidence in the upcoming murder trial of a woman charged with the brutal murder and dismemberment of her former boyfriend. Plus, more witness testimony in Scott Peterson's defense as the former school resource officer in the Parkland School shooting faces charges of criminal negligence. But first, a judge has denied bond to a Utah mother now accused of killing her husband after writing a children's book about grieving his loss.
Today, we are joined by Andrew Lieb, a litigator with expertise in discrimination cases in constitutional law. Andrew is also a legal analyst, political commentator and host of The Lieb Cast podcast. Andrew, welcome.
Andrew Lieb:
[00:01:24]
Josh, thanks for having me. This is some interesting cases.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:27]
And I know you follow these cases very closely. We're very interested to hear your take on these. But before we jump into them, tell us a little bit about your background and current practice.
Andrew Lieb:
[00:01:37]
All right. We'll start with my current practice. I do discrimination litigation throughout the US. We focus on employment, real estate, and education. As you may know, the US Supreme Court recently made a ruling that said ADA cases are able to be brought in education settings and you don't have to exhaust going through IEPs and stuff like that. So it's really expanded our practice from where it was regional because places like New York and California gave more rights, other places didn't. So we do discrimination everywhere.
But my practice really started out because my great grandfather was a lawyer. And in my family, if you want to be anything, you have to go to law school first. So I'm still trying to figure out how to become a tough man, help my wife work, but she doesn't think my cookies are good enough to stay home.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:25]
Fair enough. I'm in the same boat. My father was a lawyer. My brother is a lawyer. It's one of those things where you may have tried to escape it, but it always seems to have been your destiny. Well, thank you again for coming on. I know you follow these cases very closely. I've seen some of your commentary on TV. So let's jump right in.
First out of Park City, Utah, a woman accused of her husband's murder has been denied bond by a Utah judge. The judge held that the mother of three would remain behind bars pending the outcome of her upcoming trial. Kouri Richins faces charges of possession of a controlled substance and aggravated murder after prosecutors alleged, she poisoned her husband, Eric Richins, pardon me, with a lethal dose of fentanyl.
The couple, who reportedly fought frequently about their finances, was allegedly in an argument surrounding the purchase of a multi-million dollar home that Kouri Richins intended to flip. While she has not yet entered an official plea on the charges, Kouri previously alleged that she found her husband dead in their bedroom after he drank a Moscow mule cocktail prepared by Kouri in celebration of the couple closing on the property.
In his ruling denying her bond, the judge cited substantial evidence which included, wait for it, troubling Internet searches. These included what is a lethal dose of fentanyl? Can cops force you to take a lie detector test? And how to permanently delete information from an iPhone remotely? The mother, who penned a children's book about grief and the loss of a loved one, allegedly even searched luxury prisons for the rich in America or according to court documents.
Investigators claim that Richins made multiple attempts to purchase illicit substances, including the purchase of fentanyl, with the final purchase allegedly occurring six days before her late husband's death. Her defense, meanwhile, has maintained that Eric Richins himself was a no stranger to illicit substances, painting the father as a "partier" who would consume alcohol and THC in any form.
They have also been critical of witness testimony, including a drug dealer who claims to have been the one to sell the fentanyl that ultimately killed Eric. Kouri's next court date is scheduled for June 22nd. All right, Andrew, how do you feel about this judge's decision to deny the bond in this case?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:04:54]
I'm freaked out about this lady, Kouri, in the first place. We have to go back to our prior conversation just as a human like she writes a book about grieving about a dead relative and then she makes a dead relative for her children, allegedly. And so this story is just not looking good from the start, Josh. But I think what's most interesting, if we want to go into a legal perspective, is that there was actually a detention hearing. You could actually watch them questioning the witnesses. And the judge elicited facts because as you clearly pointed out, there was disputes about these facts.
But at the end of the day, she was found to be a substantial danger to herself, family and community, because if this is true, what's being alleged about her, she Googles. She goes on, I don't know if it's Google, but she searches about lethal doses of fentanyl, lie detector tests, as you said, about where she's going to prison even.
It just seems very, very scary that this lady both might be searching her next getaway to South America and also hurting everyone else in the family. So I like the way the judge did it by having the hearing. At the end of the day, I think it makes sense as the decision. I will say, if she's ultimately acquitted, though, she'll have a completely different perspective.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:10]
Yeah, I want to jump into those Internet searches in a second here. But just staying on the detention hearing, again, I'm not making any comments about this case. I mean, if all these allegations prove to be true, it's hard to imagine a more diabolical person that would try to profit off of their own murder.
But these detention hearings always kill me, especially in murder cases, because they're concerned with flight risk and threat to the community. And they always go, well, you killed someone so you're obviously a threat. And anybody who's charged with murder wants to run. And it always just seems to me that the stack is just always bent against the defendant, no matter what in a case like this. And it can have a dramatic effect on the case. How does it affect their ability to put on defense now that she remains in custody?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:07:07]
Well, I want to echo some of the things you just said, and that's why there's all different movements for bail reform throughout the United States, because you go in and you're a murder suspect, you've been indicted for murder. And then the question is, are you a danger? Well, clearly, you're a danger. Like it's a 101, you're a danger. And then the question becomes, how would you ever prove you're not a danger? Like I'm the gentle murderer? Like, that's kind of what you have to say. Like, I'm fuzzy, give me a hug, I just kill people delicately.
So it's a ridiculous standard when you think about it, but it's kind of between a rock and a hard place, Josh. Like, how do you create a better thing? So I always say when we talk about the United States, there's so many flaws, but it's the best of all the bunch. I don't know that there's a better solution to this predicament, but it clearly is something that I'd love to hear more from social scientists on how they deal with this.
And to your point, how is she supposed to put on a defense? It's going to restrict a lot of her access, a lot of her ideas, a lot of her ways to communicate. I don't know about you, but I have trouble sleeping at the Holiday Inn Express, much less in a prison cell. So when you're up all night, not in your own bed, in your own pillow, and from her perspective, assuming innocence, her husband died of an OD, no matter if they were fighting or not, that's traumatic. That's traumatic for her kids.
So assuming innocence, I guess, innocent until proven guilty, except for a detention hearing, but innocent until proven guilty, it's really going to jeopardize a lot of things. Our system's made up. So you can talk to your lawyer and you can have private conversations, but there's nothing that's good about being in a jail cell.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:48]
Yeah. Yeah. And I will say, too, from my experience and being a criminal defense lawyer, it's an absolute game changer. I mean, the ability to meet with your client freely, discuss things with your client, have them review documents, review evidence, perhaps visit the crime scene with them.
I mean, all of these things, you cannot do through bars and many times you're restricted on what you can share with them, restricted on what they can read. It is an absolute game changer and puts a tremendous amount of further pressure on the defense to try to either resolve the case or the difficulties they know they're going to face at trial. So to me, it's a huge game changer. Not a lot of attention is given to these hearings sometimes, but those can have a real impact on what happens throughout the case.
All right. These Internet searches allegedly. First of all, I want to talk about do you think they will ever see the light of day in trial? If they do, how damaging can they be? And bear in mind, we should say that the defense alleges that these searches took place after his death. Do you think that changes anything?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:10:00]
Fabulous questions, Josh. Let's start off with, before we get into the legal again, the idiocracy that there would even be those searches on anyone's computer. It's like bringing your own videographer to do a bank robbery. Like what people do these days about thinking that things are going to be invisible, or you go on your Samsung, and you press on the search thing, you go to a secret one. You know how they have, where you can -- everyone can find everything on all of your devices.
I live in this world where I just assume someone's watching me 24/7. I assume that someone's got stuff on me at all times. And if you live in a world where you think that they're not, you're out of your mind. Now, moving back to whether I think this is admissible, I think the real question is a chain of custody. How did they get it? Who else touched this stuff? Where do the computers come from?
I'm not really privy to the ins and outs of how they're doing on a suppression motion, but if I was going through the discovery, I would be thinking to myself, as a criminal defense attorney, how do we get these out? I want the story out. You see, I see this as a he said she said type of defense where she has a lot of things going on for her. But for that book in these Internet searches, those two things are really the killers for me.
And I always say, and Josh, you're a criminal defense attorney, so I'm interested in your thought on it. But I always say that facts are less important to whether the jury likes you. And at the end of the day, I think that they hear lots of words, big words, small words. They get bored, they daydream. But do they say this person's nuts? Do they say this person's ridiculous? Do they say this person's a murderer? And these are the types of things, even if they were done after, it feels like she wanted to know about luxury prisons, like where she's going to have her lunch. At the end of the day, it just doesn't bode well.
So do I think lethal dose of fentanyl is something that she could explain away after? Absolutely. It would be a good thing. That's not going to be as damaging for her as it was after the alleged murder. However, when you're searching luxury prisons, I could see that being an issue. I would think that this is one of the big fights in this case, a suppression here. And it's going to be based about chain of custody. Who else touched that laptop? How did it get on it? Where were these searches from? What about the cell phone? How does this all work? We want to understand that it was her the whole time because it's so ripe for problematic evidence that should be suppressed.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:26]
Yeah. Yeah. No, you're absolutely right. And to your point about do jurors -- how important is it that they like a person and whether or not that person testifies or just what they're hearing about that person, how much does that color the way that they may receive the evidence in the case? And I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it matters more than facts, but I think it matters far more than people give it credit for.
If you are or you represent or the defendant in a case is an unlikable person just through and through, that's just going to add to the difficulty of trying to defend that person. And we've seen this time and time again that, yes, the facts may be there to support it. I don't think I've ever seen a flat out miscarriage of justice in this respect. But if the facts support it, it's just that much easier for the prosecution if the defendant is an unlikable person.
Andrew, another interesting wrinkle in this is that the defense has made a point of saying in this motion that no signs of fentanyl were found elsewhere in the home when the home was searched. And they're trying to argue that I guess their point being that he must have used the fentanyl outside of the home, because if it were inside of the home and she had done it, there would be more signs.
But then they're also going with this defense. If you can follow me on this, it's going to take a couple of steps. But they're also going with this defense that he's a "partier" himself, and therefore, he was the one using illicit drugs and he probably used them himself. But if that were true, then wouldn't you expect to find other drugs inside the home? I guess my point is, doesn't this kind of cut both ways? The idea that they seem to be highlighting no other fentanyl to me cuts against their own argument that he was a drug user? No? Am I going too far with this?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:14:21]
I think it goes to the overall concept of a defense attorney doesn't need to prove innocence. They have to kill the prosecutor's case. And so they're throwing mud against the wall and seeing where it sticks as they're going. And I think the detention hearing, which you mentioned before, not liking part of it that I think is interesting is starting to see and understand how witnesses are going to testify and what's going to happen.
So you can start gauging how you're going to play people along the way and seeing where we're going, where's the theme emerging? Where is something we can go with? I will say in that detention hearing, Josh, they made a whole thing about it wasn't just that he does some THC, they kept saying THC gummies. And I thought that was interesting that the defense kept saying, yeah, he does. He's not a drug user. He's THC gummies like isolating it to a real like normalized situation on each aspect of this.
But to go back to our prior conversation too, and I think it loops all together, it's a likability situation of whether we're going to not like fentanyl. Are we not going to like drug users? Where are we going to do this? It's not just the defendant that's likable. I think that likability matters for the defense attorney, the victim, when we talk about the victim, all the witnesses.
And when I say likability, they can hate you and like you. And what I mean by that is Howard Stern always used to say, I don't know if he still does, that the people that hate him the most listen the longest. The question is, are they into you? It's not really are they saying, do I want to have you over for tea? But are you the type of person they're like, no, I don't see that person did that. It's how they put their own implicit biases and stereotypes into your personality, how you're playing into the conversation.
And that's what I think I'm getting out overall. And I think that's where this conversation goes about in the house, outside the house, they're doing character development in a play. And I always say the defense attorney is like a puppeteer and they're putting on a little show and they're going to see which plays out the best with their audience.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:22]
So true. So true. And to that point, last question on this, we've talked about it before, but a lot of I think the reason why the media seems to be latching on to this case has to do with the fact that she wrote that children's book about grieving the loss of a loved one, meaning she was grieving the loss, her and her family of her husband. And now, prosecutors at least believe that she was the one responsible for that.
First of all, one, do you think this will become admissible, the fact that she wrote this book afterwards? Do you think that will play a role in the trial? And if it does, how do you think jurors will react to it? And I think I know your answer, but I'd like to hear what you say.
Andrew Lieb:
[00:17:00]
I'll start off by telling you, when I first heard about the case, I thought it was a lifetime movie. I didn't think it was real. Like I first saw it and I was like, oh, it's another one of those he got killed and they were doing this. It was so well written for fiction. And I'm not even talking her book, the fact that she wrote the book.
Now, I think that this is going to be an argument about is it unduly prejudicial? That's really the key words here. And I have to be honest with you, I haven't spent a Sunday afternoon by the fireplace reading her book, but I think it matters what's in the book as far as admissibility to the simple fact that she wrote the book, I don't see being admissible. I would say that's irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. But if it has key facts of what's going on in here, that could change my analysis of where we're going to go with this.
And I will tell you from a prosecutor's perspective, I'm sure they want this book and it's like the beginning and end. And I'll leave you with this thought, Josh, and I know people hate when attorneys do this. I may or may or may if I was one of the attorneys on the prosecutor's side, allude to it or reference it and then withdraw what I'm saying as quickly as humanly possible, because I would love people to remember this even if it wasn't admissible.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:10]
Yeah. Well, it may be one of those things where admissible or not, they're going to voir dire the jurors about it because they may know that people know about this case. And so they may just bring it up in their jury questioning. And though it may not play an active role as far as evidence, it might be in the back of people's minds. But we will see. We will continue to follow this case.
Now, let's move to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where witness testimony continued this week in the ongoing trial of Scott Peterson, a former sheriff's deputy who was a resource officer assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the Parkland School shooting. Peterson stands accused of child neglect and culpable negligence for his actions during the fatal shooting in which Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and staff members.
Prosecutors have charged Peterson under a statute that applies to Florida caregivers, alleging that resource officer did not act in accordance with his active shooter training, failing to intervene as Cruz took further lives. Jurors heard testimonies in Peterson's defense from a fellow resource officer who described the difficulty in assessing the deadly situation, alleging that both men feared there may have been multiple shooters.
Peterson reportedly told the officer at one point, watch out, the shooter could be behind you. A high school teacher who survived the shooting also testified in Peterson's defense, calling the scene a war zone when describing the confusion and panic surrounding the mass shooting. The ongoing trial is slated to last several weeks. Andrew, I know you've been following this case, this trial very closely. In your opinion, who is making the stronger case at this point?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:19:51]
Well, at first, I have to tell you, I think it's a bummer. This case is just a bummer all around. And whereas the other one was a made for TV movie, this one is one I wish I never heard about. It's terrible what happened in Parkland. It's terrible what Nick Cruz did to these people and these families. It's terrible even for Peterson, even if he did all the things they're alleging, what an awful experience to be around. And just I'm blown away by how awful this situation is.
Now, to who I think is doing better at this, I think Peterson is mounting a pretty good case at this point. And why do I think that? I think everyone could put themselves in Peterson's shoes. They're going with did he mislead the police? Did he give them the wrong answers?
And it's really a negligent supervision type of case, if you think about it. It's saying, hey, he had a duty to do this thing. He had a duty to intervene. He had a duty to protect. And yeah, he had all those duties. But you don't expect, even if we're trained with active shooter drills to be in an active shooter situation, I don't think that's what he signed up for when he took this job. I know it's part of the job, but it's just a terrible situation. He may have done it wrong, but I feel bad for everyone involved, guilty or innocent.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:04]
Yeah, I agree with you. I have to say that across the board, people who I talked to about this case all feel similarly to how you just express yourself, that we don't understand it from a criminal law perspective, it seems a little far reaching. And then also, it's kind of that question of to what end? What are we trying to do here? How will this help resolve anything in relation to this tragedy?
I have a lot of problems with the prosecution in this case, but one of them is the idea that, at least in my view, the prosecution would not only have to prove that he failed to act, but that he could have prevented further deaths, pardon me, had he acted differently. Do you see what I'm saying? It's like the extra step of you had a duty, you didn't act. And because you didn't act, other people died. And it's that last step that seems especially problematic to me because it's a lot of what could have beens. Do you think that's just a hill too high to climb for jurors?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:22:10]
I'm going to change your word could to would. And I'm going to say I agree with you completely but would have he prevented other deaths. I don't even want to talk about theoretically. Like I think we're looking to have someone to put up on a stake and blame because Cruz is just too outrageous and too much of a monster to go and think about.
We want to stay in our bubbles. We want to live in our bubbles, Josh, where we can say, you know what, if they had the right person there, this wouldn't have happened and we can pin it on Peterson and then we could all live in our little bubble and say, if Peterson did it right, then no one would have died. But how do you prove that he would have stopped the deaths, as you're saying, so accurately?
And by the way, how does anyone know how to stop the dust? It's not like, and we're hearing the testimony here, even their drills were flawed of where they were exiting and how they were supposed to do this. And he has corroborating witnesses that say what he's saying is accurate. It's just a terrible situation. I'm going to just loop back to that. I don't know why they're prosecuting besides that they want to put someone's head on a stake and he's the most likely guy.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:17]
Yeah. Yeah. I continue to be kind of frustrated and confused by this prosecution. So we'll see how it turns out.
Finally, we turn to Green Bay, Wisconsin, where a judge has denied motions to suppress evidence in the upcoming trial of Taylor Schabusiness, a woman accused of the brutal murder and dismemberment of a Green Bay man, Shad Thyrion. The defense motions to suppress included the following, amongst others, Schabusiness defense moved to suppress photos from the crime scene, which the judge reviewed finding one image of a bucket containing human remains to be far too prejudicial to allow at the trial.
Defense also moved to suppress statements made to police by Schabusiness about the events of the night of the alleged killing. The judge also denied this request. Schabusiness allegedly admitted to police that she had killed the victim in a meth fueled sexual encounter before dismembering the man and placing his body parts in a bucket in her van.
Lastly, in a very novel move, her defense filed a motion to dismiss the sexual charges she is facing in this case, arguing that the victim was, get this, not alive at the time of the assault and that when the body was found, his sexual organs were no longer attached to his person. That's our best way of putting it.
In essence, the argument is if sexual assault is an act taken without consent, this would not apply to a person who is already dead. The prosecution has obviously objected to this motion and the judge has yet to make a ruling. Schabusiness has pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and her trial is slated to begin with jury selection on July 21st. I want to talk about this motion to dismiss the sexual assault charges. I think that's really interesting to me.
First, let's talk about the judge suppressing the photos, deeming them too prejudicial in this case. Some people might argue that there's nothing prejudicial about the facts. These are pictures. There's no commentary. There's nothing about the photographs that lends it to believe that the prosecution was trying to do something untoward or prejudicial in taking them. They simply document the crime scene. How can that be too prejudicial? What are your thoughts on the judge's decision in this case?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:25:43]
Well, I'm going to back it up a step, Josh. And I'm interested your thoughts as you're a criminal defense guy. But I'm curious why they wanted to suppress it in the first place on the defense side, if they're going with mental disease or defect. I think the crazier the situation looks, the better it is for that. So I don't know.
And again, I think that's a strategy call. I'm sure they were having major conversations about that. And I get how that could make a jury want to convict her and go after her and get blood. I do know there's risk there. But I'm really one of these two feet in type of people and if I was going two feet in with mental disease, cutting up body parts, putting them in a bucket, kind of goes with that theme.
So I don't know why they did that. And I do agree with you as far as the judge goes, that it's just evidence. So I don't see why they would have suppressed it. But again, I wouldn't have asked for it to be suppressed in the first place. What do you think?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:37]
No, I think that's an interesting take. It's funny because that's one of the questions I was going to ask you is will the grisly scene play a role in their defense? I think the reason they, at least with this one picture it sounds like, they were especially concerned with this one photograph, and that's the one that the judge suppressed. I think they may think that at a certain point, even when you're trying to say that your client is deceased and that your client was insane at the time or continues to suffer from mental illness, that if you put some stuff in front of the jury that is just going to haunt them, they're not going to want to hear anything else after that, and they're just going to want to convict your client.
That might have been their thinking. I don't know. But I think you're right, though, at the same time, first of all, to touch on what the judge did. I think for that same reason is why the judge suppressed it. He's going to allow in plenty of photographs and there will be a description of what was found in that bucket. But there's no reason to actually show that to jurors when it's evidentiary value beyond knowing what was in that bucket is really minimal.
I guess I can see the argument. I still seem to favor the idea of, hey, that's what happened, folks. This is sometimes how awful these scenes can be. But I'll throw it back to you. And I seem to think I know where you're going with this. But yeah, it's kind of if you're the defense and you're saying your client was insane, maybe some of your best evidence is the crime scene itself of look at this, no one in their right mind would behave that way. Is that where you think they need to go?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:28:22]
I think that's exactly where they need to go, show how Looney Tunes it could possibly be. And you want the jurors shaking their heads going, wow. Like, not just it's something that could be on TV. It's just bonkers. And that's what I would do. And I would say to you, I think the reason it was suppressed is because I think the judge has that in the judge's mind as well.
And because it could go either way. And the defense is saying we don't want it, the judge, I always find judges have a decision they want to make and then they find evidence that go to it. It's not always the case, but they put in factors that aren't always in the decision. And I think the fact the defense could have benefited from this, and the defense didn't want it played a part in the judge feeling better about suppressing it.
And I don't know that you're ever going to find that out unless you're a psychiatrist evaluating the judge. But I could see that being one of those implicit things making into the decision because the judge is going, hey, you could have benefited from it. You don't want it. There's other ways to tell the jury about it. I guess we don't need this chaos in my courtroom. Moving on. And that's how I see it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:29]
Yeah, you might be right. All right. Let's get into it. This last argument here. When I first saw this report that they were challenging the sexual assault charges in this case, I kind of had to do a double take. What are they saying here? And then I thought about it. And do you think they actually have an argument here?
And the argument at its core, if I can paraphrase them, is that sexual assault is a crime of consent. And what you have to say is that for whatever reason, the person who was assaulted could not give consent. And that's because they were fighting it and they were flat out denying consent, or they were intoxicated and therefore couldn't give consent. But can that survive the actual death of the person? And they're saying that this alleged sexual assault took place after his death. Therefore, you cannot assault someone in that state. I don't know another way of putting this, but do you think they actually have an argument here?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:30:41]
It's fascinating. And part of discrimination law practice is sexual assault. So I deal with this world a lot with victims of all different heinous sexual aspects. And I think it's more of a philosophical question than a legal question. And I'm not sure if the law where this is being tried is clear on it. I'm not a local lawyer, but we always question what is your body rights? Where are your body rights? When do you become a person? When do you stop being a person? What happens with your remains?
So where I practice, I would see this as being an a state issue because a person is already dead. A state can't consent or not consent based on life. I agree with their argument on theory about getting rid of it. That all being said, let's loop back to my prior conversation. If I was the defense, I get that you want to get rid of as many crimes against you as possible because then you have less to deal with.
But I think if you're going with by mental disease and that's your defense, you should be saying that they're trying to allege that I sexually assaulted a dead person, and I did. And if that's what they're going with, that makes you seem even more cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:54]
Yeah, it's a fascinating case for many reasons. And again, I don't ever want to speak in complimentary terms, if you want to call it that, where a person has brutally lost their life. So I certainly reflect the tragedy that exists here. But from a legal perspective, a lot of interesting things to chat about. But Andrew, that is our show for this week. Thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Andrew Lieb:
[00:32:27]
I really appreciate you having me on. It was super fun and I'm going to echo what you said first, that each one is a tragedy in its own. I'm sorry that we even have to talk about it. And lawyers are good at detaching, but it's really something else. The best way to find me is go on Twitter at @AndrewLiebESQ, TikTok at @listen_underscore_2_lieb or Instagram at hashtag @AttorneyAndrewLieb.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:51]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ. And please check out joshuaritter.com. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we would like to hear from you. If you have 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.
