Kevin Spacey acquitted; Woman found not mentally ill in mutilation and murder of lover — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Brian Silber joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Kevin Spacey’s acquittal on sexual assault charges in the U.K., a jury’s decision to find a woman not mentally ill in the murder and decapitation of her lover, and a kidnapping case that’s now alleged to be a hoax.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:09]
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 Friday, July 28th, 2023.
In this week's episode, a Green Bay woman is convicted in less than an hour for the brutal murder and dismemberment of a sexual partner. And that same jury has now determined that she was not legally insane at the time of the killing. Plus, prosecutors contemplate charges against an Alabama woman who now admits that her abduction and disappearance was all a hoax. But first, breaking news, as a UK jury acquits two-time Oscar winner Kevin Spacey of multiple allegations of sexual assault.
Today, we are joined by Brian Silber, a former prosecutor, civil litigator and legal analyst you can catch on Fox News, CNN and CourtTV, among many other outlets. Brian, welcome.
Brian Silber:
[00:01:20]
Thank you. Good morning.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:22]
Good morning. I know you follow these cases closely. I've seen you do commentary on TV. But before we jump in, could you tell us a little bit about your background and current practice?
Brian Silber:
[00:01:33]
Sure. So I've been practicing law for over 20 years. My specialty is federal criminal defense, where I focus on white collar crimes. My subspecialty actually is I recover seized property every year. Somebody having their bank account seized, money seized at the airport. That's really where I do my best work.
But I also wear another hat. I'm also an expert in use of force by law enforcement. And in that capacity, I work pro-bono for the Police Benevolent Association, where I represent police officers who get involved in use of force situations. So, for example, I'm on call this month. It started today. I could get called out at 3:00 in the morning to go to some crime scene where a shooting occurred and represent the police officer on scene. Before I entered private practice, like you, I was a prosecutor. I specialized in domestic violence cases. I was in a special unit. I also served as a supervisor, a lead felony prosecutor. So I like to say I've been around the block more than twice.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:47]
Very cool. Very cool. Where were you a prosecutor at?
Brian Silber:
[00:02:50]
Here in Broward County, Florida. Most recently, I would say the most famous case just this week, last week actually, was the YNW Melly homicide trial. And we do have a very colorful, storied past with some famous cases here in Broward.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:03:08]
Yeah, it does seem like Florida pops up on our news feed for this podcast a few times.
Brian Silber:
[00:03:15]
Oh, yes.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:03:17]
Well, listen, thank you again for coming on the show. We're really excited to hear your thoughts on these cases. So let's jump right in. First, we go to London, England, however, where after 12.5 hours of deliberation, a jury in London Southwark Crown Court has acquitted actor Kevin Spacey on all charges.
The actor had faced seven counts of sexual assault, along with two more serious charges related to engaging in sexual activity without consent. The last charge carried a potential sentence of life in prison. Three of the four alleged victims claimed that the actor had grabbed them inappropriately, while Spacey was the artistic director of London's Old Vic Theater. Meanwhile, a fourth man alleged that Spacey had performed a sex act on him after the man had fallen asleep or passed out.
Spacey, at all times vehemently denied the allegations, even testifying in his own defense that he was merely a big flirt who had possibly misinterpreted signals or made clumsy passes at men in the past. Outside court, the actor tearfully thanked the jury for their verdict and indicated that his next step was to attempt a career revival. All right. Brian jumped right in. Did this verdict surprise you?
Brian Silber:
[00:04:31]
No, I actually had a very open mind about it, but that's because I come to the table as a practitioner. My personal thoughts are as follows. There was a time in our country and in Western society where victims of harassment really were muted. Those things very frequently were swept under the rug, confidential settlements were entered into, and victims just didn't really have the voice that they were entitled to. So of course, the MeToo Movement exploded, and society has kind of changed its tune on that issue.
But I think the pendulum has swung in the complete opposite direction where now it's gone maybe a little bit too far, where accusations have been received as convictions. All you have to do is be an accuser and all of a sudden, you're telling the truth and you're a victim just because you say so. But that's not really true either. And I think Kevin Spacey's trial really shows the evolution of this issue. Not all allegations are true. That's just the plain and simple fact.
And I can tell you, as a criminal defense attorney, I have acquitted people who were accused of very serious sex offenses by proving that they weren't even present. I can think of one case where I went and got the GPS data from my client's cell phone that proved he was six miles away, where a victim very vehemently accused him of a sexual crime against her. And it just simply wasn't true. It wasn't possible. I also had eyewitness testimony that showed he was not even present.
So the fact of the matter is, like any other crime and any other offense, you have true allegations, and you can also have false allegations. And that's what a jury is for. That's what the court system is for. And clearly, the jury court system in this case made a decision after hearing the evidence and weighing the testimony. And I respect that. But I think it's very telling about where the issue is going. It's certainly evolving, and I think in the right direction.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:38]
Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree with you. I think what the people keep asking me, does this mean it's kind of the end of the MeToo Movement? And what, is this, like you referenced the pendulum swinging. I think what it demonstrates and what you've kind of alluded to is that there's a wide divide between making allegations against someone in the public forum on social media and what can be proven in court. And I think we're seeing that demonstrated certainly in Kevin Spacey's case.
And another thing to point out is that what's happening in court is this isn't a finding of innocence. This is a finding of not guilty. In other words, the standard has not been met, meaning that there is some difference between a person who may have been very righteously harmed, but there's just not enough proof of it to hold that person responsible in court.
Now, I'm not saying that's what took place here in this case or in any case in particular. But I think it is a demonstration that just because we may be seeing acquittals in some of these cases, does not necessarily mean that there's a cultural shift in victims are no longer being believed. But I think it is a demonstration that sometimes there is not proof and sometimes people do make false accusations. I mean, you pointed out an example. I'll give you a war story of my own.
I had a client who came into my office, and he was being accused with rape and kidnapping and all sorts of awful, awful stuff. And in the middle of interviewing him, he goes, well, do you want to see the videotape? And I go, what are you talking about? And he had one of those ring type devices. It was like a ring or a nest or I don't know what you want to call it, but it was in his apartment. He was in a studio apartment. So it showed the entire apartment and it showed the interaction between these two people and nothing that he was being accused of took place. But the allegations that were being made would have put him in prison for decades.
And so those, I think, are nightmare scenarios, but I firmly believe they are the exception. I'm not trying to say that nobody can be trusted in allegations, but I also think it's a mistake to say that every single allegation has to be taken as true on its face. Going back to Kevin Spacey here, though, in a move that was surprising to some, he chose to testify in his own behalf in this case and gave some what has been described as very emotional testimony. There are unfortunately, in the UK, they don't allow cameras in court, so we don't have footage of it. But how impactful do you think that was for jurors to actually hear from him himself?
Brian Silber:
[00:09:27]
I have to conclude that it was very impactful because he won his case. And certainly, in a situation where someone is in a what they call the typical he said she said or in this case, a he said he said, the person should oftentimes take the stand and tell their side of the story. But that's a very case specific decision. I think when they had a chance to hear from him, it acted as a rebuttal to what the alleged victims were saying. And at the end of the day, the jury is going to size everyone up. They're going to look them up and down, look them in the eye, listen to how they testify, listen to how they answer questions, look at their body language. And they certainly believed Mr. Spacey enough not to convict them.
And on that point, you said something interesting. Sometimes they don't have enough evidence. People don't realize what that means. And I'd like to explain it as follows. Think of the evidence or the information you would need from your doctor to convince you to have, let's say, brain surgery as opposed to telling you, hey, just go to the pharmacy and get this antibiotic and take that. For me to go take an antibiotic for a problem, okay, I'll listen to my doctor. But if you're telling me I got to have major surgery, or maybe I might die in the surgery, you're going to have to give me a good reason. There's got to be something compelling here.
A criminal conviction is just the same. In society, in our legal system, before we take away a person's freedom and we label them a felon, a criminal, you got to have a threshold of evidence that is of a much higher standard. And in this case, the prosecution couldn't meet that standard. Doesn't mean the guy is totally innocent, but it means they could not convict him and take his freedom from him. They have to come to the table with something greater than what they had.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:20]
I like that analogy a lot about the brain surgery, and I'm going to steal it and not give you credit for it when I actually use it.
Brian Silber:
[00:11:27]
It's free for you to use.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:30]
Last point on this, I know this isn't your area of expertise when it comes to kind of PR and entertainment, but people are asking, do you think this is enough for him at this point? He's now been -- he had a criminal case in Boston that was dismissed. He had a civil case brought by Anthony Rapp, who was the original person who made allegations against him that was, he prevailed in that civil case. Now he's got this criminal case out of the UK that he's also prevailed. I don't think there's any way to describe this short of a victory for him. Do you think that's enough for him to mount a resurgence as an actor?
Brian Silber:
[00:12:11]
I don't know in the long run how it will affect his career. Certainly, a lot of people who've done a lot of bad things, not to say that he did something wrong in this case, he was acquitted, have recovered. But I think it comes down to two things. First of all is where you sit on the spectrum of this type of allegation, there's people that no matter what is said or done, they're never going to believe him just because he's been accused. The accusation for them is the conviction and they'll never change on that point.
And secondly, I think there's a cultural element to it. And especially in Hollywood that is very fickle, very superficial and has a loud echo chamber, herd mentality. And I think if people felt that it was okay or acceptable or good to like him again, then they'll do that. But if the herd mentality is no, we still don't like him, then you're going to see people saying they don't like him. They just go with the group. They're acting in their own self-interest. They don't have an independent thought, if you gave him $1 million for it.
So I think it's still out there but certainly, he's definitely been tarnished on some level and he'll never be able to escape the accusation, no matter how many times he's acquitted. That's just an unfortunate reality. But hopefully, his career will recover. He was acquitted. He should be entitled to resume his normal life like any other person acquitted.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:41]
Yeah. Yeah. And I'll add to that. We're not just talking about any kind of actor here. We're talking about a two-time Oscar winner who's before all of this was very beloved, had very popular movies, a very popular series on Netflix. This is a person that obviously had a huge audience before. So I imagine that will play some role in some producer or studio's decision matrix somewhere down the road. But time will tell, we will see.
Brian Silber:
[00:14:11]
If he can make them money, they'll hire him back. It's that simple.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:14]
That's probably is that simple. Yeah. Let's move on now to Green Bay, Wisconsin, where earlier this week a Brown County jury convicted Taylor showbusiness on all counts for the brutal murder, dismemberment and sexual assault of her former sexual partner. It took jurors less than an hour to reach a verdict in the case. Now, that same jury has rejected her claims that her state of mind at the time of the killing should mitigate her criminal culpability.
Schabusiness was allegedly using drugs at the time of Shad Thyrion's murder. She admitted this to authorities when she initially confessed to the killing and a recording which was played for the jury. However, under state law, voluntary drug use that leads to criminal actions does not qualify as a mental disease or defect as far as this defense goes. Jurors also heard from the defendant's father who was currently incarcerated, testifying to having his daughter institutionalized and spoke about her decline in mental health after her drug use increased.
The defense also presented testimony from two psychologists who alleged that Schabusiness exhibited symptoms of bipolar disorder. However, prosecutors argued in their closing arguments that Schabusiness' insanity claim was an utter farce, claiming that while her drug use may have contributed to her state of mind, she was not suffering a significant mental disease or defect at the time of the murder.
Late Thursday evening, just yesterday, for the time that we're doing this recording, the jury rejected the defense arguments, deliberating for just under an hour. Ten of the jurors were needed to reach that conclusion, but the decision was unanimous. Schabusiness appeared to wipe away a tear after the verdict. She'll be back in court in September for sentencing. The first-degree intentional homicide charge carries a life sentence.
Brian, this was one of those cases where the actions of the defendant are so outrageous and so outside of our realm of kind of understanding, even with all the gruesome, horrible stuff that we see in our line of work, that it appeared to just be insane on its face. Well, obviously, the jury didn't have any problems with that. Why do you think that was? What are your thoughts on this?
Brian Silber:
[00:16:28]
Well, let's recap real quick what we're even talking about here. This lady who's been convicted of the murder, she engaged in something that was above and beyond anything that is even remotely human. And I'm not even talking about the nature of their sex act. They got high. They injected each other with a sedative, also with meth. I believe they found cannabis also in his system, but they were choking each other during sex.
And she admitted to the detectives that -- and this is in the probable cause affidavit. That's where I read it. And it's also in some news reports that even as he was spitting up blood and turning purple in his face, she choked him harder and harder. Then, of course, after he died, she decapitated him. She cut out his genitals. But before doing that, she performed oral sex on his decapitated head, supposedly. Then she proceeded to cut out each of his organs individually and then drain his body of blood into a bucket, which she proceeded to dump into a shower drain.
That is just, there's no humanity in that. There's just no humanity. And you look at her, you listen to how her interrogation was described. She was very lucid. She admitted to it. She almost in certain parts, maybe kind of made a joke of how she forgot the head. She was pretty clear about it. There's a difference between being nutty and being crazy. Obviously, she's crazy and having a major mental health disorder that makes it such that you don't have legal liability. She's not in the mental health disorder category.
And having practiced for as long as I have, I really feel there's three types of offenders out there. There's people in the first category that have a behavioral problem. They did something wrong. Maybe they shoplifted, they drove drunk, they got into a fight and they shot somebody. There's behavioral problems. Then there's people who have mental illness. Someone who's truly psychotic, who hears voices. Maybe they're schizophrenic. You think of like a homeless person you might see on the street talking to himself and yelling. Clearly, that guy's not living in reality like the rest of us.
But then there's the third category, and I really think she falls into the third category. And honestly, it's evil. It's just evil. It's not mental illness. Yeah, she was on drugs, but it's not drugs. She's a person, in my opinion, from what I hear of this case, who has the outer appearance of a person, but inside, there's just no humanity.
Even in the animal kingdom. Animals do not kill each other in this way. She said she enjoyed it. She even asked the officers if they knew what it was like to love something so much that you had to kill it. She's just evil. It's not -- she doesn't belong in a mental institution. There's no medication or treatment for this. She's just an evil, evil creature. And I think she deserves to be in prison. I think the jury got it totally correct.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:47]
Yeah. I like how you laid that all out, because it is important. We've talked about this on this podcast before, but for listeners to understand that there is a difference between what we may colloquially call insanity, that person's crazy, that that's an insane thing to do. And then there's a difference between that and medically what somebody is considered to be psychotic or suffering from mental illness and then what the legal system considers to be insane for the purposes of this defense.
And that's a very specific and much narrower definition for mental disorder, because it has to not just be suffering from some sort of defect or disease, but that that defect or disease causes them to not even appreciate their actions to the point that they don't appreciate. It's morally wrong, legally wrong or otherwise. And obviously, you look at a case like this and I think your gut reaction is, the way you just described it there, it's insane. And I think medical professionals would agree she's got problems.
Brian Silber:
[00:21:02]
For sure.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:02]
But in a legal definition, you're right. In that interview that she gave, there was never an idea that she believed that she hadn't done anything wrong or that somehow, she was not the person that she was, and fighting against mysterious powers or something like that. She knew what she did. She just didn't really care. And so I think you're right that the jurors got it right, but I'm also curious as to what you think about how quickly they did it.
And I'll give you my thoughts really quickly. And then I want to hear what you think. To me, when a jury comes back, when they came back on guilt within less than an hour, it wasn't that shocking to me because the evidence was overwhelming. She admitted to it. They've got all of the evidence. Not a problem. When they came back in less than an hour on insanity. To me, that means this is a jury who probably already made that decision the first time around. They were all on board and didn't want to waste time. They got back there, sharpened up their pencil and said, let's take a vote. What are your thoughts?
Brian Silber:
[00:22:09]
I think they knew the type of offender they were dealing with at the end of the guilt phase. Her interrogation and the evidence of what she did really spells out for them everything they need to know. It's not going to matter some defense expert takes the stand and says, oh, by the way, she's bipolar. Okay. A lot of people are bipolar, but they don't do what this lady did. And certainly, if she was so crazy and so out there and had such a mental problem, it would be exhibited in her interrogation.
I keep thinking, I mentioned like the sad homeless person you might encounter on the street who was yelling and screaming and talking to themselves. You know it when you see it. You know that level of insanity when you see it. And that's just not what she was. She was very calm and collected. She's got family photos posing with her husband and her child. There's the way she conducted herself in that interview. Yeah, she's crazy. Of course, she's crazy. Look what she did, but she's not that kind of crazy. And I think it was just so fairly obvious, it wasn't hard for them to make a decision. There was nothing for them to debate. I mean, what's the debate? What are they going to say? What's the opposing viewpoint? It just isn't there.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:25]
Brian, I want to briefly contrast this case to another recent case, but it was an acquittal in the case of Alexis Saborit out of Minnesota. Just last week, a judge decided that Saborit, who was convicted of beheading his girlfriend inside of a car, dumping her body and fleeing, has now been found not guilty by reason of mental illness. The judge noted that Saborit's medical history includes a traumatic brain injury, symptoms of mania in conjunction with psychosis and a significant history of noncompliance with prescribed treatments.
Now, I know every single case is different, and I'm not trying to say let's compare cases where people are beheading other people or dismembering them. My question was, I wonder how much do you think the role that a judge was deciding this rather than the jury may have had on the decision and difference in these two cases? What are your thoughts?
Brian Silber:
[00:24:24]
Well, first of all, I'm not as familiar with this second case as I am with the Schabusiness matter. But it sounds like from what you've told me, that he suffered from psychosis. Psychosis is someone not being in reality, number one. Number two, you'd need to see how that person presents compared to Schabusiness. I wonder what his interrogation looked like. I wonder what he looked like in court. I keep saying it. Some of this stuff, you know it when you see it.
And sure, when you try a case in front of a judge, there's pros and cons to that. On the one hand, the judge is a legal professional who has a lot of experience sizing these things up. And on the other hand, they're a legal professional that has a lot of experience sizing these things up and is not a member of the community who's going to bring the community's perspective to making a decision about guilt. There are two very different legal justice tools.
So you're right, it's very hard to compare these two. But I would have to guess that in the second case, the gentleman seems to have a much more well-established and pervasive mental health disorder that contributed to that ultimate verdict. And by the way, I understand he decapitated his victim, which is horrible. In and of itself, is enough to get a horrible conviction and sanction. But Schabusiness, my God, she just went on and on and on and on. And it was just, I mean, it didn't stop with decapitation. That's where it started. Her offense is very much further down the rabbit hole, I think. Not to minimize the other one, but she is just beyond the pale. Yeah. And certainly, that is a factor too.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:16]
Yeah. Yeah. I just thought it was -- and you're absolutely right. It's unfair of me to try to compare cases just because they kind of share some facts, but I just thought it was interesting in a case where you have to the jury coming back so quickly on these verdicts and then you have a judge who decides the opposite way on two cases, which at least share some similarity in the outrageousness of how the murderers were convicted.
And it just got me thinking about kind of jurors sometimes tend to be, I think it's fair to say, tend to be perhaps driven by emotion more than a judge might be. And it sounds like to me you come back with two verdicts that are under an hour, you really do not care for this person. And you've convinced yourself long before the closing arguments of either prosecution or defense.
Let's move on to our final case out of Hoover, Alabama, where in a bizarre turn of events, an Alabama woman who was missing for over 48 hours has made a statement denying her kidnapping and the events of her disappearance. 26-year-old Carlee Russell was driving home from work when she made a 911 call telling dispatchers she was stopping her vehicle to attend to an unaccompanied toddler on the side of the road. When authorities responded to the scene, they found Russell's vehicle along with her personal effects, including her purse, but neither Russell nor the child were on scene.
After Russell resurfaced around two days following her disappearance, she told police that she had been kidnapped by a man who came out of the trees when she went to check on the minor. Police later held a press conference which called into question the facts of Russell's disappearance, including security footage from her job, which depicted Russell grabbing toilet paper and other supplies, as well as information from her Internet search history. This included information related to placing AMBER Alerts, as well as a one-way bus ticket and searches related to the kidnapping film Taken.
Through her attorney, Russell has now cleared up the story, taking responsibility for her actions and asking for forgiveness. Prosecutors have yet to press any criminal charges in the hoax but are reportedly weighing their options. What kind of charges, Brian, do you think she could face here? And do you think that the prosecutors will actually go down that route?
Brian Silber:
[00:28:42]
I absolutely think they should. What this lady did was horrible. She got a lot of people very worried and caused law enforcement to go on a wild goose chase, which, by the way, isn't free. That costs money and it takes resources away from other necessities. When you have a missing person case, it's all hands-on deck situations which drew law enforcement away from other legitimate calls. I'm sure there's people that called 911 and had to wait because all the officers on duty on that shift were busy dealing with this, all for nothing.
Insofar as what they could charge her with, certainly it's false report to law enforcement. The whole thing was a complete hoax and she didn't come clean about it. She should have immediately told them. She should have put a stop to it as soon as it happened. It should have never happened. And I really do hope that the municipality there sues her for the cost of what they had to pay because it was the taxpayers that paid for this wild goose chase. This money doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes from taxes. Hardworking people that are waking up early every day, going to their job, fighting traffic. They got to take the kids to school, sit and work with their boss, and they're responsible and they pay their taxes, paid for this lady to send everyone on a crazy adventure and she should be held accountable.
If I was a judge presiding over this, there's no question in my mind I'd be sending her to jail. That was absolutely wrong and terrible. Clearly, she's an unstable person, but she's not the kind of crazy we were talking about earlier. She should definitely be held accountable for her actions. I think it was very wrong what she did.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:27]
Yeah, it's so unfortunate, too. I mean, I don't know. I go back and forth on this because to some extent, I feel exactly as you do. What a waste of resources and everybody's energy. I mean, her parents were on the Today Show. I mean it was the whole country was concerned about this poor woman. And then for it all just to be a hoax and we don't even know the reason for it, which is one of my huge questions. Like what? Why? What was she trying to get out of it.
And then I go, well, do we really want to be putting somebody like this away in jail? But I think there -- I mean, this is just my opinion, but there might be some in between, right? I mean, just because you find somebody criminally responsible doesn't mean you're putting them in prison. And so maybe something with probation, certainly paying back the cost, but I don't think you can let somebody just walk for causing this kind of trouble. But my honest feeling, until we hear actually what she has to say about it, is that she -- I don't think she realized the reaction she was going to get. It makes me wonder if she was trying to get back at someone or get some attention but didn't realize that she would be on the national news. Jump in, please. What do you think --
Brian Silber:
[00:31:43]
Well, think like this --.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:43]
Because we've seen these before in the past. Other people doing this type of stuff. Where's the motivation here?
Brian Silber:
[00:31:49]
It does happen from time to time. And frankly, it's psychologically driven. There's something not right with her. Okay. But it was premeditated. It's not like her brain was missing through all this. She's not a psychotic person. She certainly had the wherewithal to plan what she was doing, to research the AMBER Alert, for instance. She did a Google search on the AMBER Alerts. What do they cost?
I don't sympathize with her at all. They definitely had a helicopter running at that time. Okay. That's called a papa unit. Okay. And police talk. Okay. You got a missing person on the side of the highway. There's no question in my mind they were running a helicopter with a searchlight with the infrared. Think of what it costs to fly a helicopter for one hour. Okay. And they probably ran that thing all day and all night looking for her. Okay? It's just wrong. The public shouldn't have to pay for that. And there has to be accountability.
I'm sorry. I don't care what stupid emotional problems you have or what boyfriend you broke up with. She's not psychotic. This was a total hoax. It was probably for attention. It was probably for sympathy. Maybe she wanted to become an influencer and get herself on TV or write a book about her experience. Who knows? But it was totally wrong. And look, of course I'm a criminal defense attorney. I exist to keep people out of prison, but you also have to be objective, in my opinion. And there's some offenders that do need a certain type of punishment.
And I think the extent that she upset so many people, for instance, think of the people she worked with. I read an article that she worked at a spa. And this happened on their busiest day of the week. They couldn't turn their customers away. But what the employees did was in between customers, they were out on the street handing out flyers. And they really did as much as they could to help find her because they were worried for her. And to cause that level of upsetness to so many people and the expense and the draw and law enforcement, I'm sorry, you just don't get a pass on that, a slap on the wrist.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:01]
You know that to me is you point out the the expense to the community in law enforcement, but it's the the pooling of resources that's even more offensive to me because I mean, I don't know. But God forbid, what if they had another emergency and they've got all of these officers working on this case that turns out to be a hoax and who knows who's other people's lives may have suffered, and they didn't make the nightly news. That's the real, to me, where you really start to see the selfishness in all of it.
Yeah. I mean, listen, I'm not I'm not trying to say give anybody a walk here. And I think certainly with as much attention that it has garnered, there has to be some sort of message sent that this kind of conduct cannot be accepted, because otherwise I think you're just going to see a bunch of copycat people who just -- if she suffers no consequences from this, you're right, every other influencer out there who wants to make a name for themselves is going to start to pull some ridiculous stunt like this.
But anyhow, strange story, sad story, but we're all glad she's alive and safe. And it wasn't actually the tragic thing that we thought was unfolding before all of us.
Brian Silber:
[00:35:16]
That's true.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:16]
In any case, Brian, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Brian Silber:
[00:35:22]
Thanks for having me. So you can find me two ways. BrianSilberLaw.com. Remember my last name is spelled S-I-L-B like boy-E-R, BrianSilberLaw.com And that's also my handle on Instagram, @BrianSilberLaw. Those are the two best places to find me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:40]
Fantastic. 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.
