Suspected Gilgo Beach killer appears in court; Oxford school shooter seeks parole – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Adanté Pointer joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Rex Heuermann’s latest court appearance after he was indicted for the murders of three women on Long Island’s Gilgo Beach, the Miller hearing to determine whether Oxford school shooter Ethan Crumbley will be eligible for parole, and the preliminary hearing for a suspect charged with the stabbing death of Cash App founder Bob Lee.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:11]
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, August 4th, 2023.
In this week's episode, graphic and disturbing testimony is heard in the pre-sentencing hearing of Oxford School shooter Ethan Crumbley. Also, a judge has ruled that the suspect charged in the stabbing death of Cash app founder Bob Lee will stand trial for murder. But first, suspected Gilgo Beach serial killer Rex Heuermann makes his first appearance in court following his arraignment for the alleged murders of three escorts.
Today, we are joined by Adante Pointer, a civil rights and injury attorney who has repped many victims of police violence and high-profile cases. Adante is also a legal analyst and commentator you can catch on multiple media outlets. Adante, welcome back.
Adante Pointer:
[00:01:19]
Thanks for having me. It feels good to be back.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:22]
Well, we were looking forward to this. And for listeners who weren't able to hear you the first time around, could you just tell us a little bit about your current practice?
Adante Pointer:
[00:01:30]
Sure. My private practice is based here in California, cases all throughout the state representing people who are victims of police abuse, people who have been injured as the fault of a third party. And occasionally, I still come back and do guest appearances here and there in criminal court. I spent a lot of time as a criminal defense attorney about a decade defending people in criminal court throughout the State of California from everything from DUI up to murder for hire.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:56]
Fantastic. Well, I have seen you many times talking about these cases on Court TV and other outlets. And we're going to pull upon your experience and your familiarity with these cases and jump right in. The first is out of Suffolk County, New York, where suspected serial killer Rex Heuermann made an appearance in court August 1st for his discovery hearing, in which Sherman's defense was handed a massive amount of material as described by Suffolk County prosecutors.
Heuermann has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman and Amber Lynn Costello, all of whom were allegedly working as sex workers in the tristate area before their remains were discovered on Long Island's Gilgo Beach. Evidence handed over to Heuermann's defense reportedly included eight terabytes of information, amounting to over 2500 pages of investigative documents, crime scene photographs, DNA and autopsy reports, and nearly 100 hours of surveillance video. Family members of some of the victims were present in court to witness Heuermann's appearance in a blazer and handcuffs.
However, notably absent from the proceedings were his family members in support of Heuermann. Shortly after Heuermann's was arrested for the murders, his wife of 27 years filed for divorce. She has since spoken publicly about returning to the family's Massapequa Park home after authorities finished their weeks long search of the residence earlier this month. According to Heuermann's wife, the residence was completely torn apart by investigators. And neighbors in the area want the house demolished as the home has become a morbid tourist attraction since Heuermann's arrest.
While the full details of the search of Heuermann's home have not been released publicly, authorities claim to have received, pardon me, retrieved over 200 firearms from the home. Investigators are still trying to determine if there are any potential links between Heuermann and other unsolved cases, with prosecutors requesting additional DNA samples from Heuermann.
Earlier this morning, in fact, authorities identified the remains of another body discovered at Gilgo Beach, previously referred to as Jane Doe Seven. Heuermann is expected back in court for another hearing on September 27th. All right, Adante, investigators have had a 13-year head start on human's defense team in this case. How difficult a task do you think it's going to be for them to parse through all of this evidence handed over by the prosecutors? Are they going to be ready for trial this year, you think?
Adante Pointer:
[00:04:32]
I don't think that it's a good -- I wouldn't make that bet that they'll be ready for trial in a year. However, Heuermann has his own constitutional rights, and he may try to force a speedy trial. But in the case like this, where the prosecution and the investigators have had a 13-year head start at putting together this case, it wouldn't be wise to rush into a trial or even a preliminary hearing.
Instead, if I'm the defense team, I'm going to take my time and comb through the evidence, parse it down by the individual victim, and then find my points of attack, be it DNA, be it physical evidence, or perhaps the spoilation of evidence, giving how much time has passed. So if I'm Heuermann, I'm taking my time to rush for my day in court. I'm not going to rush that process. I'm going to painstakingly go through all 2500 pages with the idea or with knowing that there's more discovery to come. I'm sure it's going to swell. I'd probably bet 10,000 pages by the time this is done.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:30]
I think you're right. I think this was just the first data dump of information that they had most kind of easily packaged and able to hand over to the defense. But I can almost guarantee we're going to see much more. I agree with you. And also, this is a situation where the murder happened on a Friday, and he was arrested on a Saturday. And you might understand strategically why the defense would say let's catch the prosecution on their heels here and see if they can put this case together and ask for a speedy trial. Like you pointed out, 13 years that they've got everything and you're just the defense is going to be playing catch up for some time. I agree with you. I don't think it's going to happen any time this year. I would be, what do you think, summer of next year?
Adante Pointer:
[00:06:20]
At best, because there's also, I'd imagine, going to be a ton of motion work as well. The defendant and his attorneys, if they're really on their job, which I suspect they will be, given it's a high-profile case, they're going to be challenging a lot of the information that's contained and also wanting to dive deeper than just a report. I'd imagine they're going to want to do their own, conduct their own investigations, be it at the scene, be it of the physical evidence that was recovered and whatever the link was that brought them to Heuermann's doorstep.
So I can see a lot of motion work, a lot of independent work outside the courtroom that will be argued about or fought out in the courtroom, which will also add to the delay in actually getting to a preliminary hearing and or a trial. So I could see this dragging out for some time. And if I'm Heuermann, once again, why would I rush this unless, as you mentioned, you thought you could catch the prosecution on their heels or flat footed. But in a situation like this, I don't see that given they had so much lead time, 13 years, in fact, to prepare the case and ultimately to charge.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:23]
Yeah, yeah. And I read through the bail motion that the prosecution filed when asking for no bail in this case. And they laid out, I imagine, just part of their investigation, but even what they put in there was incredibly impressive. It was multifaceted on several fronts. They've been investigating this and putting this case together. That's not something that the defense is going to be able to take a weekend to look through. I mean, they're really going to have to dive into that stuff if they want to try to mount any kind of defense whatsoever. The other thing I wanted to ask you about is that Heuermann's wife and children were reportedly out of town or out of state even when the three women he is charged with killing went missing. I'm curious if you think that his family members will ever be called as a witness in this case, and if so, by whom?
Adante Pointer:
[00:08:15]
The question is, did those family members give any statements, be it to the police or investigators along the way or even to Heuermann's defense attorneys as this case develops? If they did, then you could certainly see them brought in as witnesses here. But given that they were out of state, the question, as a police investigator would look into this would say, well, what did they notice, if anything, that was different, either in his demeanor, maybe the house, maybe things he said along the way or perhaps things were missing, be it a shovel, be it a bag, whatever it might have been that links him to the crime, they're going to be digging and fishing for evidence that led the family members to believe that something was awry or something was missing or something was different.
But I think you couple what the police would be interested in learning from family members, with the family members' reaction to their father, to their husband being arrested on these charges. And notably, they were absent from the court. Just because they were absent from the court doesn't necessarily mean they don't support their father. They may just not want to be in the limelight and all that that brings. However, given the wife filed for divorce immediately after he was charged, that is something that in the court of public opinion, I think holds a lot of weight.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:29]
Yeah, yeah. People sometimes, I'm sure I'm going to get flack for this for putting any sympathy towards his family, but I do feel bad their lives have been ripped apart by this. The other thing though that I thought is interesting is you remember that hair matching Heuermann's wife was reportedly found at three of the crime scenes, the ones that are attached to the murders he's charged with. Do you think that's going to be a reason that either the prosecution or defense might need to call her to the stand to either explain how that happens or I'm even wondering, does the defense maybe try to use that as some sort of defense? I don't know. What are your thoughts?
Adante Pointer:
[00:10:17]
Well, from the defense perspective, when you're up against this sort of evidence that are linking you to a crime and there's a third party, be it your wife or be it some stranger, that also has physical evidence there that at least links them to the crime scene, then you have to dive into that. And so from the prosecution's perspective, I imagine once they realize that it was her hair, they certainly wanted to talk to her.
Now, whether or not she lawyered up and she invoked her rights to not speak to the police, we don't know that as of yet. And that could also change as this develops. But it certainly adds a high level of entry as it relates to how does she play into this puzzle that the police are trying to put together and what was her involvement?
Hair, as we all know, just in our daily common experience can travel from one place to the other without it necessarily the person being at that crime scene. It could have been something, an item from the house that was taken from the house there that ultimately her hair traveled in, to the scene on. But given that it said more than one victim or more than one person who was killed, that then leads to -- that was something that was consistently brought to the crime scene, not just one time, but perhaps multiple times.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:30]
Yeah. The thing I mean, obviously the police, I don't think ever really seriously considered the wife a suspect. I think they obviously knew, like you said, hair can travel with other people. It was just another way for them to match Heuermann to the crime scenes. But I'm just wondering if the defense deals in the world of the strange and confusing. And if this could cause confusion, I wonder if that's something they're going to try to highlight if this ever heads to trial. Speaking of which, I know it's a little bit early, but New York doesn't have the death penalty. So being that that is not on the table, do you think that there is a possibility of any sort of plea deal being struck in this case?
Adante Pointer:
[00:12:14]
Well, as to go back to what you had mentioned earlier, when you read the criminal complaint and the first 2500 pages that they gave to Heuermann's defense team, oftentimes it's my experience that the prosecution is giving you a glimpse, a preview of what you're up against in terms of the evidence that they've mounted against you, to say that you did something that accused you of a crime.
And for Heuermann, if he's looking at that and if he knows what he did and he feels, hey, they have me cornered, he may actually cut a deal, why put your family through this? Why put your wife through this and your kids and everyone else that you're affiliated with and instead you fall on your sword and cut the best deal you can early rather than late.
However, once again, we know by looking at trials and looking and studying these things, sometimes a defendant will want to go all the way and force the prosecution to do their job and drag their family through the mud along the way just to wind up with a conviction. I would imagine, though, he and his attorneys are taking a serious look at the case as it's being presented in those 2500 pages, as is being presented in that charging document. And they're figuring out what are their play, what is their play?
And as you mentioned, the defense job oftentimes is to muddy the water. Right. So if they could muddy the water by saying, hey, there's another person, even though it's his wife that may have been involved in this or that, we could lay some of the blame at or just raise the specter that it wasn't me, it was someone else. Oftentimes, that's a button that the defendants will push to try to get a better shot at freedom. But in a case like this, that comes out of one heck of a price. However, it's also sitting there in his jail cell saying, my wife divorced me. She's not supporting me. So, why am I going to protect her? But so much, it's a chess game, right? And you know this. So we'll see how it unfolds.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:11]
Yeah. One other thing I was thinking of as you were talking is a bargaining chip he may have is they still have several other bodies that they have not tied to him. And if he is able to bargain that he will confess to those other killings, if he was involved in them and gives them information that they're able to be sure that he was involved, perhaps that's some sort of bargaining chip and why he would want to end this whole thing early. I don't know. It really comes down to, I think more than anything, his narcissism. Does he want this to continue to be something that he is in the news or does he want to put it all behind him? Well, we shall see.
Let's move on to Pontiac, Michigan, where the sentencing hearing for Oxford High School shooter Ethan Crumbley is underway to determine if the gunman will ever have the possibility of parole. Crumbley pleaded guilty to several charges, including four counts of murder for his perpetration of the 2021 school shooting that left four students dead and seven injured. Because Crumbley was a minor, 15-year-old at the time of the shooting, he cannot automatically be sentenced to life per Michigan law, so a judge must consider arguments from both sides to determine if Crumbley will have the possibility of parole and what is known as a Miller hearing.
Prosecutors have presented evidence to demonstrate that Crumbley premeditated the violent attack, even alleging that the teenager took pleasure in the killings. Meanwhile, a defense psychologist testified that Crumbley was experiencing psychosis, characterizing the boy as a feral child who had essentially been abandoned by his parents. This evidence presented by the defense included video evidence that's disturbing, to say the least, of Crumbley while he's in custody. We can show you a clip of that now.
Female:
[00:16:12]
You know, you can totally relax.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:17]
The hearing is not over, and it is on a brief pause as the prosecution prepares to present a rebuttal witness but is slated to resume on August 18th. All right, Adante, the Supreme Court in 2012 decided in Miller V Alabama that mandatory life without parole for people under the age of 18 would violate the Eighth Amendment. Explain to us what a Miller hearing is and how it's different from what we usually see in a sentencing hearing.
Adante Pointer:
[00:16:49]
The Miller case established a precedent where essentially before a judge can just essentially put a minor in jail, and then go to prison and throw away the key that the judge must consider mitigating and aggravating factors both presented by the prosecution and the defense. And here in this case, that is happening and it's out of the presence of the jury. So it's not a jury that's listening to this evidence, it's the judge.
And just as importantly, as you mentioned, this has stretched out this far. I believe it's three days and going to its fourth, whereas the sentencing hearing, it's been my experience is conducted in one half of a morning or in the afternoon. So a sentencing hearing could be very short, 20 minutes while the judge goes through, listens to the evidence that the prosecution puts on.
And frankly, when the prosecution puts on their argument for their sentencing that they're recommending or that they're arguing for is usually much more shorter in terms of they're going to highlight what the particular aggravating factors of the crime that the person has pled to or has been convicted of. And they're going to essentially allow a victim to make a victim statement. That's usually the highlight of the sentencing hearing, is if the victim reads their victim impact statement in court.
But in this situation, with a Miller hearing, you actually have what amounts to be a full-blown evidentiary hearing. You have psychologists, you have people coming in to talk about a person's background. You have the prosecution putting videos on, going to social media, recounting the statements he's made. It's almost a mini trial of sorts as it relates to a person's psychology, a minor's psychology at the time they committed the crime.
And what I think is going to really be a tipping point here and what the judge is trying to get a clearer picture of and what the two sides are arguing about is what was this young man's state of mind? And we understand it was premeditated, but can he be held to a level essentially as an adult with saying that there is nothing that is essentially redeemable and that you should never have a chance, he should never have a chance or an opportunity at freedom again? Because what he did was not only so heinous, but it was his intent and that his mind state is such that it cannot be rehabilitated.
And that's a very serious ruling for a judge to make. So I see why the Supreme Court has mandated this type of hearings. It's very important, especially when you have situations like down in Alabama and other places in our country where you have a disproportionate number of minors who are essentially sentenced to what is jail or prison for life, and they throw away the key. So that's what's going on in this case. And it's fascinating to watch given all the information that's being presented by both sides.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:34]
Yeah. Yeah, it is fascinating. And two, I think a lot of it's for the edification of the judge because the judge did not sit through a trial. So the judge is learning a lot of this for the first time, perhaps because he did take a plea. So there wasn't that opportunity for a lot of this evidence to be heard in court. But to your point about some of the disturbing things that the prosecution has presented as part of their case in this hearing, they played audio that was allegedly recorded by Crumbley the day before the shootings where he is heard to be saying, my name is Ethan Crumbley, age 15, and I am going to be the next school shooter. Later, adding, I'm going to have so much fun tomorrow.
Also, presented were excerpts from his journal where he wrote, I wish to hear the screams of the children as I shoot them. And later, I'm going to record the shooting. So when they show the video in court, everyone can see their children and friends dying. That sickens you to hear that kind of stuff. And it goes on and on and on in these pages. What role do you think his apparent enthusiasm, not just premeditation, but almost the way he expressed how he's going to enjoy this is going to play in the judge's decision here?
Adante Pointer:
[00:20:59]
I think it weighs very heavily. Just you recounting, describing, much less the judge is looking at the video and watching this young man's facial expressions and so on and so forth. It's the type of thing where you say this sounds like pure evil. Anything that's redeeming in this young person to where I am willing to give him an opportunity to be on the streets again and perhaps behave in the same way.
So I think that's the type of evidence that weigh so heavily to where when you put it on the scale, a judge would be very hesitant to say, hey, I want this on my resume, that I let this young man out again to do something similar or something even more heinous to what he's already done. So I think it's pretty devastating as it relates to his chances to ever hit the streets again.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:50]
Yeah, when I started to learn about some of what came out, it really is, it bothers you to hear that somebody would speak this way about taking other people's lives. But the other side of that, a lot of testimony has been presented about how his parents, teachers, school therapists all essentially failed to intervene and essentially failed this young man. A lot of what he was talking about, too, were kind of cries for help. What role do you think that plays? Is that a winning argument with the judge?
Adante Pointer:
[00:22:30]
Well, it evokes, certainly may evoke some sympathy and perhaps even outrage at the adults who were involved in his life and overlooked the signs or perhaps enabled him or even encouraged behavior that he ultimately exhibited here. But at the end of the day, although society may have failed him, although teachers may have failed him, although his parents may have failed him, he did commit a very heinous crime. And so those are mitigating circumstances.
But I don't think they overcome what sounds to be not only premeditation, but elation and joy, excitement at killing and maiming and hurting people in a way, and repeatedly in such a way to where you're thinking to yourself, even if society failed him, even if his parents failed him, if people didn't step in, perhaps there was a way to intervene, it didn't happen. And now, this is a result. And perhaps this young man's personality is developed to a point where we can't reverse and go back.
And certainly, the people who were killed and hurt and who were put in so much pain by his actions, they can never erase what they went through. So I think despite that being something, that's a point of contention, I don't think that's enough to overcome the amount of evidence of what this young man did and gleefully did and was looking forward to being celebrated or at least getting the notoriety of doing it. I mean, that's almost a trifecta of evil in some ways.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:56]
Yeah. Yeah. I have to say, I agree with you and we're going to find out soon enough. Like I said, they're going to resume this hearing and we will, of course, update everyone when we find out what that judgment actually is.
Let's turn to our final case out of San Francisco, California, where a judge has ruled that sufficient evidence exists to hold a suspect charged with the stabbing death of Cash app founder Bob Lee to answer for his murder at trial. Nima Momeni, who pled not guilty in May, is accused of stabbing Lee to death in a secluded area of San Francisco's Recon Hill neighborhood. Lee, whose heart and lungs were pierced in the attack, was seen on surveillance video pleading for help before succumbing to his injuries.
At the preliminary hearing, the judge highlighted DNA evidence presented by the prosecution that linked Momeni to a kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon. Police believe that the knife used to kill Bob Lee came from the home of the suspect's sister and that a relationship between her and Lee may have been Momeni's motive in the alleged murder. Momeni's defense, meanwhile, has maintained that the suspect and Lee were not fighting the night of the incident and called into question the DNA and security footage which was used to link Momeni to the crime. Momeni is scheduled to appear in court again on August 15th.
All right. Adante, most preliminary hearings are kind of a rubber stamp affair. It's much more of an opportunity for the defense to get kind of a preview of the prosecution's case rather than for them to actually fight it and try to get the case dismissed. In other words, there's a strategy to the idea of just seeing what the prosecution has rather than showing your cards as a defense. But the defense in this case put on much more of an affirmative defense than we see most times, and has also been very vocal about their arguments to the press. Do you think that is a winning strategy in this case or what is your thoughts on it in general?
Adante Pointer:
[00:26:00]
Yeah. it's not something that you commonly see as a defense attorney or a defendant going kind of full throttle, if you will, at the preliminary hearing. However, in a case like this, as high visibility and the holes, if you will, that a defense would oftentimes poke is so readily available and being talked about in the media, it almost be remiss if they didn't at this point try to put that out for the public to hear, because, hey, this is in my backyard. I'm in the Bay Area.
This case certainly dominated the headlines. There was a bunch of conspiracy theories, if you will, about why or who may have done this. How did the cash app founder come up dead? The specter of what toxicologists say was in his system when this happened the time of night it was, the fact that they don't have a percipient witness, an eyewitness who actually saw them fighting or saw them interacting. But instead the police kind of piece this together and then made this grand announcement.
And now you have this sordid kind of affair that was taking place, which fits a storyline that people might be able to buy a lot easier. But however, at the end of the day, when you look at all the puzzle pieces, there's still a lot of holes there for a defendant and his defense attorneys to utilize to mount a defense. For example, okay, there's a knife. And that was what has been stated as the murder weapon. And they say that Momeni's DNA was on it, but that DNA is from his sister's house, or the knife is from his sister's house. Possibly he was there, but unfortunately, the person who passed away also had a relationship with the sister. So maybe that he had the knife for some reason.
I mean, there's a lot of different ways to muddy the water and muddle it so that a jury may not necessarily come back with an easy conviction for the prosecution on this. But at the same time, and I'll just wrap up by saying at the same time, Momeni's got a large hill to climb. And I am surprised that they rushed this quickly to a preliminary hearing. In a case that is this high profile and that the police essentially laid out their case so early, I would think he'd take more time to develop his defense strategy.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:08]
Yeah, it does seem to be moving pretty, pretty rapidly. No, you make a very good point. People hear things like, well, his DNA was on the knife and a lot of people immediately say, oh, okay, well, he did it. But you're absolutely right. Why wouldn't his DNA be there? That's his sister's house. He was upstairs chopping up tomatoes for dinner that night. What does that have to do with murder? I'm not saying those are winning arguments. I'm saying those are arguments that absolutely, I think will be made by the defense.
But you bring me to kind of my next question on this is that, and eventually they're going to have to choose a defense theory. And already we know that there's the video of him and the victim apparently going off to a location where it is believed the stabbing actually took place. Now, we know his DNA is found on what is likely the murder weapon. Is this a case where you think it's best for the defense to choose the strategy of saying he didn't do it, somebody else did it? Or this was a fight gone bad? This was a heat of passion type of thing. This was certainly not premeditated. And yes, I know in those circumstances, you're not asking for an absolute acquittal. But is that a stronger kind of argument to be made that may keep him out of prison for the rest of his life?
Adante Pointer:
[00:29:33]
Yeah, those are two arguments or two defense strategies that I imagine his lawyers are weighing very closely. However, I think for me, just based upon what we know about the case and what's been discussed up to this point, I think the whole idea that it was someone else who did it is a much more clean defense strategy. Because at the end of the day, if they have the two in the car that night, then the DNA may have -- the knife could be in the center console, it could be anywhere. It may have been on the seat. And he moved it. And that's how the defense DNA got on it.
But given the time of the night, the area of town it is, which is pretty desolate at that point in time, the fact that the decedent had things on board in terms of drugs or intoxicants, it leads itself to an idea we don't know what he was doing. And in that part of town and given the criminality and things that are highlighted consistently on TV, a juror comes into this thinking, well, is this a drug deal gone bad? Is this a robbery gone bad? Who could have done this?
Because opposite of that, you have a gentleman who had no real criminal history. Yes, he loved his sister. And maybe he wasn't a fan of the relationship they had. But to go to take that to murder, okay, to take that to murder is a much bigger jump that a jury has to take, even though the prosecution is trying to develop this motive but see that as a bridge that they have to cross. And if I'm the defendant, I'm saying, look, here's all these other bad things and factors. You can't just assume my guy killed a friend over his sister. Instead this could have been a gentleman who was intoxicated. He stopped to help somebody. He got lost, asked for directions. And unfortunately, we know things like this happen far too often in cities and in urban areas and just all across the country where people are killed for nothing or less by complete strangers. And so that --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:28]
You're right. No, you're right. You make an excellent point because to your point, the original speculation by many was that this was some sort of robbery gone bad or some sort of random act of violence. And, in fact, a lot of people were kind of trying to tie that up into the idea that there's rising crime in San Francisco. And here's another example of a person who's just minding their own business and it happens to be a successful businessman, gets knifed down on the streets of San Francisco. You're right. It's not an outrageous theory, if that's what the first thing that a lot of people jump to.
So we shall see. They're going to have to decide, I think. I do believe they're going to have to pick one because I don't think this is one of those cases where they can go in arguing both. But we will see, and we'll continue to follow it. But in the meantime, Adante, that is our show. And thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Adante Pointer:
[00:32:23]
Hey, well, people can find me on the Web, as many people do nowadays. Our website for my law firm www.lawyers, with an S, F as in Frank, T as in Tom, P as in Paul.com or social media just under my name Adante, A-D-A-N-T-E, Pointer, P-O-I-N-T-E-R, just like the Pointer Sisters. I look forward to interacting with people on social media. I always enjoy my time on your show. Keep highlighting these important cases and issues that need to be discussed, and I look forward to working with you again.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:54]
Oh, absolutely. Thank you again for coming on and I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you have questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you again for joining us at The True Crime Daily Sidebar.
