Latest / NO FILTER / Firefighter accused of sexual assault_ Father claims slaying of children_s mother was self-defense(MP3_160K)

Transcript

Firefighter accused of sexual assault_ Father claims slaying of children_s mother was self-defense(MP3_160K) · NO FILTER

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Sidebar presented by True Crime News,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: I'm a criminal defense lawyer based on Los Angeles and
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: can find me on all social platforms at Joshua Ritter
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: EESQ or at Joshua ridd dot com. We're recording this
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: on Wednesday, October twenty second, twenty twenty five. In this
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: week's episode, a Florida woman facing trial and the fatal
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: shooting of rapper Juliofulio, plus a father claiming self defense
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: after allegedly slaying the mother of his children. But first,
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: the retrial of an Irish firefighter accused of assaulting a
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: woman in a Boston hotel room. I'm flying solo today,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: so let's go ahead and just jump right in. First
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: out of Boston. In Massachusetts, a man accused of sexual
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: assault took the stand in his own defense this week,
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: claiming he never made physical contact with the alleged victim.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Dublin firefighter Terence Crosby is facing trial for the second
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: time after jurors failed to reach an unanimous verdict in June.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: At the time of the incident, Crosby was visiting Boston
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: to take part in the city Saint Patrick's Day parade
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: and rooming in a hotel with fellow firefighter Liam O'Brien.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: The victim alleges that she had a consensual sexual encounter
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: with O'Brien before the pair fell asleep, and she later
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: awoke to Crosby forcibly penetrating her. Police questioned Crosby following
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: the victim's allegation, and following the questioning, Crosby changed his
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: return flight from Ireland to leave immediately. The defendant was
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: eventually arrested on the flight and charged. Crosby testified that
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: he had been drinking heavily the entire day of the incident,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: as had all parties involved, but denied ever making physical
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: contact with his accuser. DNA evidence taken from the victim
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: confirmed she had been with two different sexual partners the
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: evening of the incident, but the forensic evidence could not
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: be matched to Crosby or O'Brien. Closing arguments are set
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: for the day we're recording this and Crosby's fate will
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: be in the hands of a jury by the time
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: you're listening. A lot to get into on this case.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: First of all, is this one of those cases where
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: the defendant may have needed to take the stand? One
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: of those rare instances where a contrary to popular belief
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: and what defense attorneys would normally counsel, is this one
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: of those cases where a defendant might need to take
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: the stand. I think it might be because it's one
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: of those cases where it really comes down to a
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: he said, she said, most literally, and if he's not
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: actually speaking for himself, jurors might make the, even though
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: it's wrong, conclusion that therefore he's got something to hive.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: I don't care how many times you tell jurors that
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: a defendant doesn't have it, has the right not to
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: testify and can sit on their hands, doesn't have to testify,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: doesn't have to present evidence. If in a case like this,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: he does not take the stand, that might be a problem.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: And it's one of those cases too, where he's not
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: claiming self defense. He's not claiming I did something, but
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: not what I'm accused of. He's saying this never happened,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: and that might be the easiest position to defend. There's
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: not a lot of detail and simply saying this never happened.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: What I'm accused of, I did not do, and so
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: therefore it might not be the type of case where
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: you're worried all that much about cross examination. I think
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: it was a case where he needed to testify and
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: it just might be the difference maker in this case.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: Then there's the issue with all of the parties being
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: heavily intoxicated, even according to their own admission. How does
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: that complicate things? Well, first of all, as far as
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: consent goes, it should not change the idea of consent.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: If you cannot give consent because you either don't want
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: to do something, which she's clearly claiming here, or even
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: you're too intoxicated to give consent, that should be the
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: end of the story. But it really isn't when it
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: comes to jurors. But did prosecutors do enough this time
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: around to gain a conviction. Well, I'll say this, they
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: put on a strong case. They presented the evidence that
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: they had. The unfortunate part for prosecutors is the evidence
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: that they had. They can't change that, and part of
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: that evidence is the DNA evidence. In this case that
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: came back to two unknown males, that there's an argument
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: to be made that she had sexual encounters with two
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: unknown males close in time to when she says she
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: was sexually assaulted. Now does that corroborate her story that
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: she had a consensual encounter with one roommate but then
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: had a non consensual encounter with Crosby. Sure it does.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: But the problem is is they cannot identify with the
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: DNA who it belongs to to and if it's even
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: either of the men. And there's where arguments and reasonable
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: doubt can start to creep in. If a defense attorney
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: can say, listen, they've got the evidence, the evidence doesn't
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: point to our client. That can be a problem. That
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: can be an argument, That can be something that can
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: have a jury questioning themselves. It would be one thing
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: if it came back to the defendant. Then you've got
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: a solid case for the prosecution. And then you've got
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: the defense just arguing, well, yes it took place, but
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: it was all done consensually. Here he's able to say
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: I never even touched that woman. I never even touched
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: that woman, And they don't even have the evidence to
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: say that I did, and I think that might be
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: the difference maker for the defense. It might be why
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: we might be looking at another hung jury in this case.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: That's my prediction. By the time this comes out, I'll
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: probably be proven wrong, but that is at least where
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: I feel the evidence is going in this case. It's
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: just a difficult case based upon the evidence itself.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: One of the things I've realized is that home security
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: isn't just about protecting things. It is about protecting people.
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: For me, it's my family, pets, even my car that
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: I want to feel safe. That's why I'm so excited
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: to partner with simply Safe. I love how customizable simply
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: safe is. I've got cameras and entry sensors on the
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: doors and windows, but there's also water sensors and smoke
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: and CO two detectors in the kitchen, and with the app,
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: I can arm or disarm the system, check camera feeds,
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: and manage every feature from anywhere. Seriously, full control right
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: from my phone, and the best part, no long term contracts.
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: Monitoring plans started about a dollar a day and it's
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: easy to install. There's also a professional installation option if
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: you prefer that. Plus, simply Safe has been recognized by
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: USA News, Newsweek and USA Today for top customer service
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: and being the best home security system. I also added
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: Active Guard outdoor protection. Unlike old school alarms that only
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: go off after a break in, Active Guard can stop
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: crime before it happens. AI powered cameras alert monitoring agents
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: to suspicious activity, trigger alarms, spotlights, and even request police
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: dispatch if needed, all while ignoring familiar faces like neighbors
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: or your dog walker. And because I want you to
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: have the same peace of mind, I do save fifty
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: percent on your simply Safe security system when you sign
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: up for a professional monitoring plan and get your first
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: month free. Visit simplysafe dot com slash true crime to
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: customize yours. There's no safe like simply Safe.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: But let's leave it there for me now and move
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to Manchester, New hand Sure, where a father is claiming
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: he acted in self defense while facing charges for an
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: allegedly murdering the mother of his children. Marine Vett Dustin
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: Duran has been charged with second degree murder, reckless conduct
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: with the deadly weapon, and a child engagement in the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: death of Caitlin Nafsinger. Police issued a Amber alert for
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: the couple's two children after Nafsinger was found shot to
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: death and later located Duran with the two girls unharmed. Allegedly,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: authorities were tipped to Nofsinger's death by Duran's parents after
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: the man made a troubling confession about Nafsinger's murder, saying
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: he was quote going dark. Now, Duran's defense is claiming
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: that the man shot naf Singer as the mother was
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: trying to kidnap the couple's children. Allegedly, Napsinger had threatened
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: to take the children in the middle of the night,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: and Duran, who suffered from PTSD, saw his daughter being
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: held hostage and thought who is in danger? A jury
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: interprets all of this remains to be seen, but we
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: will continue to follow this one closely. This is an
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: interesting case when it comes to the question of self defense.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: We talked about self defense many many times before, and
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: self defense always comes down to the issue of reasonableness.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: Was it reasonable for the defendant to perceive a threat.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Was it reasonable for the defendant to interpret that threat
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: threat to be life threatened to either himself or to
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: someone else. Was it reasonable for him to respond with
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: the use of deadly force to that threat again, that
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: concept of reasonableness comes back again and again and again.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: This case adds an interesting element to it because jurors are,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: in the case of self defense cases, supposed to some extent,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: place themselves in the minds of the defendant. Would the
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: defendant perceive the threat to be a threat to life
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: under the circumstances placed in the position of the defendant. Well,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: part of placing yourself in the position of the defendant
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: in this case has to do with his mental state,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: the idea that he was suffering from PTSD, and the
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: idea that he may have perceived this actions on the
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: part of the mother differently than others might have. Because
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: if we take out the PTSD, if we take out
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: his mental state has perhaps heightened sensitivity to that situation,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: then I think there's very little argument here for self
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: defense because where is the argument that she was placing
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: the children's lives in danger. You could say that he
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: was upset, You could say that he was felt that
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: they were going to be taken from him, that he
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: wanted to do something about that, that the children were
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: going to be you know, quote unquote kidnapped by the mother,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: That it was a tense situation, But where's the threat
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: to anyone's life? There's where the problem lies. He can
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: say that he wanted to do something to stop it,
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: but using deadly force to stop it is where we
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: lose the idea of reasonableness, where his actions become unreasonable
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: and therefore self defense wouldn't apply. But now, when you
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: go back and add in that element of the PTSD
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: of his exceptionally heightened sensitivity to this situation, is there
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: an argument to be made that perhaps he did perceive
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: that differently and therefore it was reasonable to him under
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: the circumstances. I still think you run into a problem
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: as far as his response, though. Was it reasonable, even
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: given what he felt was going on, for him to
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: respond in the way that he did. Perhaps it might
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: be one of those situations where we're talking about imperfect
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: self defense, where there was an honest yet unreach reasonable
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: perception of the threat and an honest yet unreasonable response
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: to the threat is where we might end up here.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: But that could be a difference maker. It could be
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case. We'll
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: see how this all turns out, but it is interesting
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: to see how the particularities of a defendant can affect
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: a self defense case. Again, that trial is ongoing and
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: we will continue to keep our eyes on it for you.
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: When you think about it, there isn't just one money goal.
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: You know. I've been saving for retirement, thank goodness. My
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: son's already done with college, but there's always something that
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: I'm saving for well. Today's podcast is sponsored by Acorns.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: Acorns is the financial wellness app that helps you invest
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: for your future, safe for tomorrow, and spend smarter today.
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: It makes it easy to start doing more with your money,
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: even rounding up your spare change to invest automatically. Acorns
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: puts everything in to an expert built portfolio, so you're
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: investing wisely, not wildly. I know investing can be confusing
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: at times. There's no one way to do it and
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: there's no rule book that you must follow. That's one
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: of the reasons I like Acorns. It makes investing simple.
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: Sign up now in Acorns will boost your new account
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: with a five dollars bonus investment. Join the over fourteen
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: million all time customers who have already saved and invested
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: over twenty five billion dollars with Acorns. Head to acorns
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: dot com slash TCN or download the Acorns app to
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: positively promote Acorns Tier two compensation provided investing involves risk.
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: Acorns Advisors, LLC is an SEC registered investment advisor. View
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: important disclosures at acorns dot com, slash TCN.
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: It's finally moved to Tampa, Florida, where a woman in
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: a rapper's murder is facing trial for her alleged part
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: in the killing. Alicia Andrews is the first suspect to
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: face a jury in the murder of rapper Julio Fulio,
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: who is gunned down at a Holiday Inn parking lot
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: as part of an alleged gang war. Andrews is one
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: of five suspects in the case, though prosecutors note she
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: does not affiliate with any gang. They say that her
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: boyfriend and his associates were all connected to the feuding factions.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: Andrews allegedly drove from Jacksonville to Tampa with her boyfriend
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: and associates, where they tracked down the victim and eventually
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: shot him. Prosecutors say that Andrews acted as a quote
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: unquote spotter, providing real time updates as the victims whereabouts
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: before he was gunned down out of trial. Andrew's defense
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: wanted to introduce evidence of domestic violence, claiming she was
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: coerced into her role. However, a judge ruled she was
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: ineligible ineligible to use duress as a def defense after
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: opening statements. It appears that Andrews defense is going to
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: contend that the woman was not a willing participant, simply
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: a woman trying to reconnect with their boyfriend who ended
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: up in the wrong place at the wrong time. This
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: case is ongoing and we will continue to keep you
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: updated as it progresses. This case presents a really interesting
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: concept that we don't get all that much opportunity to
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: talk about here, and it's a i think an underutilized
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: area of criminal defense, and that is the concept of
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: duress as a defense. Duress has to do with the
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: idea that a person acted without reasonable alternatives. In other words,
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: they were compelled to do something because they had no
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: according to them, no reasonable alternative, but to do that
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: thing that they didn't otherwise want to do. It goes
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: to that idea of wilfulness. Many crimes, especially general intent crimes,
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: talked about the idea that the defendant acted wilfully, or
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: we're talking about a specific intent case, we're talking about
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: that the defendant did something with a named type of intent.
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: When you're talking about premeditated murder, you're saying that the
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: person committed an act with the intent to murder. It's
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: that specific intent, the specific intent to murder someone. An
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: arson case, they lay lit a fire with the specific
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: intent of burning that building down. General intent crimes just
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: require that the person acted wilfully. You might see this
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: in a battery case where a person you can say
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: that a person touched another person wilfully without that person's consent. Well,
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: wilfully just means that you did it of your own volition,
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: not with any kind of specific intent, not with the
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: intend to hurt that person, not with the intent to
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: offend or harm that person, but just you did that
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: act wilfully. Dress goes towards that concept wilfully. What does
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: it mean to be doing something wilfully if you're doing
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: it against your own will? In other words, are you
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: being compelled to do it, forced to do it by
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: someone else because you don't feel that there's a reasonable
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: alternative to refuse to do that? Thing. Now. The judge
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: didn't allow for that argument in this case, which I
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: found to be interesting because if there is evidence of
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: domestic violence taking place between the defendant and her boyfriend,
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: who was, according to the prosecution, a gang member, a
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: person involved in this coordinated murder, and she felt that
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: she didn't have a reasonable alternative to refuse him based
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: on that prior domestic violence, it seemed to me it
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: would be an absolute opportunity for her to say I
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: was under dress. Now, maybe what's happening here is that
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: the judge took a look at the actual facts and
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: circumstances of the case and realize that that argument would
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: be a stretch. Just because an argument can be made
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean an argument should be allowed. And I think
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: that's what may have happened here is the judge took
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: a look at that circumstances, took a look at her cooperation,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: took a look at how she took steps beyond even
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: what she was being asked to do to help coordinate
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: this murder, and said, no, dice duress doesn't apply here.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: It's interesting. It could be a game changer in this
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: case because if she had been allowed to make that argument,
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: she may have had a reasonable opportunity to raise some
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt with some of these jurors, But it is
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: a conspiracy case, and it always gives us an opportunity
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: to talk about what that involves. Conspiracy, at its most
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: simple terms, is the idea that you have more than
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: one person coming to some sort of agreement and that
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: someone takes a step in furtherance of that. And if
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: you've got group of a dozen people and they all
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: in some way have an agreement, not even at the
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: same time, not even in the same group, but they
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: were all operating under a similar understanding, and one of
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: those people is taking some sort of steps in furtherance
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: of that conspiracy. It is such a powerful concept because
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: it allows the prosecution to bring in the entire dozen
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: of people as long as they can prove that they
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: understood what was happening, they were part of that agreement,
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: and that someone took a step in furtherance of it.
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: In other words, you could have people who did nothing
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: themselves who are still wrapped up as part of a conspiracy. Now,
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: in this case, their prosecution is going to point towards
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: the idea that she was acting as a spotter. So
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: even though she's not the one who pulled the trigger,
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: even though she may not have been the getaway driver,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: even though she may not have been part of the gang,
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: even though she may not have been the one to
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: lure him there at as the spotter was enough with
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: the understanding that she knew what was going to take place.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: She was part of that conspiracy, and therefore she's as
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: guilty as anybody else is for the murder that took place.
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: In that case, we will see how this all turns out.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: It's an interesting case for many a number of different
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: reasons and different legal concepts that we've talked about today,
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: and we will continue to keep you updated on it.
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: But that is our quick show for this week. We'd
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: like to think give a special thing to our listeners
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: and viewers for tuning in. I, as always am your host,
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: at Joshua Ritter EESQ, and if you want to hear
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases,
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: you can also check out my new YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential,
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: and you can of course find all of our sideby
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: our episodes wherever you get your podcasts, and we would
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: love to hear from you. If you've got questions or
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: comments you'd like us to address, please tweet us your
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: questions with the hashtag TCN Sidebar, and thank you for
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: joining us at the True Crime News Sidebar.