Survivor of Idaho slayings fights subpoena; Autopsy of Lori Vallow’s children revealed – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Richard Schoenstein joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss a surviving roommate of the University of Idaho slayings fighting a subpoena to appear in Bryan Kohberger’s preliminary hearing, a delayed arraignment for the suspect charged with Bob Lee’s murder, and jurors hearing the cause of death of Lori Vallow’s children as their autopsies are revealed.
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 and trials of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at Joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Thursday, April 27th, 2023.
In this week's episode, the suspected killer of Cash App founder Bob Lee has his arraignment delayed for the shocking stabbing death on the streets of San Francisco. Also, a devastating call between Lori Vallow and her sister appears to include an admission she knew of the timing of her children's deaths. But first, a surviving roommate of the University of Idaho murders fights a subpoena to appear in court before suspected killer Brian Kohberger.
Today, we are joined by Richard Schoenstein, a corporate attorney with over 30 years' experience navigating corporate and employment disputes, representing clients in state and federal courts across the country, as well as a frequent guest on Court TV and a friend of the show. Richard, welcome.
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:01:19]
Hey, Josh, good to be here. Good to see you again.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:22]
Good to see you again. Please tell our listeners who haven't had the chance of hearing about you before, what you've been up to lately and kind of tell us a little bit about your practice.
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:01:32]
Sure. I'm mostly a civil litigator, meaning that I handle commercial disputes between businesses or between businesses and employees or investors and businesses, that kind of thing, in state and federal courts and in arbitration in New York, but also around the country.
I work at a firm. I'm a partner in Tarter, Krinsky & Drogin. We're headquartered in New York City, but we also have offices in New Jersey. We have an office in Los Angeles now, and we've just started an office out on Long Island. So we're moving out our reach a little bit east and west. We're a full-service law firm really for all sorts of business and individual needs. And as you know, Josh, I also make the rounds as a legal analyst on podcasts and on the TV when they'll have me.
Joshua Ritter:
[timestamp]
[00:02:29] Excellent. Exciting stuff for your firm. I like that growing. And we know that you do follow these cases closely, and I always appreciate your opinion on them. So I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the cases that we have today. So let's jump right in.
First, we go to Moscow, Idaho. One of the surviving roommates of four victims stabbed to death in their Idaho home is fighting a subpoena that would force her to testify at a hearing for suspected killer Brian Kohberger.
Attorneys for Bethany Funke, one of two surviving roommates in the attack that left four college students dead, has have asserted that Kohberger's defense attorneys lacked the authority to summon Funke, who lives in Nevada to Idaho, for the preliminary hearing. Kohberger's defense is asserting that Funke has information which could prove exculpatory for defendant Brian Kohberger.
Kohberger was charged in January with four counts of murder for the stabbing deaths of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. His preliminary hearing is scheduled for June 26th of this year.
Bethany Funke and her fellow surviving roommate, Dylan Mortensen, were both present in the house at the time of the murders on November 13th. Nearly six weeks later, suspect Brian Kohberger was arrested after a nationwide search for his white Hyundai Elantra led detectives to his parents' Pennsylvania home.
Rich, first, what do you make of this argument that this witness resides in another state and therefore Idaho doesn't have subpoena power or jurisdiction over a potential witness in Nevada? Do you think there's any merit to that?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:04:07]
I think it's an interesting legal argument. Generally speaking, states only have authority to compel witnesses within the state. There are certain interstate compacts that will allow one state to reach out to another to get a witness, especially in a criminal matter like this. But that can require more extensive proceedings where you have to get an order in the state where the trial is occurring and then an order in the state where you want the witness. And it can be hard to work out.
I haven't seen it often done in a preliminary conference like this. It usually comes up when you're looking for witnesses to testify at trial. I think the defense is in part trying to get this witness. Maybe they genuinely believe she has exculpatory evidence or maybe what they want to establish is that there's a witness out there that they can't get their hands on right now and just give the impression that there's not a full story before the court yet.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:13]
That is interesting. I had not thought of that. It may be that they really don't even want that witness, but they want the attempt of having trying to get her and look at how our hands are kind of tied to put on an adequate defense. Interesting. I don't know. Interesting.
But I do agree with your thoughts about that. It's a little extraordinary to be asking for it at the preliminary hearing. I have a little bit of experience with this when I was in the prosecutor's office. Listen, there are times where you need to get witnesses who happen to reside out of state. I had to get a witness who resided in Mexico so it can be done, but there is a lot of red tape to go through, a lot of legal proceedings. It's not as easy as serving a subpoena as someone who's in your own jurisdiction. So it is possible.
I don't know if they will prevail on the arguments that she cannot be compelled, but I think they're going to go through a lot of hoop jumping in order to get her there. But you, in your comments, bring me to my next point. What could they possibly want her for?
And let's talk a little bit about at preliminary hearing, it's different hearing than the trial. The defense doesn't have to put on what we call an affirmative defense. And it's uncommon for them to do so because it's kind of showing their hand. So what do you think? You've already kind of mentioned one idea, but what do you think this witness could possibly testify to that would be so important to get her at the preliminary hearing?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:06:41]
I don't know. I mean, and I have a -- I want to be careful here because I know people are dying to speculate and find out new things about this case. And sometimes I think some of our compatriots have gone a little bit overboard in that regard.
This is a horrible murder of four college students and, by the way, had to be absolutely devastating for the other two people who were living in that home at the time. So I want to be careful about guessing what this witness might have to say or what the defense might have to say about it.
But you're right, of course, Josh, the defense -- usually the point of the preliminary conference is just to make sure that the prosecution has probable cause to proceed to trial. You don't often get a defense case. If the defense has a really strong defense, a lot of times the case won't even make it to the preliminary hearing, right, because they'll have an airtight alibi, or they'll have another suspect or some other reason that the trial shouldn't go forward.
So this whole thing is a little bit strange. The idea that the defense is going to say something at this hearing, the idea that they're seeking a witness out of state, it's a little bit odd but this is a this is a significant case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:03]
Yeah. Yeah. In my entire career, I can probably count on one hand and I don't need all my fingers the amount of times that either I or defense counsel put on an actual affirmative defense that was significant. In other words, other than just kind of making some argument or putting on one witness. But were they actually tried to fight the probable cause hearing at a prelim?
And in one time, on a case I was on, it was actually successful, but that was because we really wanted to take that long shot. We felt that we had a really solid case. And the reason for that is what you pointed out, this is just a probable cause hearing. So the standard is so much lower that why risk for the defense showing your hand on possible defenses when you're unlikely to prevail and now the prosecution knows what you're up to.
So my question to you is, do you think this could possibly backfire on the defense if they actually do get her into court, get her on the stand under oath, and it's not exactly what they were anticipating? And now they've locked in a witness to a narrative or to a testimony that they weren't anticipating.
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:09:13]
Well, it does have that possibility. And I'll give you one other, this is not speculation about the case as much as it's, I guess, a little speculation about strategy. But perhaps the defense just wants an opportunity to question this witness to find out what she's going to say and what she knows or doesn't know.
Remember, in a criminal matter, you don't get to take depositions of the prosecution's witnesses if you're the defense, you don't. In my cases, in civil cases, you do. You get to find out what your opponents are going to testify to and you get to lock them into testimony at deposition.
So maybe the defense -- one possibility is they think she won't show and they're going to use that no show. One possibility is that they actually think she knows something that will be helpful. And one possibility is they don't know what she knows, but this is an opportunity to make her testify and find out before the trial.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:14]
Excellent points. Excellent points. And to just add to that, for listeners to understand what you're talking about in civil, you can compel their deposition.
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:10:23]
That's right.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:24]
In criminal, you can go try to interview them and they can say, I don't have anything to say to you. I don't want to talk to you. I've said everything I want to say to the police. And the only way you can compel them to "talk" to you is to subpoena them and bring them into court for a hearing like this. So that might be it as well.
It might be that they just want to know further about what she saw or heard that evening. I don't know. They make it sound like it's exculpatory and important to their case, but it could just be a little bit of a fact-finding mission. So we will continue to keep our eyes on that case. It's fascinating as it begins to develop.
Now, let's go to San Francisco, California, where the arraignment of murder suspect Nima Momeni has been delayed after a request by Momeni's defense to postpone as his attorneys collect material in the case. Momeni was arrested and charged with the murder of Cash App Founder Bob Lee earlier this month. Bob Lee was stabbed to death on April 4th in San Francisco, sending shock waves through the tech community and leading many to speculate about the identity and motive of the murderer.
Investigators were led to Momeni after the discovery of security footage which allegedly depicts Bob Lee leaving his hotel room and getting into Momeni's BMW. The vehicle is reportedly seen again on surveillance footage where police say the men can be seen in a confrontation in a secluded area before Momeni speeds away in the BMW alone.
Prosecutors allege that Momeni stabbed Lee three times in the chest after an argument surrounding an interaction between Lee and the defendant's sister. While the relationship between Lee and Momeni's sister is not clear, some have suggested that the pair may have been intimate and that Momeni may have expressed concerns that the two were using illicit drugs together.
Momeni's hearing has been moved to May 2nd with his defense attorney indicating he intends to plead not guilty. Momeni is currently being held without bail. And as a personal aside, the lead prosecutor in this case is Deputy District Attorney Omid Talai, who just happened to be a roommate of mine back in the day.
Allegedly Momeni's defense has not received all the police reports in this case, Rich, including the medical examiner's report. My question to you is, is it abnormal or more routine that all the evidence in a case of this kind of complexity would not be available this early on in a criminal case?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:12:59]
I mean I think it definitely happens. Prosecutors don't always have all the evidence at their disposal. And sometimes, even when there are obligations between parties to disclose certain things, parties are strategic about when and how and in what sequence they do those disclosures. So sometimes you might have a prosecutor who knows they're going to have to disclose something, but is waiting a little bit to do it or trying to shore it up or making sure they have everything. That doesn't particularly alarm me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:34]
Yeah. No, I agree with you. I think it's something important for listeners to understand is that in criminal cases, as opposed to kind of civil cases, things move so quickly. I mean you make an arrest, within 48 hours, that person has to be arraigned. If they don't waive time in California within 10 days, they have a right to go to their preliminary hearing.
So many times, and most common, we see this with the medical examiner, they don't even have time to have performed the autopsy before it would be set for prelim at its first setting. So it's pretty common that not everything is all together by the time they might head to prelim at the very earliest.
But the other thing to understand is, as far as discovery goes, it's not required that the prosecution have everything available before the prelim, before trial, a hundred percent. But before the prelim, because it's a probable cause hearing, as we discussed, not entirely necessary.
So my question to you is, understanding that the defendant kind of control the clock as it were, because they're the ones with the constitutional right to a speedy trial. What do you think about the tactics of waiving time in order to get the evidence together before the prelim or forcing the prosecution's hand and heading to the prelim early?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:14:51]
Well, this is a strategic decision defendants make all the time all across the country, is whether they press their speedy trial rights to put pressure on the prosecutors who may not be ready even to go to a preliminary hearing, much less to try the case. So lots of times defendants will take full advantage of those rights and push the prosecutors in the hope that they will have a better chance of getting out.
But there are countervailing considerations, too. Defendants have to worry about their own ability to get ready for trial. And sometimes the defense needs time to get ready for a hearing or get ready for trial. And the defense also has to think, especially in today's day and age, about publicity, sometimes you don't want a speedy trial because the crime is hot news, and you'd like it to die down before you get to trial.
You don't want it to be in the current news cycle, although I do think these news cycles come around again when the trials starts. So there may, you know, that may not be as much of a consideration, but those are all things the defense is going to weigh to figure out if they're pressing their rights, if they're waiving their rights or something in between.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:09]
Yeah. Yeah. It is a delicate kind of strategic calculation taking place with the defense. And in most cases, you do see that they waive time because in a case of this magnitude, you're talking about your client going away for effectively the rest of his life. You don't want to have yourself unprepared for the prelim, even though it's not the trial. It's so important as far as getting testimony locked in. And so they usually want to know as much as they can before the prelim.
That being said, one case that just came to mind as we were speaking where they famously kind of pushed the prosecution to go to trial pretty quickly, was in OJ Simpson where they said, listen, you guys think you've got the goods, let's get this case on the road. And it really caused the prosecution to have to get their ducks in a row very quickly. Not saying that that's what affected the outcome in that case, but it is an interesting example.
In this case, going back to this case, allegedly the murder weapon in this case was a kitchen knife, that the suspicion being that Momeni brought it with him after leaving the apartment both he and Lee had been visiting. Talk to us about that fact. If that is in fact true, how could that play into the theory of premeditated murder in this case?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:17:29]
Well, yeah, that is what makes it premeditated. If you came to the encounter with a weapon that shows some planning, that sounds different from two guys, got into an argument in the car about some emotionally charged issue and there happened to be a weapon and one killed him. That's different when you put any kind of planning into the situation, including, I mean especially getting a weapon, that takes you more in the direction of premeditation.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:02]
A hundred percent. And it's important, too, to understand that premeditation doesn't mean days and weeks of planning. It could be something as the decision he made leaving that apartment, if he grabbed that knife on the way out, that's enough premeditation. The elevator ride down and getting out on the street is enough premeditation to say that he thought about what he was going to do. So if that's in fact true, that could be a really powerful piece of evidence for the prosecution.
Last point on this. There is some video that many have seen of and it's really tragic of Lee wandering the streets of San Francisco, kind of begging for anyone to help him before he eventually bled out and died. We're going to show viewers a little video clip of that now.
Male:
[00:18:53]
This surveillance video obtained by Dailymail.com is exactly what investigators are looking for. CCTV capturing tech titan Bob Lee moments after he was stabbed early Tuesday in San Francisco. At 2:35 in the morning, the injured 43-year-old appeared to be trying to wave down a passing car which drove away before Lee comes clearly into view outside the doors of a condominium complex.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:22]
Powerful Kind of stuff, Rich, when you think about the idea that these are the last moments of that man's life. But it got me thinking about the idea of if he was and it looks like he was trying to communicate with folks perhaps inside of that apartment building there, if he was able to name the person who had stabbed him, this invokes the idea of hearsay to begin with, but then exceptions to the hearsay rule, particular in the idea of a dying declaration. And I was hoping you could talk to us a little bit about what that is and how that works.
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:19:56]
You know me, Josh, I love talking about hearsay. So as a general matter, hearsay is a prohibition against putting in as evidence, statements, individuals made outside the court. And the reason we do that is because we don't trust that evidence. We don't think it's reliable to come to court and say, well, so and so said this at this moment a year ago, and therefore it should be evidence.
But there are lots of exceptions to that and certain things that aren't hearsay at all. And this here, Josh mentioned dying declaration, that is that's exactly right. This is somebody who is saying something because they're in the process of dying. And we would regard that as more trustworthy than something they just happened to say randomly or for no particular reason.
We sort of think that people tell the truth when they're dying. I mean, I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but that's the supposition that something somebody says as they're leaving this world is probably accurate, or at least they meant it to be accurate.
The other thing that occurred to me is in that situation, it could also be something we call an excited utterance, which is something somebody says in the heat of the moment, oh my God, I've been shot. That's not hearsay. That's an excited utterance. That's a reaction to events as they are happening and that too, we regard as trustworthy. So we would tend to allow that evidence into court, something somebody said in the excitement of the moment or something somebody said as they were dying would not be inadmissible.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:49]
Excellent. So well put. You all got a free little crumb pro lesson there. Well, again, it's speculation on my part that he actually did make one of those statements. But if that comes up and I suspect that we might hear something along those lines that those are the rules that will be invoked in court as to why those statements would come in as evidence. Fascinating case. We'll continue to keep an eye on it.
Now let's turn to our final case out of Boise, Idaho. This week, jurors heard details of the autopsies of JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan as their mother stands trial for their murders. Lori Vallow, the alleged doomsday killer, is charged with the deaths of her two children, along with the late wife of her husband, Chad Daybell. The children were found buried on Chad Daybell's property in 2020 after they had initially been reported missing in September of 2019.
According to testimony from a forensic pathologist, Vallow's 7-year-old son, JJ, died of asphyxiation with a plastic bag over his head and duct tape placed over the young child's mouth. Meanwhile, her 16-year-old daughter, Tylee, died of unspecified means, her remains having been dismembered with the pathologist testifying to receiving what was left of the girl in three separate bags. It's absolutely heartbreaking.
Also this week, jurors heard from Vallow's sister, Summer Shiflet, who was heard sobbing and screaming on a jailhouse call with Vallow after the children's remains were found by police in June of 2020. We have some audio of that recording that was played in court that we can play some of that for you now.
Summer Shiflet:
[00:23:40]
I don't understand. I don't understand. I want to believe the best in you. I really do. I love you with all my heart. It kills me. They were just little kids. I don't understand.
Lori Vallow:
[00:23:52]
You know me, Summer.
Summer Shiflet:
[00:23:54]
That's what I thought.
Lori Vallow:
[00:23:56]
You still do.
Summer Shiflet:
[00:23:59]
Lori, if you let that happen to them and didn't tell us and let it be in the ground like a piece of trash, that I don't know you.
Lori Vallow:
[00:24:09]
You don't think I'm in pain?
Summer Shiflet:
[00:24:10]
No, I don't. I think you were dancing on the beach, having a great time, getting married. You expect me to just keep going on faith when there's been zero explanation and you expect me to just keep believing without ever having a question?
Lori Vallow:
[00:24:26]
I'm not saying that.
Summer Shiflet:
[00:24:29]
That's what you're saying. Either explain it or don't expect me to not be upset and doubt you when the kids are on Chad's property, I would have taken Tylee and JJ in a heartbeat and everybody else would have too. You know that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:43]
Really emotional stuff. Shiflet went on to testify saying she, meaning Vallow, basically told me that she was aware of where they, meaning the children, were and that they were "safe". Prosecutors allege that Lori enacted the killings due to her extremist religious views shared with her fifth husband, Chad Daybell.
The pair reportedly believed that evil spirits could possess the living, turning them into zombies, and the couple allegedly believed that they were on a religious mission to eradicate the world of said zombies before the end of days.
Rich, this is not the first time that jurors have heard recordings of Vallow where she seems to kind of approach the line of confessing to the murders without actually crossing that line. Do you think that is enough to convince jurors of her involvement in these horrible murders?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:25:39]
I think the prosecution is doing a good job here. The struggle with this case for the prosecution is there's no blood on Lori Vallow's hands. There's no one saying she did the murder, or she was at the murder. So it's a conspiracy case and none of the co-conspirators are testifying because her brother is dead, her ex-husband or her husband is not going to testify because he's under charges, too. And his trial is coming up.
So now you have to prove a circumstantial conspiracy to commit murder case. And the way the prosecution is doing it is block by block. They're building all of these things in almost surrounding Lori Vallow with the evidence, which includes these conversations. You're right, she never quite admit it, but she says a lot of curious things.
And just the fact, I think the most damning fact is that she's off in Hawaii when these children are supposedly missing. You don't go on vacation when your children are missing. That's ridiculous. So that to me right there puts all the suspicion on her and the prosecution is assembling all the other evidence they can.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:56]
Yeah. Yeah. You took the words right out of my mouth the issue that I'm starting to see develop on this case and I think they have a strong case. So I don't I don't want to hear people telling me, oh, you think she's not guilty? No, I do, but the case is heavy on.
And what you're saying is what I'm going to say in different words. It's heavy on motive and consciousness of guilt. In other words, they've done a really good job to show she had a reason to commit these murders or take part in them.
Her defense is going to say just because people have a motive doesn't mean they did it. She's got a lot of evidence that she behaved bizarrely or behaved as a person who had knowledge of these killings afterwards. Consciousness of guilt evidence. Again, her defense is going to say just because she knew about it afterwards doesn't mean she participated in it beforehand.
And the point that you pointed out was that we're dealing with a conspiracy charge here. And in conspiracy, you have to show some sort of agreement beforehand. And that agreement or steps taken in further of that conspiracy in furtherance of that conspiracy is where the prosecution needs to develop most. Correct? Could you kind of walk us through that?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:28:16]
I agree. Listen, if I was going to give the defense closing argument right now, I would say to the jury, you might believe she wanted them dead. You might believe she was happy they were dead. You might believe she had a party after they were dead. But that does not mean that she killed them or that she helped plan to kill them. And that is essentially what the prosecution is required to show you.
Not that you can think she was a terrible person and a bad mom and celebrated their deaths or whatever it is you believe, that's not enough to convict. The prosecution had to show that she was involved.
And I do think that is the weakness. And I don't want to say the case is weak because I agree with you. I still think it's a strong prosecution case. But that is the weakness, her direct involvement with the planning. They're trying to show, you know, it's helpful for them to show cell phone calls and other communications with Charles and Alex on the crucial days. I think that is helpful to try to build those bricks.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:30]
Yeah. No, I agree with you, because if this case ends up, if the defense prevails on those arguments that you make and I agree, that's what they would say right now. Then you're looking at a possible accessory after the fact case, which would not be a win for the prosecution here. They want her held responsible for the deaths of those children.
And if we end up in a case where they just say, well, we don't have enough to show she knew about it or planned or participated beforehand, I, I agree that would not be a win here for the prosecution.
Which leads us to our last question on this, and you've touched on it a bit, but what do you think the defense does intend to do? Because they've received a little bit of questioning or criticism, whatever you want to call it, about what is their theory as far as what have they developed through cross-examination? And do we suspect any witnesses being called on the defense's part?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:30:28]
My guess, and it's just a guess so far, is that the defense is going to try this as a reasonable doubt case. And the defense is going to say there is no doubt that horrible murders were committed by somebody and probably by some of these people that knew Lori and the husband, and the brother are pretty clearly tied to that. But you cannot decide beyond a reasonable doubt that she was involved or played an active role.
Because I don't think the defense is going to concede her involvement and try to hide behind her mental state, which was the other way they might have gone with all of this. And I'll use the word religious, but I don't regard any of that of what we're hearing about as religion.
That's fraudulent religion. That's not the stuff that those people believed and were doing does not resemble anything that I recognize as a religion. And I could have seen the prosecution hiding behind that on some kind of mental illness defense, but that doesn't seem to be where they're going. And you didn't ask me, but it's really hard to imagine them putting her on the stand.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:54]
Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you. The only scenario I see developing where that happens is that's one of the rights that the defendant maintains. The attorneys have a control most of the strategy in the case and making those kind of legal, strategic decisions, but the decision to take the stand rests solely with her.
And you've got a defendant who clearly has some mental health struggles and may just decide this is part of part of the prophecy, this is all part of of God's plan, and I'm going to go ahead and take the stand and tell people all about it. That to me is a scenario I could see possibly playing out. But if it's up to her attorneys, I don't think she takes the stand.
And I agree with you. It might be one of those cases where you talked about being a reasonable doubt case where the defense just gets up there and says, listen, we are under no obligation to present any defense to you. They have to meet their burden. And the prosecution didn't do it. And that could just be simply the way that this ends up as far as their arguments go.
Well, the case is moving along quicker than many had anticipated. And in fact, there's some talk that it may end maybe sometime this week or early next week. In any case, we will continue to keep close watch on it. But for this week, Rich, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Richard Schoenstein:
[00:33:26]
It's always great to see you, Josh. So our law firm can be found at Tarterkrinsky.com on the old interweb. You can find me on Twitter and Instagram under the moniker @LawfulRiches, which is where I occasionally put out stuff, including too many clips of me doing things. But yeah, those are the best places to find me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:52]
Fantastic. I encourage everybody to check those out. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ. Please check me out 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.
