Teen’s death near Murdaugh property investigated as murder; Lori Vallow’s trial begins – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Pat Carey joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the exhumation of Stephen Smith’s body following Alex Murdaugh’s murder conviction, jury selection in Lori Vallow’s trial, and a fugitive charged with felony murder for the death of a corrections officer who aided in his escape.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar presented by True Crime Daily, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based here in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at Joshuaritter.com. We're recording this on Wednesday, April 5th, 2023.
In this week's episode, jury selection has begun in the trial of alleged doomsday killer Lori Vallow for the murder of her two children. Also, a fugitive who has been charged with murder in the suicide of a corrections officer who aided in his escape from prison. But first, the second autopsy following the suspicious death of a teen with purported ties to the infamous Murdaugh family.
Today, we are excited to be joined by Patrick Carey, a former prosecutor with vast trial experience, a board-certified criminal law specialist and criminal defense attorney based out of Torrance, California. Pat, welcome.
Patrick Carey:
[00:01:10]
Thank you, Josh. Happy to be here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:12]
Before we jump in, please tell us a little bit about your background, your current practice, so listeners have an idea of who we're speaking with today.
Patrick Carey:
[00:01:20]
Sure. So much like you, Josh, I work for the LA County District Attorney's Office from 2006 to 2014. I left in 2014 to form my own practice. When I was a prosecutor, I tried things as a minimally serious, as a DUI case, all the way up to a special circumstance murder cases. In my private practice, I do the same. I defend almost every case. Murder cases are a large part of my practice, but I do do simple misdemeanors as well. A full range of criminal defense. As you mentioned, I'm board-certified in criminal law and it's the focus of my practice.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:03]
Well, I know that you have a very heavy trial practice, too, so we're going to call upon a lot of that experience of yours in these cases today that I know you've been following closely. So let's jump right in.
First, we return again to Hampton County, South Carolina, where the body of teenager Stephen Smith has been exhumed as part of the investigation into his mysterious death. Smith's death was ruled a hit and run after the 19-year-old's body was found in 2015 on a country road near Murdaugh's sprawling estate.
However, in a surprise development, South Carolina's law enforcement division, known as SLED, announced they would be investigating Smith's case as a homicide earlier this month. The exhumation of the teen comes on the heels of a GoFundMe launched by the victim's mother, Sandy Smith, to hire legal counsel for her son's case and an independent medical examiner to perform another autopsy.
After Alex Murdaugh's conviction, pardon me, for the murder of his wife and youngest son, the investigation into Smith's death ramped up with Buster Murdaugh, Alex's oldest son, releasing a statement denying any part in the incident. We must note that no members of the Murdaugh family have been officially linked to Smith's death and no suspects have been announced in the investigation.
Sandy Smith's attorneys have also been quick to point out that they do not see this case as Murdaugh 2.0 but are hoping to "hire experts" who are going to come into this case with a fresh set of eyes, with an open mind, without any preconceived conclusions being objective wherever the facts go. To that end, one of the attorneys released a statement on Twitter after Smith's body was returned to his grave saying, I now believe that Stephen can really rest at ease because SLED and our team are going to do everything possible to find out just how he died.
All right. A lot to unpack here, Pat. First of all, are you surprised at how fast this investigation has picked up steam? I mean, we're talking about a case that's several years old. All of a sudden, SLED announces that they are reopening it as a murder investigation. And now we're already having a body exhumed and an autopsy done. What are your thoughts on that?
Patrick Carey:
[00:04:19]
You know, I think obviously publicity comes into play here, right? Whenever there's a focus on any case or any tangential part of any case, you're going to put some pressure on law enforcement to "do something", right. But I also think a huge driving force here, you mentioned the GoFundMe. I mean, it's always about money.
If you have the money to investigate, and you have the will to investigate, an investigation is going to get done. And if it's not by law enforcement, it will be done by private parties. Here, the amount of money that they've raised quickly to me leads me to understand why they're taking the time to do this investigation, to try to figure out what's going on.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:06]
Yeah. You mentioned the media attention playing a role in this, I think absolutely. I mean, this is one of those cases that just captured the attention of the entire nation. And also, I think a large role was played by some documentaries that came out about the Murdaugh family. There was a Netflix documentary. There was an HBO documentary. I don't know if you had a chance to watch either of those. They were both excellent. And they both really, how should I say, maybe cast some suspicion on the circumstances of Stephen Smith's death. So it's not surprising to me that that's getting a second look.
What do you think about the fact that SLED reclassified this investigation as murder before another autopsy has even been done? My question is, what could have changed? And if you could, for listeners, explain to us, like what is the difference between manner and cause of death? And why is this something that we're concerned with here?
Patrick Carey:
[00:06:04]
Right. Usually in any criminal investigation, you don't want to go to the conclusion before you have the evidence. Right. You don't want to say this is a homicide or this was an accidental death until you know all the facts. Now, what's interesting here is even if you look at the facts as they were at the time of the original investigation, it does not appear that this was a, you know, so-called open and shut hit and run case. Right. There was no debris found at the scene which is extremely common.
And to me, the biggest piece of evidence in this case, which would frankly probably rule out hit and run, is the fact that he's wearing his shoes with loose shoelaces. And those shoes are not removed, I mean, or thrown during a collision. Obviously, if a vehicle did in fact hit him, it would have been traveling at a very high rate of speed in order to kill him. Right.
You and I have both handled these types of cases. I've had a case where a pedestrian was hit, and he was sent to a quarter mile down the road, and his shoes were on one side of the street, property everywhere. Here, there's just none of that. There's no, you know, I saw a mention that perhaps at the time of the original investigation, they thought, well, maybe the side mirror hit his body. But obviously, if the side mirror hit him at that rate of speed, you're going to expect that mirror to be ejected, right?
So, you know, to go back to your original question, I think that any time you have an individual who is found dead on the side of a road without any evidence that they were hit by a car, it should be investigated as a homicide. Right? And it's homicide until you find otherwise. So, you know, I'm not quite sure why they're calling it or why they're saying it's a murder investigation now.
To me, it doesn't really matter much. It does kind of highlight why they would exhume a body. Right? Why are you going to exhume a body in an accidental death situation? You're just not going to do that. So by calling it a murder case now, it would explain why you're taking that extreme action, right?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:42]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It may just be a mechanism of SLED to allow them to kind of dedicate some resources towards reinvestigating this, that we're investigating a murder now. This is no longer an accident investigation, and they can get detectives involved and everything else. Yeah. You know, everything you point out is absolutely true about kind of the circumstances surrounding this crime scene, I guess we can call it now.
You mentioned that there's no debris. The fact that his shoes remained on. All of these things are great. There were no skid marks. There's no indication even that a vehicle could have done this. And that's not to say that a vehicle may not have been involved, even if this was a murder. But there's no indication that a vehicle, I'm not going to say no indication, but there's not strong indication that it was even a vehicle that caused his death. They call it a blunt force trauma, which could have been caused by something else. So a lot of kind of questions surrounding this case.
But, Pat, I know you have experience in cold case murders, and that's really what this is going to become because we're talking several years down the line. They've got to reperform an autopsy. What do you think is the kind of evidence that they're looking for that may push them over the edge to actually make a filing decision here?
And then I'm going to kind of sneak my thoughts on this, is that I wonder and I'm curious to hear what you think the fact that Alex Murdaugh got convicted means that this person who was in such a position of power in that community is gone. Do you think it's maybe about people coming forward finally feeling like they have the bravery to do it at this point?
Patrick Carey:
[00:10:30]
Yeah, absolutely. In cold cases, people think that -- because it is true in most of them, it's, hey, we have new DNA evidence and that's why the case is filed. Now, that may be true here when we get the results of the forensic examination and everything that happened as a result of the exhumation. But it's always a tiny little piece that could put a case over the top. Right. A circumstantial case is just that, tiny pieces that come together to form a puzzle.
And you bring up a great point you may have had back then, perhaps somebody who was driving by, right, that saw something they shouldn't have seen. That said, you know what, this is the Murdaugh's, I'm not getting involved in this. And now that he's convicted and that fear, so to speak, is removed, perhaps you have people coming forward that are providing those little pieces. And when you take those new little pieces and you add them to what was already there, it could be enough to put a case over the top.
Now, to me, there's a lot of things at the beginning that make this case reek of a setup, right? They want it to seem, they meaning, let's assume it's a setup for a moment, that he had run out of gas and that he was walking down the road and was hit by a car. I find it very perplexing that the gas cap was removed.
Who runs out of gas on the side of the road and says, hey, let me remove my gas cap and drop it on the ground prior to walking to get gas. That's one of those tiny little things that when I would prosecute these cold cases is like, oh, there's the tiny piece that puts it over the edge. Why would he remove the gas cap?
And then you add, as you said, maybe new evidence, a new witness comes forward. That could be enough to turn this thing around. And I think, SLED, as you mentioned, I think that they believe truly it was a murder. It's just a matter of putting the case together to ensure that they get a conviction. And against whom, of course, is the ultimate question.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:51]
Yeah. Wow. Excellent point about that gas cap. I hadn't thought about that. It's if you run out of gas, you know you've run out of gas. No reason to open the gas cap and take a look inside and certainly no reason to leave it open and on the ground like that unless you're trying to establish the idea that, hey, this guy ran out of gas, let's make it look like he ran out of gas. Really, really excellent point.
And I should say we're doing a lot of speculation here. No suspects have been named. I'm not trying to get anybody sued, but it is a lot of curious stuff. And so we'll continue to keep an eye on that case. It has a lot of intrigue.
But let's move now to Boise, Idaho, where after multiple delays, jury selection is underway in the murder trial of Lori Vallow, who stands accused of the doomsday killings of her two children. About 1800 Boise residents received questionnaires to participate in the trial, with the screening process beginning this week. Jury screening is expected to last multiple days with a planned trial duration of around ten weeks.
This case has seen intense media coverage, including a Netflix documentary which could prove problematic in the jury screening process as public exposure to the case could be grounds for a potential juror's dismissal. Vallow's case caught national attention after the bodies of her seven-year-old son, JJ, and 17-year-old daughter Tylee were found on an Idaho property owned by her husband, Chad Daybell.
It is believed that the couple shared extremist religious beliefs which alluded to the end of days and evil spirits which could possess loved ones. The trial for both Daybell and Vallow have been separated. And a judge recently ruled that Lori Vallow will not face the death penalty if convicted of the murders of her children.
Pat, defense has made several arguments in court concerning the media attention in this case that this case has received. In your opinion, how much exposure to a case is too much for a potential juror to be objective? What do I mean by that is they can't expect that every single juror who's going to sit on this trial has never heard about this case. So I imagine some of them will be exposed to it. But at what point do you feel like it's too much?
Patrick Carey:
[00:15:08]
Yeah, you know, it's hard to say. To me, the evidence is what the evidence is, right. But the danger, of course, in any case, not just this one, is, as you know, prior to a trial starting, there's certain things called motions in limine that happen in which a judge rules on the admissibility of certain things.
Now, a regular layperson may think, let the jury hear everything and let them decide. But there's legal rules that come into play, constitutional principles that make it important that certain things aren't heard by the jury. Now, those concepts don't apply to a documentary, right? And documentaries themselves are set up to be salacious to perhaps highlight certain things, to make them seem more important than they are. I had a few murder cases that were featured on Dateline. And when I would watch them, I would just chuckle because they would leave out half the evidence to make it more entertaining.
So to me, if a juror has had some exposure to an entire documentary or nothing whatsoever, it's on the judge to ensure that during jury selection, that juror is being truthful and that they can put that to the side and make a decision just based on the evidence. That's really what it comes down to.
So, of course, as a defense lawyer, you'd prefer zero exposure. But as you mentioned, some of these cases like this or huge cases like OJ Simpson, I mean people are just going to have preconceived notions. It's about trusting that they can put those things aside in order to come to a fair and just verdict.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:52]
Yeah. Yeah. You make an excellent point. And it's something that I think a lot of people who may not be familiar with how the criminal courts work is that it is a confined universe that they're being handed to the jurors. And that's not because they're trying to be deceptive or untruthful with the jurors, but because there's, like you said, evidentiary constitutional rules that this type of evidence, certain of it, hearsay is a really good example of certain things that we don't want presented in front of them because we don't feel that it's inherently reliable. It could bias, you know, any number of things. And that's what the judge is primarily there for.
But if they know all about this stuff beforehand, how are they going to not allow that to affect them. And to kind of dovetail off of your point, where it's most disastrous is when they get back in that deliberation room. And what if one of those jurors says, hey, guys, by the way, I saw a documentary on this and they didn't mention this eyewitness or they didn't talk about this letter that was sent by so-and-so to so-and-so where he confessed to the whole thing, disastrous consequences could come out of that.
So you're right. It is important, especially with cases that have had this kind of coverage, not just a couple of news articles, but this kind of coverage. The other thing that's going to, I think, play a role in this and I'm curious to hear your thoughts is in the backdrop of all of this, and perhaps the motive behind it is these religious beliefs that Vallow and Daybell shared, which are really fringe, and they're talking about doomsday and everything else.
Now, Idaho doesn't have a traditional insanity plea. So her mental health isn't going to become at issue in that respect, but it could play a part in determining first degree murder and premeditation, mens rea and all of that. Walk us through that and how you think the religious aspect, her mental health may play a role in this case.
Patrick Carey:
[00:19:00]
Yeah. You know, in cases like this, when you have such an emotional kind of incident where you have children that are killed, I think it's human nature for people to want to know why. Every parent thinks, how could a parent kill their child? So to me, from the defense perspective, the religious aspect of this can be an important one because it can show that, look, yeah, if the evidence is there that this happened, this is how off the -- I want to use the right term, how potentially off that's mentally that this person was, that they believed that aliens were coming down from outer space tomorrow to kill everyone and they wanted to save their children from any suffering. That sounds ridiculous. But it adds context to that emotional situation of what kind of parent could kill their child.
Now, the converse of that from the prosecution side is, look, that's not an excuse. It may be an explanation, but it's not an excuse. And that's where the law comes into play, where you have to differentiate what's the difference between an explanation for why something happened or a legal excuse. And here, it's just not going to be a legal excuse. So I don't know how far it will get either side, other than giving the jury some context.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:48]
Yeah, I'm curious. And this is me just speculating again. Chad, her co-defendant is not going to be in court. They've had to sever their trials because her trial got delayed because at one point, she was declared unfit to even stand trial.
My belief is that a large part of their strategy is going to be to point the finger at Chad. And I wonder if that's how some of this religious aspect and mental health aspect comes in, if they're trying to perhaps with some sort of coercion defense, saying, listen, I was under the Svengali like cult influence of this man and I am also fragile and susceptible to that because of my mental health issues. And so therefore, I was just doing what he told me because I thought the end was coming or I thought he was the resurrection of Jesus or something. Ahat be a way of them kind of shoehorning this into the case.
So we'll have to see. That's my little prediction on how this plays out. But last question I had for you on this, and I really want to hear from your defense perspective. I know us having chatted about cases in the past, how you feel strongly about this, but one of the causes for delay in this trial was that the prosecution had a deadline to turn over all discovery.
And on the 11th hour of that deadline, they turned over a massive amount of discovery and the defense came into court, hands up in the air and said, Your Honor, there's no way we can get prepared on the amount of stuff that they've turned over to us. And a large portion of it was jailhouse recordings of her co-defendant, which have to be listened to and transcribed if you want to be prepared for a trial like this. What role do you think that plays out in the case? Do you think that puts the defense at a disadvantage? Just give us your hot take on that.
Patrick Carey:
[00:22:51]
Frustrating is the biggest, the easiest response I have because, you know, when you have a client, when you're sitting next to a client and something like this happens, your client wants to storm out of the courtroom and say, hey, case dismissed, late discovery. But the first words out of your mouth were causing delay. And sadly, the remedy for stuff like this, if it happens prior to a trial, is delay. And sometimes delay is good for the defense, sometimes not.
But I think that what ends up happening in every, in almost every case, be it a simple DUI case or something with attention like this, is an abundance of caution, what prosecutors get worried about is if they get a conviction is the case going to get overturned on appeal. And cases that get overturned on appeal very often are, this was not disclosed before trial.
So you get a prosecutor that says, you know what, a year ago we weren't going to turn this over or that obviously, the jail recordings are new, but let's dump this on the defense just so that they don't have an excuse. And it's frustrating from the defense perspective. Sadly, there's just no remedy other than time. Judges will look at us and say, look, Mr. Carey, or look, Mr. Ritter, I understand that this is frustrating, but I'll continue the case to give you time.
And then, you know, strategically, that could be problematic for witnesses you have ready for scheduling issues. So it's tough. And jail calls absolutely are one of those things that can be extremely time consuming and can cause, you know, you have to listen to everything.
It's like finding the needle in the haystack, right? The prosecutor knows that there's one call from six months ago, an hour and a half in, and where your client said something, but they turn over to you 60 hours of calls, right? You got to listen to each and every one of those things, pay attention, as you said having it transcribed, because a defense lawyer cannot be caught with something happening during a trial that they didn't know was coming.
So, you know, sadly, delay is usually the reason, but it's par for the course. To me, as a defense lawyer, prosecutors love to turn things over at the last minute.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:22]
All right. Well, that case, like I said, is in the middle of jury selection now. Perhaps, by next week, they might have a jury. And we'll continue to keep an eye on it because it's a tragic case and a nightmare. But it's also fascinating from a legal perspective.
Let's turn now to Lauderdale County, Alabama, where death row inmate Casey White, who famously escaped captivity with the help of a corrections officer, will be held criminally liable for her death in his escape. Deputy Vicki White, no relation to Casey, told authorities she was picking the inmate up for a mental health evaluation before the pair fled authorities for nearly two weeks.
Vicki, who had been a respected officer of some 25 years even serving as the assistant director of corrections, allegedly maintained a "special relationship" with the death row inmate for years prior to his escape. The day of the disappearance was slated to be Vicki White's last day of work before her retirement, and she sold her house below market value to allegedly fund the getaway.
This is just an incredible story to me. The pair were ultimately apprehended in Evansville, Indiana, where Casey White crashed his vehicle in a police chase. And Vicki White died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. At the time of his escape, Casey White faced capital murder charges after allegedly confessing to the 2015 stabbing death of Connie Ridgeway.
After he was apprehended, Casey White was charged with murder for Vicki's death while in the commission of a felony. Casey's Defense has argued that he was not responsible for Vicki's death, with coroners ruling her passing a suicide. However, Casey White is set to face trial for felony murder during the escape and the first degree on April 17th of this year, in just a couple of weeks. While his trial for the previous capital murder charge is set for August of this year.
Okay. Pat, this may confuse some folks, so I want you to, if you can help us, explain for listeners and viewers how the felony murder rule works.
Patrick Carey:
[00:27:34]
Yeah, it's a fascinating concept. I remember being in law school and hearing about this and your eyebrows just rise up and say, how could that be possible? But to put it simply, because the law differs all over the country, all states have a different version of the rule.
But to put it simply, if during the commission of a felony, somebody is killed, even if you did not intend to kill that person, even if you were not even the person responsible causation wise for killing that person, you can be held liable for their death.
So kind of a silly example, but one to help highlight the rule is, let's say, Josh, you and I go and commit a bank robbery and we run into the bank, we steal the money, I hand you the money. We're not there to kill anyone. We just want to get money, okay? But we're there to commit a robbery. And on the way out, we're running full speed. And you slip and fall, and you hit your head on the ground and you die instantly. I can be charged under the felony murder theory, at least in Alabama, with your killing.
So this is a fascinating example because it takes that silly example and adds in another layer, so to speak, where the death was not related whatsoever to the crime. And the example I gave, it's at least it's while they're fleeing.
But here, there's a completely intervening circumstance. It's not like there was a car crash and the deputy died in the crash. The deputy took matters into their own hands and took their own life. So I find this one extremely fascinating in terms of whether or not this is going to lead to a conviction because jurors, while they're instructed on the law, are regular people. And this one is a stretch.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:32]
Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you. I want to get into that point about like the real-life application of this case in trial and how jurors might respond. But just to kind of flesh out what you said about the felony murder rule too. The traditional kind of example used is armed robbery of, say, a liquor store. Two people go in, they're carrying guns. You rob a liquor store. You, defendant, A had no intention of shooting anyone. Perhaps your gun is fake or unloaded. Your co-defendant shoots somebody and that was never part of the plan.
Well, the idea is, listen, you cannot participate in this kind of activity that is so inherently dangerous that it could lead to death and then be able to say, hey, I didn't intend to any of that. You're going to be found responsible. To take it a step further. What if the liquor store cashier has a gun and shoots back at you guys or shoots towards you guys not in response to anything, but just trying to defend himself and kills a bystander, you're going to be held responsible. All of that I can kind of wrap my head around.
The example you give about the accidental death stretching it, but I can still kind of follow, well, we're taking part in a very inherently dangerous activity. And it's to be expected people might die, especially when they're fleeing the scene of a crime.
But this one, and where I have the problem is there was an independent action taken by this person. And usually when you see a felony murder applied, it's for the crimes committed by your co-defendants. Right. What is the crime here? Suicide. And so that's the part that I'm having such a difficult time with.
I mean, do you think -- I look this up in California. I know you looked it up in Alabama. Does Alabama kind of give a broader definition for felony murder that might allow for something like this?
Patrick Carey:
[00:31:37]
Yeah. Yeah. So in California, as you alluded to, it's essentially a standard of whether something is reasonably foreseeable. If you go into a bank with guns, it's reasonably foreseeable that somebody could die. California adds that or used to add that layer prior to the change in the law.
But Alabama just kind of has a strict line. What they say is, look, there's certain felonies that are inherently dangerous to human life. If you commit one of those felonies, whether or not the circumstances are inherently dangerous to human life and somebody dies, the fact of that underlying crime alone is enough for felony murder. And the crimes are arson, right. Obviously, if somebody sets fire to a building and someone dies. Burglary, robbery, kidnapping, rape or escape.
And here, of course, they're relying on escape. When someone is escaping from a jail facility, they should expect that deadly force is going to be used to apprehend them. Clearly, the deputy was armed with a weapon at the time. They're driving away at a high rate of speed. But in the end, none of those circumstances matter. It's just simply did a death occur.
And as a defense lawyer, what I'd be arguing is that the crime was stopped. In any law, in any state, regarding felony murder, there's an issue of when is the crime completed. Because once the crime is completed, you know, it's not as if in perpetuity, if somebody dies that was related to this event that it's felony murder, it becomes an issue of how much time was there. And that's something that needs to be fleshed out from the defense.
Let's say the suspect is out of the car. He's already surrendered. He's in cuffs. And then some time goes by and then she commits an act of suicide. That could be potentially the kind of the thing that differentiates this case from just a standard felony murder.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:58]
Yeah. You know, you went that way with it. I was thinking another way when you're talking about time is that you said one of the underlying felonies is escape. Well, when is the crime of escape completed? And the prosecution's going to argue, no, they're still in the act of escaping, even though it's two weeks later.
Well, at that point, you might argue, no, they're not in the act of escaping. They did the escape. Now, they're in the act of evading arrest, which is not one of the underlying enumerated felonies, because you play this out to its logical end. What if they're two years later in Mexico when the police finally catch up with them and she decides to take her own life at that point, is that still in the course of an escape or at that point, are they just fugitives?
Really interesting stuff surrounding this whole case. It's a tragedy. And I don't want to make light of that, but it really does have some fascinating applications from a legal perspective. So we'll continue to keep an eye on that case as well. But Pat, in the meantime, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Patrick Carey:
[00:35:02]
Absolutely. Thanks for having me, Josh. I'm on Twitter at @PatCareyLaw. And once you go there, you can find me virtually anywhere on the Internet. My website is PatCareyLaw.com.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:12]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ. And please check out my website at JoshuaRitter.com. 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.
