Defense abruptly rests in Hollywood murder trial; Mom accused of witness tampering — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Dr. Tracy Pearson joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the defense abruptly resting their case in the murder trial of a Hollywood sex therapist, shocking new allegations against a parenting podcaster charged with child abuse, and a grief book author accused of poisoning her husband now facing allegations of witness tampering.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
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're recording this on Friday, September 22nd, 2023.
In this week's episode, shocking new details emerge of the alleged abuse suffered at the hands of momfluencer Ruby Franky as search warrants further detail her children's living conditions. Also, Kouri Richins, the author of a children's book on grief, who's been charged with the drugging death of her husband, is now facing allegations of witness tampering. And you will never guess what her defense has to say in response. But first, the defense abruptly rests their case after presenting zero witnesses in the murder trial of an obsessive ex accused of killing his former girlfriend, a famous Hollywood sex therapist.
Today, we are joined by Dr. Tracy Pearson, a legal, political and cultural analyst you can catch across all media platforms. Tracy, welcome back.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:01:31]
Thanks, Josh. It's great to be here with you. I love talking with you about these cases.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:36]
Oh, good. We love chatting with you as well because we know you follow them so closely. And I know you are incredibly well researched. I always really do appreciate your commentary because you've gone beyond just what the media is saying about it and you've really looked in depth. And so I really do appreciate the work that you put into it. Before we begin, though, for listeners who aren't familiar, the first time you were on this show, tell us a little bit about your current work. What are you up to?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:02:03]
Absolutely. I am on SiriusXM Radio, SiriusXM Progress Channel 127. Every Wednesday, I'm there with John Fugelsang on Tell Me Everything, where I explain everything. And I'm also presently working on a book on implicit bias in workplace investigations.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:23]
Oh, wow. Very cool. I imagine that's going to take a lot of work as well.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:02:27]
It has taken a lot of work. Yes, it's based off of a study that I did about how investigators approach these cases. And I interviewed and surveyed about 190 across the country.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:44]
Oh, wow. Well, when that comes out, please let us know and we will have to have you back to chat a little bit about it.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:02:50]
Absolutely.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:51]
In the meantime, let's dive right in. First, we go to Los Angeles, California, where the trial for the murder of a Hollywood sex therapist, Amie Harwick, took a surprise turn on Thursday, September 21st. That was just yesterday from when we're recording this, when the defense team opted to abruptly rest their case. Gareth Pursehouse, a former boyfriend of Harwick, stands accused of the doctor's murder. Prosecutors allege that Pursehouse broke into Dr. Harwick's Hollywood Hills home before strangling her and throwing her from a third-floor balcony.
Much of the prosecution's circumstantial case has been built around the fear that Harwick suffered as a result of Pursehouse's alleged obsessive fascination with her. Meanwhile, Pursehouse's defense has maintained that the man was deeply depressed after running into Harwick coincidentally, at an event shortly before her death. His attorneys claimed that Pursehouse had only broken into the doctor's house to speak with Harwick. Okay.
Shortly before resting their case, prosecutors presented testimony from a friend of Harwick's who alleged that Pursehouse had broken into the doctor's house on a previous occasion. After the prosecution concluded their case in a move that many courtroom observers found surprising, Pursehouse's defense also rested, opting to not present any witnesses on the defendant's behalf despite subpoenaing Harwick's former fiancée and Price is Right host Drew Carey. Closing arguments in the case are scheduled for September 26th.
Tracy, I know that many times the defense will rest without presenting witnesses. This is not entirely uncommon. Perhaps they feel they simply don't have anyone worth calling or because they feel that they've already done enough of their case through cross-examination. We always remember that the burden rests with the prosecution. But I was surprised in this case to have no witnesses, not even a couple of character witnesses to talk about his state of mind. What was your reaction to how this ended?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:04:58]
My reaction to this and I don't have any evidence of it, but what I'll tell you is that my experience, having done defense work, that you do not call witnesses when your client has admitted to you that they did it. You cannot suborn perjury. So putting a witness up on the stand would still be suborning perjury because you'd be creating a false impression in the jury's mind.
Now, it is possible that he just didn't have anybody who was relevant or worth talking to, but it seems a bit odd in light of who they subpoenaed. And I think that it's possible here, given what we know about his background and his experiences with this woman.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:46]
Yeah, I see where you're going with that. And they did an interesting thing in this case because they didn't say he was nowhere near there. They said he broke in. Right. So they conceded to some extent that they broke in, but they're disputing how it was that she fell. And there's evidence that she died both from the fall and from perhaps strangulation beforehand. The medical examiner testified to that.
And so they're saying, listen, he showed up. It was all very dramatic. He's a very heartbroken man. And he was there. And mea culpa, as far as it goes to that, but he didn't actually kill her. It was an accident. She fell to her death or she took her own life. I'm not quite sure what exactly they were trying to push with all of that. But you would have thought someone to say this man was suicidal or he had no intention of hurting her, he just loved her. I don't know.
The other thing I was thinking is we get asked this question, I get asked this question on every single case, and I'm sure you do, too. Is the defendant going to take the stand? Because everybody wants to know when is the defendant going to take the stand? I thought this case was actually a candidate for it because he's the only one that knows what took place in that bedroom. You don't seem to think so. Why do you think that it was a smart move for him not to?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:07:07]
Well, I've done a lot of stalking cases where I've represented both sides. Obviously, I've represented victims and as well as defendants in different cases. When you put a defendant on the stand, it is all about credibility, and having to establish and maintain that credibility. Even though the defense doesn't have to prove anything and doesn't carry the burden of proof. Once you put yourself into play, once you put that defendant into play, now you have a risk of losing what is essentially a given and that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And he comes in with that presumption.
Once you put him on the stand, it dissipates from there. Unless you have a case where somebody is persuasive, where there are facts to support it, where there is a need to explain something, and I mean, we recently saw it in the federal removal case regarding Mark Meadows. He took the stand because he was trying to get his case removed. That's a situation where you might see that because they have to explain something about their background. It's necessary.
But here, it is all bad news if he takes the stand. You have somebody who has prior restraining orders. You have somebody who you know where there are prior police reports. You have prior witnesses who have testified about things that he's going to be asked about. And if he is, in fact, the person that the prosecution says he is, all he's going to do on the stand is unravel in my experience, because you have somebody who, it is an obsession that this person, not this person, but somebody in this situation has with a former romantic partner.
And so now, if push comes to shove, they're facing the consequences of having to testify. And it is you have no idea what this person is going to do. Are they going to collapse? Are they going to start admitting things? Are they going to be able to remain composed? Are they going to be able to answer questions without responding in a aggressive manner? It is not worth the risk.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:33]
Yeah, I don't think people appreciate how difficult it is exactly to testify and to testify under rigorous cross-examination as well. It's not just you getting up there and telling your story. It's the prosecution getting up and being able to chop out everything you've ever said, even people with nothing to hide and people who have a very legitimate story to tell. Like you said, now, they've almost put themselves at issue.
Now, even though the burden still rests with the prosecution, it's almost like they have to prove their own innocence at that point. And even the smallest thing that if it appears as though they're equivocating on something or not being entirely honest on something or shading the facts in their favor, the jury just might hang their hat on that alone to be like, I don't believe this person, I think they're a liar, which is so funny to me because people's natural inclination when they feel like if they were in that position is I would, of course, take the stand. I see this all the time in voir dire. It's the hardest thing to get over is people think if I'm accused of a crime and I didn't do it, of course I would take the stand. How about you?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:10:43]
Absolutely. For armchair lawyers, and I say that in the kindest way, the idea that you would take the stand and you would put yourself at issue, because it feels natural to defend yourself when you know -- if you and I are in an argument somewhere and I'm defending myself and you're defending yourself, that's one thing. But when you have 12 eyes staring at you or 14 or 16 or however many of those alternate jurors are staring at you and you have a judge and you have a room full of people and cameras, potentially, it changes the dynamic to an extent that it is really hard. It is so incredibly hard. I mean, this is the moment.
So in my experience with folks, this is it. This is your moment. And the vast majority of people can't overcome that pressure. I mean, think about -- we're talking about this case in Los Angeles. Think about OJ Simpson, right? OJ Simpson, he was an actor. He was capable of being gregarious. He was used to being around people that challenged him and had sort of that experience. And he was yakking it up during that case when he was testifying and doing the gloves and the things and put the gloves on.
That isn't the average human being. And it is incredibly, incredibly stressful. And it's even worse, frankly, for me as the lawyer who's sitting next to that person because I'm just praying and biting my fingernails, that they're not going to do something to screw up, that I'm going to have to clean up.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:27]
Yeah. The one that comes to my mind is, most recently, is Alex Murdaugh. I mean, the man was a lawyer. He did this for a living. He was a prosecutor. He understands how the whole game is played. And he got a lot of mixed reviews on how he did. But a lot of people believe that that case came down to his testimony and they obviously found him guilty in a very short amount of time. So there you go. If you think that you're going to do better than a guy that has spent his entire career practicing this art, and even still, he came up short, then think again.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:13:07]
Lawyers make the worst witnesses and the worst sort of clients, if you will. They are the worst because they think they understand, and they think that they know, and their ego takes over. It's horrible. But yeah, no, in this situation, I absolutely think that, I think it's shocking that you wouldn't just put somebody up. Somebody who loves you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:31] Yeah, yeah. One person to at least show you made the effort. Well, the other most common question I get asked in each one of these cases is how do you think it's going to turn out? So I'm going to put you on the spot. How do you think -- did the prosecution do enough in this case? It was a circumstantial case.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:13:48] The circumstantial case is, as you know, they're winnable. They're very winnable. Very, very irregularly do we have direct evidence of something. And so we're always drawing inferences from evidence that's submitted. I think in this case, this is, as you know, I hate predicting, but I'm going to do it with you, is I think they've got enough evidence.
They have a syringe that matched the syringe that was found at the location of the attack, that they have the prior behavior conduct. They have witnesses that talked about her fear. They have the broken necklace. They have the DNA evidence. There's DNA evidence that was found under her fingernails and that I believe it was one in septillion. One in septillion. Like or one in one septillion that it was going to be this defendant. That's a pretty, pretty convincing statistic.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:48]
Yeah. And not to mention just from the emotional standpoint, this is just such a terrifying story. I mean, the idea that they dated close to ten years prior to this and for less than a year, this was not some decades long relationship, but that short period of time, this person became obsessed over her. And the fact that he broke into her home, waited for her, perhaps broke into her home at a prior occasion. That emotional factor alone, I think, is going to play some role in the jurors heads. I think I agree with you. I think the prosecution did enough in this case. Go ahead.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:15:29]
I was just going to say that these cases don't get enough play. They don't get enough airplay. The stalking and obsession and these types of behaviors are things that happen to people, both men and women and non-binary people every day. And this is the lawyer's worst nightmare is that this happens to your client.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:53]
Yeah. No, it's really, really disturbing, scary stuff. So I hope that she gets a little justice. And we'll find out soon enough. There are going to be -- by the time we're releasing this podcast, they will be making their closing arguments. And I imagine they'll have a verdict next week.
In the meantime, we turn to Ivins, Utah, where shocking new allegations in the case of a YouTube momfluencer, charged with felony child abuse highlight how victims of the mother may have been bound and tied. Parenting podcaster Ruby Franke and her business partner, Jody Hildebrandt, were arrested earlier this month after Franke's 12-year-old son allegedly begged a neighbor for food and water.
According to reports, the boy was severely emaciated and had lacerations from being bound but was able to escape from a window in Hildebrandt's home. Just remarkable stuff. While receiving medical treatment, the victim allegedly told reporters the wounds were from rope that "Jody" used to tie the victim to the ground. Disturbing new reports reveal the child also explained that the wounds had been treated with cayenne pepper and honey, which was reportedly corroborated in a search of the home where the ingredients were found next to medical God's dressings.
Franke and Hildebrandt have been charged with six counts of felony child abuse. The next court hearing for Franke and Hildebrandt is being delayed until October 5th due to copious amounts of information that need to be processed by the defense. Tracy, I'm not going to actually ask you to mount a defense here. But from a lawyer's perspective, what do they have? What could they possibly start to argue in this case, especially when some of these details start to become revealed?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:17:51]
I did this work for a number of years. I spent a good chunk of my career in child protective work. I was a certified child welfare specialist for about ten years. When these cases become criminal and they're not civil, it becomes much, much harder, and because there are very, very, very, very serious consequences. And so the approach in something like this is, I think to try to find mitigating factors that will frankly, you negotiate a plea, and you mitigate because they are so extreme.
In a case like this, you are going to put kids up to testify. You're going to have to put the victims to testify. There's going to be a lot of evidence. You have a parent who is sitting at a table and jurors are watching them because jurors have nothing else better to do because they're sitting there and they're listening. And they're going to see tears if anybody has an ounce of remorse about what happened or they've come to see the error of their ways.
And I have represented defendant parents. And in civil cases, so in the child protective case, they do come to see the error of their ways. In this situation, it is so egregious because we have somebody who's basically making a career off of vlogging about her family, and they're doing this stuff to their kids, allegedly.
It's a horrific type of case because the two cases that I hated doing and I wouldn't do animal cases at all because completely helpless. Right. And you also have parents' cases where you have these children who have been abused or neglected. And I did those because those were a way for me to, I think, educate and to act as an advocate for somebody and help them through a process. But these are the worst cases and a jury just pulls at their heartstrings. So this is a case ripe for a plea.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:17]
You might be absolutely right. And I hadn't really thought all that much about it, but you might be right, depending on what their exposure is. I don't know what that is. But if they're ever able to get something that they feel like they could either serve that time or move on with their lives, you might be right. Because who wants to go through a trial where your children, and not just the children that they're accused of abusing, but I imagine the other children are going to testify and perhaps other family members. It sounds like there are people coming out of the woodwork who have something to say about this "parenting style" that was being used here. That's an awful thing to go through as a defendant, even if you're trying to defend yourself.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:20:58]
The only benefit to going to trial would be to be exonerated. And it is this amount. Okay. I mean like it is that small of being exonerated because of the emotional factor. But the outcome, there's a secondary outcome that folks don't think about in these cases, which is that your rights will be terminated to your children.
The state will pursue a termination of parental rights if you are convicted. They will pursue a termination of parental rights if you engage in a plea under these circumstances, because the termination of parental rights statutes, because they're federally driven, because of funding sources, will include that if you're convicted of a child abuse, a criminal form of child abuse often, as well as other similar related offenses.
So it is something that the only goal here is somebody who is that narcissistic would have to want to just believe they could completely prevail. They could talk their way out of it. But either, if you were convicted or if you were entering a plea, I foresee termination of parental rights. I suppose one could try to negotiate a plea that didn't include that, but I would be hard pressed to see a child protective agency to would agree to that. And they would certainly be involved in this.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:21]
Yeah. Yeah. That's a really important consequence that maybe a lot of people are not talking about. You mentioned narcissism. And my last question on this is I believe that is at play here. I'm no psychologist, but you have a person who spent their entire lives talking about their wonderful parenting and educating others on how they should be a parent.
And this case is unique and that there is hours and hours of footage of this person because that was how she made her career. I don't know if that was her sole means of income, but that was a large part of how she made her career, was through video blogging and YouTube and everything else, podcasting about parenting. One, I guess my question is, do you think the prosecution will get some of that in as evidence and how do you think they will use it?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:23:18]
They will absolutely get that in as evidence. They will use it as, I think, evidence to show that this person is a liar. They will compare and contrast it with other evidence that they have. There's a kind of evidence that will probably be admitted, which is a child advocacy interview. When a child is involved in a case like this, as a victim, we want to avoid interviewing kids repeatedly.
And so we came up with a system and it's practically universal all over the country where the child goes and meets with a forensic interviewer. And there's a team of people, police, prosecutors, you probably participated in some of these, possibly psychologist, somebody who might be considered to be a guardian ad litem, somebody who's there to advocate like a casa representative who might be advocating for the child's best interest.
And they're sitting in another room and they're watching and they're listening to what's being said by the forensic interviewer and the child. And they can feed to the forensic interviewer information or ask them to ask certain questions. And it is designed to obtain evidence once from that child and have it recorded so that the child does not have to have multiple interviews and doesn't have to go through the trauma of repeating things. And it's done in a very child safe way and very conscious of the emotional toll that something like this takes on a child. So I anticipate that's going to come into play. And they're going to contrast what these this kid says to what she's saying on YouTube and in her podcasts.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:07]
Yeah, but you do a good job of really highlighting that we're dealing with the most vulnerable members of our society when you're dealing with these types of cases and just the extra effort that has to go into making sure that just shepherding them through this process doesn't further add to the trauma that they've already experienced. It's really, really tough stuff and very sad. And I hope that however this concludes it, I imagine that the protection and safety of those children are going to be paramount to everyone involved. But we will continue to keep an eye on this case obviously.
Finally, we stay in Utah, but move over to Salt Lake City, where in a bombshell development for the case against a grief book author accused of murdering her husband, Kouri Richins is now facing allegations of witness tampering leveled by prosecutors. Court filings claim that Richins instructed her brother to deceptively testify that Richins' late husband had purchased fentanyl and other pain medications from Mexico prior to his death.
Richins' husband, Eric, was found dead in the family's home in March of 2022 after suffering a fentanyl overdose that was allegedly five times over the lethal dose. The evidence of tampering was reportedly discovered in a six-page handwritten note found in Richins' cell. Richins, who published a children's book about grief after her husband's death, alleges that the notes found in her cell, get this, were the beginnings of a novel she was working on loosely based on her life. No official plea has been yet been entered by Richins for the murder or drug charges she faces in her husband's death.
Tracy, I've read the letter. I know you've read the letter. Her instructions to her brother are not what I would call vague. She's not speaking in code. She's not making suggestions. She's trying to orchestrate testimony. And there is also evidence that she may have done this before because part of the reason that they tossed her cell was apparently she had been observed holding up a letter to the partition between her and her mother during a visit. And when they tossed her cell, they didn't find anything. So they believed that this letter may have been intended to be used in a similar way. And they thought that she might destroy it.
And as I was researching, getting ready for this case, one of the things that was always so bizarre to me is that the beginning of the letter has in huge words, walk the dog. And I thought, what? I didn't understand that. Why is she starting out with that? And I wonder. This is just me coming up with this. It was in such large lettering. I wonder if she knew she was being watched and she wanted the guards to see that, thinking that all she's trying to do is pass along kind of just routine reminders and errands for her mother to run. What are your thoughts on this letter? What are your thoughts on how devastating or powerful this could be for the prosecution?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:28:26]
We're both in Los Angeles and we live in the town of where movies and TV shows are made. And this is the type of crap that you see on TV where you just can't believe it. It's so ridiculous. You're incarcerated. You are being held and you have no privacy. You've been given your Miranda rights, and you have no privacy. And you're sitting there and you're writing this stuff down. I mean, how I hate to say how stupid are you? You know, I mean, it is unreal.
And I think that your conjecture is a good one. I think that it's possible that she thought that there were cameras on her. And so she was trying to make sure that they would, ridiculously, that they would say, oh, this is okay, we won't look anymore. We're not going to look anymore because it says walk the dog. I think that one of the things that I thought was interesting about the Utah law, the tampering with the witness, is that it's to induce a bribe or to induce or take part in. So you can actually be charged if you're also the witness with a bribe.
And so, I think that it's an interesting charge to bring given the statute out in Utah. It's different in other areas of the country where all you have to do is ask. All I have to do is ask you. I think that this woman is in deep trouble, and I think that her argument, her lawyer's argument is the best tap dancing that I've seen. And it's not very good because it makes no sense. I mean, it doesn't pass what we would call the sniff test. I'm just writing a book loosely on my life. It's as bad as how I did it if I had done it. I mean, it just doesn't work. And this is somebody who also probably should be working with their lawyers to negotiate a plea.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:25]
Yeah. I was really shocked by that because this came out a few days ago and then they had some time to respond and figure out how they're going to handle this and to respond with I'm writing a book just seemed so weak to me. And I mean, I thought, and again, I'm not saying this is a winning argument, but to me at least, it's an argument that you can stand behind with a straight face is to say, oh, listen, she might have been a little vociferous in her language. But really what she's doing is just trying to highlight what she wants, to make sure he testifies to those things being true or she believes them to be true.
Again, I know listeners are going to hear this and say, are you kidding me? Because it certainly sounds like to me that she's manufacturing what she wants him to say. But at least that's an argument. You can stand there with a straight face. But I was writing a book just seems laughable to me.
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:31:31]
Exactly. And I think that this highlights sort of we're removed from it. We're able to sit back and say, okay, if we were the defense lawyers, this is probably the strategy we would take. I think that when the person is our client, we really don't want to concede anything. We don't want to open the door to the idea that it can be really twisted on us.
And so you come up with these things like she's just writing a book whereas you if you say she was taking, she's writing down some notes because she wanted to make sure that her brother understood what her perspective was. He's free to testify however he wants and make that really clear in the record. But I think that when you're under the pressure of representing a client, the willingness to sort of go out onto that ledge isn't there.
And you make some arguments that you're hoping that will play off like, okay, she's a writer, she's a writer. We'll just keep selling. She's a writer and hopefully that will be a good argument that we can make and and it will provide enough reasonable doubt. Like, was she a writer? Well, she was a writer. It could have been. Yeah. Okay. That's reasonable doubt, that it would work. And I don't think it's a good strategy. I think I agree with you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:52]
Yeah. And you make a good point, too, because there's a lot more at play. Sometimes we know this when you're dealing with a client than the outside world may appreciate. And a large part of that can be your client itself, themselves that they may be telling you, I want you to make this argument.
And a lawyer has a lot of discretion in some of the strategy decisions that are made and some of the arguments that are made. But this is also the person paying their bills and this is also the person who's telling you you're under my employ. And this is the argument I want you to make. And sometimes that's what you see in court, is that they may be making those arguments to a party of one, and that's the person sitting next to them that wants them to be making those arguments.
So, again, we don't know. I have no idea where any of that's coming from or what the motivations were behind it. It's just I thought my immediate reaction was, you got to be kidding me. That did not help try to mitigate any of the damage done here. But let's talk about finally that damage that was done. In my view, it's colossal because, and I don't want to cut off your thunder here, but I'll just share you briefly what I'm thinking is that before now, we really didn't have an insight into her head. We didn't really hear a whole lot of her thinking about this whole thing.
Now, the first sort of words from her own mouth, if you want to call them that, she looks like a very controlling, manipulative person and she looks like a person who would orchestrate not only her own defense, even if that involves getting people to lie, but she might be the type of person who would kill her husband. I mean, it just it comes across as a person who likes to pull the strings. What do you think?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:34:45]
I think the worst kind of evidence and obviously you're free to disagree, but the worst kind of evidence is not the video. It's not the audio. It's a handwritten document where somebody had the intent and the thought process and carefully chose the words, and you see it in their own handwriting. That is the worst kind of evidence in my mind because it shows a plan to do something.
When you have somebody on audio, we often hear these interrogation videos or see these interrogation videos and hear the telephone call messages and things like that. Those are people talking off the cuff and they're sitting in sometimes in a stressful situation. Sometimes it's a voicemail. This is somebody who sat down in a place where she's incarcerated and she knows what she's facing. She knows she has a right to remain silent. And she wrote it down. She's done.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:47]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not much wiggle room when it's in your own hand and on a piece of paper that can be provided to the jury. You're right. Well, another case we're going to keep a close watch on. And it continues to get more fascinating with each day. But unfortunately, that's our show for today. Tracy, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Dr. Tracy Pearson:
[00:36:13]
Absolutely. You can find me everywhere. I'm on every social media platform at @TracyExplains. I have a website, Tracy Explains. I have a Substack, Dr. Tracy Explains. And again, I'm on SiriusXM Radio, SiriusXM Progress Channel 127 every Wednesday with John Fugelsang.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:36:30]
Fantastic. We will check out everywhere you're at. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @joshuaritteresq or at joshuaritter.com. And 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.
