Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace breaking news bombshell State versus
Speaker 1: D four v D aka David Anthony Burke as it
Speaker 1: relates to the death of a little teen girl, Celeste Rivas,
Speaker 1: found in the trunk of D four VD David Anthony
Speaker 1: Burke's tesla. What's taking so long? But now we have
Speaker 1: seen a court document that says State versus David Anthony Burke.
Speaker 1: You know about that secret grand jury proceeding that was
Speaker 1: just an investigative tool looking into the death of Celestia Revas. No,
Speaker 1: David Anthony Burke is named as the official defendant. Good evening,
Speaker 1: I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us, joining us an all
Speaker 1: star panel to make sense of what we are learning
Speaker 1: right now. But I've got it in front of me.
Speaker 1: Dave Mac explain what we found.
Speaker 2: Well, when you look at this at the documentation from
Speaker 2: the State of California, Nancy, it it flat out says
Speaker 2: something that we've long thought was the case. But it
Speaker 2: actually the bombshell the people of the State of California
Speaker 2: versus David Anthony Burke. See, we thought, you know, it
Speaker 2: was just an investigation, because that's what they said an
Speaker 2: investigation into the death of Celestrevas Sernandez. However, this document
Speaker 2: proves beyond the shadow of a doubt legal paperwork that
Speaker 2: says the State of California versus David Anthony Burke.
Speaker 1: Now, what's interesting in this particular court document and what
Speaker 1: it is is an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: They're in Texas. The reason it's in Texas is because
Speaker 1: his family, Burke's family is a Texas and they are
Speaker 1: appealing a subpoena to come to the grand jury. Now,
Speaker 1: the title of that document is in the Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals for the First District of Texas in Ray Dowod Burke. Okay,
Speaker 1: what does that mean in the matter of Dowd Burke.
Speaker 1: But in a footnote, in a footnote in this document
Speaker 1: you see the people of the State of California versus
Speaker 1: David Burke. Okay, I'm going to get back to everything
Speaker 1: else we are learning, but I'm going to go straight
Speaker 1: out to a veteran trial lawyer, Joanna Nievis is joining
Speaker 1: us from California criminal defense attorney and founder of the
Speaker 1: Nievis Law Firm. Joanna, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1: So this is what's happening to my understanding, and you
Speaker 1: jump in. Joanna, the family of d four med David
Speaker 1: Anthony Burke pronounced as David, has been subpoenaed, the whole
Speaker 1: family to testify in a grand jury proceeding regarding the
Speaker 1: death of Celesta Rivas, the little girl found in Burke's trunk.
Speaker 1: Let's see that tesla. It was part in spot to
Speaker 1: spot to spot on Pass Street there in California until
Speaker 1: it was finally toad at the behest of one of
Speaker 1: the homeowners days sitting at the toe lot and it
Speaker 1: started a stench. Why because Celesto Rivas was decomposing in
Speaker 1: the trunk. We were told there is an investigative grand
Speaker 1: jury the US. I believe you will agree with me
Speaker 1: that grand juries have two tools, one a charging tool
Speaker 1: to indict people and one an investigation tool. For instance,
Speaker 1: in the John Binney Ramsey case. In the Ramsey case,
Speaker 1: the grand jury met and they met, and they met,
Speaker 1: and they met investigating John Benet's death. They ultimately did
Speaker 1: issue an indictment, but that case was prosecuted. So a
Speaker 1: grand jury can meet to investigate. They have subpoena power.
Speaker 1: They can bring in witnesses or they can charge. We
Speaker 1: were told this was an investigation into Celeste's death. Now
Speaker 1: we have an official court document filed by the parents
Speaker 1: contesting them having to come from Texas to California to
Speaker 1: textify in state the David Anthony Burke, So a case
Speaker 1: against him, a case investigating him does exist, explain what's happening, Joanna.
Speaker 3: Right, Nancy, So, I do believe that it does outline
Speaker 3: what the target of this investigation is. It's not just
Speaker 3: trying to uncover who it may be and get more information. Obviously,
Speaker 3: they're trying to focus their energies on identifying and criminating
Speaker 3: information against this particular person that's named in the footnote
Speaker 3: they're in the charging document. Assuming that that was cited properly,
Speaker 3: I would guess that they took that from the grand
Speaker 3: juries of pena that was perceived. The filing itself, I
Speaker 3: think is kind of more procedural. Right, they're in Texas,
Speaker 3: this is happening in California, and it's their attempt to say,
Speaker 3: you know what, I don't really feel like California can
Speaker 3: drag me over there based on this subpoena, and I
Speaker 3: want a court to say that, yes, absolutely, you have
Speaker 3: to you have the authority to make me come and testify.
Speaker 3: So I think it's kind of like one of those
Speaker 3: procedural things where you're contesting the validity of a confidential informant,
Speaker 3: or you're contesting the validity of a warrant or the
Speaker 3: validity of a search. They're really just saying, hey, just
Speaker 3: make sure that you really do have the arms reached
Speaker 3: to make me come from Texas to California.
Speaker 1: Here specifically what they are arguing it is de Woodburg,
Speaker 1: the father Dave four Fidi's mother Colleen, and his brother Caleb,
Speaker 1: all summoned to testify at a California grand jury. Now
Speaker 1: they are contesting that, claiming they're right have been violated.
Speaker 1: Why do they claim their rights were violated? They claim
Speaker 1: that they were given redacted versions of affidavits that were
Speaker 1: used in the court order summoning them to be witnesses. Okay, really, Celeste,
Speaker 1: a little girl, a teen girl decomposing, and their sons Tesla,
Speaker 1: and they're claiming their rights were violated silent tear because
Speaker 1: the affidavits supporting that warrant, that subpoena for them had
Speaker 1: a name redacted. That's the leg they're standing on.
Speaker 3: Good luck, I think we see this pretty often though, like, hey, you,
Speaker 3: there are rules that you have to follow, there is
Speaker 3: information that we need, give me proper notice. That's the
Speaker 3: basis of so many arguments when I even when I
Speaker 3: just mentioned like a confidential informant, I'm that kind of
Speaker 3: objection to the information is based on not being able
Speaker 3: to see what was in the affidavit that was drafted
Speaker 3: by the police officer, or even when contesting a search worm.
Speaker 3: We see this pretty often, so I don't think that
Speaker 3: they are making absurd arguments. I do think they're just
Speaker 3: trying to protect their interests and of course the interests
Speaker 3: of their son at this point, because he's still innocent
Speaker 3: until proven guilty.
Speaker 1: I was waiting for you to say that. But this
Speaker 1: is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is
Speaker 1: telling a witness you must come to the grand jury.
Speaker 1: And yes, notice must be proper. In other words, they
Speaker 1: have to be served with subpoena properly. There has to
Speaker 1: be a date, a location, the name of the matter
Speaker 1: to which they will testify. But the fact that names
Speaker 1: have been redacted in the affidavit. They don't even have
Speaker 1: to see an affidavit, all right, but they do have
Speaker 1: an affidavit to support the subpoena. The fact that they
Speaker 1: got noticed correctly, there is the name of the matter
Speaker 1: to which they will end up testifying to. That's what
Speaker 1: they need. It was registered, it was certified. Bam. They
Speaker 1: don't need to know the state's case, and they don't
Speaker 1: need to know sensitive information such as names that are
Speaker 1: in the affidavit that is not required under the law. Yes,
Speaker 1: you're right, they have to have noticed. Yes, you're right.
Speaker 1: They have to know what the matter is on which
Speaker 1: they will testify. But that's it. So they don't have
Speaker 1: a leg to stand on. But I'm very curious. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about privilege such as attorney client privilege. I'm sure
Speaker 1: that your clients speak very openly with you. They may
Speaker 1: even confess they may prejudice themselves in front of you,
Speaker 1: because you're their trusted lawyer, and your duty is or
Speaker 1: you will be disbarred if you violate the attorney client privilege.
Speaker 1: Right the rest of your life, you may not speak
Speaker 1: of it. That's the duty of a lawyer. I have
Speaker 1: the same duty. So you've got the attorney client privilege,
Speaker 1: You've got priests, parishioner privilege such as what you tell
Speaker 1: to your preacher, your priest, your religious counselor your rabbi.
Speaker 1: That cannot be forced in court. The rabbi, the priest
Speaker 1: cannot be forced to divulge what the defendant said. You've
Speaker 1: got husband wife privilege. There are several privileges, but he's
Speaker 1: my daddy. Ain't one of them. Neevice, no, for sure.
Speaker 3: But you know, I do think there's a word that
Speaker 3: David's dad does have some type of affiliation with the church,
Speaker 3: and I do wonder whether or not he may take
Speaker 3: some stand that his son to just say him from
Speaker 3: that perspective, I.
Speaker 1: Thought you were going to hit me with the fact
Speaker 1: that his father's a lawyer, so he could try to
Speaker 1: use turning client privilege.
Speaker 3: His dad is a lawyer.
Speaker 1: But you're going he has an affiliation with the church.
Speaker 1: What affiliation would that be? He drives by it on
Speaker 1: Sunday mornings, you know.
Speaker 3: And here all of this is all reported, right, it's
Speaker 3: reported that he's some type of reverend with the church.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know what, There's a reason you win so
Speaker 1: many cases. See, she's smart, she's articulate, and she says
Speaker 1: things like that, and you almost believe it. He has
Speaker 1: some affiliation with a church. You just said that. Okay,
Speaker 1: So you're going from the angle that it is a
Speaker 1: pre parishioner privilege. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: It's an angle. I don't know that they're really actually
Speaker 3: going to to go with it, but maybe some of
Speaker 3: the conversations that have happened, if there really is this
Speaker 3: sort of affiliate, could fall under those protections. No, he
Speaker 3: doesn't have a father son privilege, and maybe he has
Speaker 3: consulted his father in an attorney client way, but we
Speaker 3: do know.
Speaker 1: That he is. I shouldn't have given you that idea.
Speaker 1: I gave her a bound. She's running with it. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: you know what, You're not half wrong, Joanna, as much
Speaker 1: grief as I'm giving you. Remember when Rosie Greer, the
Speaker 1: football player, went and counseled O. J. Simpson behind bars,
Speaker 1: and according to the sheriff, Sipson confessed that was kept
Speaker 1: away from the jury under the same theory you're using
Speaker 1: right now. Greer was some kind of a counselor or pastor,
Speaker 1: some affiliation with the church, and it worked. The jury
Speaker 1: never heard that OJ Sipson confession. So you know what,
Speaker 1: maybe he hasn't led to stand on with the dad.
Speaker 1: But what about the mom, Colleen and the brother. Okay,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to hear this. Did they drive by
Speaker 1: the church on Sunday morning too? Well?
Speaker 3: You know, here's thing with that. We really don't know
Speaker 3: how much they know. They're living in another state. David
Speaker 3: is living in California. I mean, what do they know
Speaker 3: that he's hanging out with Celeste? Do they really have
Speaker 3: any details about whether or not there was a relationship.
Speaker 3: I'm still waiting to hear proof or some sort of
Speaker 3: evidence that he was in a relationship that was inappropriate
Speaker 3: besides contributing to the delinquency of a minor and you know,
Speaker 3: maybe doing drugs and drinking alcohol, which we can kind
Speaker 3: of gather from these photos. So there may have been
Speaker 3: an inappropriate relation to the extent that he was doing
Speaker 3: things that he should not have been doing, like engaging
Speaker 3: in abuses of substances, giving her alcohol in But whether
Speaker 3: or not there was a sexual relationship, we don't know that.
Speaker 3: I've heard no reportings besides suspicions that there's any proof regarding.
Speaker 1: That crime stories with anti Great Steve Fisher joining me
Speaker 1: right now, the Man of the Hour. He is a
Speaker 1: missing person's private investigator, search and rescue specialist, and he
Speaker 1: was hired by the owner of the mansion where D
Speaker 1: four VD was living to basically find out what the
Speaker 1: hay happened. Could you refresh Joanna Nievis's recollection regarding the
Speaker 1: relationship that you have cobbled together through photos. I know
Speaker 1: you were not in the room when any alleged sex
Speaker 1: activity occurred, which would be statutory rape because she's a child,
Speaker 1: But you've seen a lot of photos. You even recovered
Speaker 1: a photo stick that the lapd left behind in their wisdom.
Speaker 1: Tell me what relationship based on the photos that you
Speaker 1: have seen and what you have learned, what was the
Speaker 1: relationship between D four VD and this little girl, Celeste Rivas.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm certain that one thing that's become very apparent
Speaker 4: is he was aware when cameras around and and he
Speaker 4: made her aware of not to be in front of
Speaker 4: the camera. It's very very apparent because you know, she's
Speaker 4: captured in so few, you know, photos, although we know
Speaker 4: we have other evidence the link are there, and but
Speaker 4: is there direct evidence? I mean, I think it's this
Speaker 4: is one thing that's worried me about this case is
Speaker 4: that because it's the very highest level the of the
Speaker 4: the DA's office. These are the d's that prosecute you know,
Speaker 4: homicides and stuff. Will they if they can't meet that threshold,
Speaker 4: will they go after the sex crimes?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I don't know if they will, and that that worries
Speaker 4: me when he I can.
Speaker 1: Tell you right now they won't. Yeah, I can tell
Speaker 1: you right now well that sex assault will likely not
Speaker 1: be part of the claims against deforvid aka David Anthony Burke.
Speaker 1: And this is why Celeste is dead. Anthony will David
Speaker 1: Anthony Burke will likely never take the stand and without
Speaker 1: any DNA from her body or her eyewitness testimony as
Speaker 1: a victim, it won't be a You can't prove it.
Speaker 1: If there is a witness that walked in on them
Speaker 1: in any sex act, maybe they've got a leg to
Speaker 1: stand on, okay, And there were so many people in
Speaker 1: and out of that house, as you know, that may
Speaker 1: very well have happened if anyone ever saw him kiss
Speaker 1: her on the mouth. If there are any texts that
Speaker 1: surface romantic or sexual text between them, we may be
Speaker 1: able to get a charge on in decent expres elude A.
Speaker 1: But the state doesn't want to include account that is
Speaker 1: weak because it will then dilute a murder charge or
Speaker 1: a homicide charge if it's not murder one. I would
Speaker 1: not put that in my indictment. If I were indicting
Speaker 1: this case, I might believe it, I might know it
Speaker 1: to be true. But unless I have a witness, gethan
Speaker 1: tell they can tell me they observe D four VD
Speaker 1: having full on sex with celestial revice, I would not
Speaker 1: put that in the indictment. If I've got someone or
Speaker 1: text proving something else, kissing, fondling, sexual text, anything like that,
Speaker 1: I would go with delinquency to a minor or child
Speaker 1: molestation or leute acts. I wouldn't do anything that would
Speaker 1: dilute the most important charge, and that would be homicide.
Speaker 1: In fact, I believe I would have one count of
Speaker 1: homicide if I were prosecuting this case. Maybe account of
Speaker 1: mutilation to a corpse, which means hiding the corps, bearing
Speaker 1: the corpse, tampering with the corpse, because those are going
Speaker 1: to be provable according to reports. Now, Steve Fisher, we've
Speaker 1: got this document proving in a footnote you have to
Speaker 1: read it very carefully that there is a grand jury
Speaker 1: investigation state the David Anthony Burke. What you're seeing right
Speaker 1: there is from the family contesting their subpoenas. We can
Speaker 1: only imagine what he may have told them, what they
Speaker 1: know about this case, But they're going to have to testify.
Speaker 1: Just because you move to a different state or you
Speaker 1: are in a different state does not mean you don't
Speaker 1: have to testify in front of grand jury. Now, Steve Fisher,
Speaker 1: bring me up to date with your latest findings.
Speaker 4: We had the news of the car being say from
Speaker 4: going to auction at the very last minute. We were
Speaker 4: hoping to take a look at that and that didn't happen.
Speaker 4: These photos are showing now. We we released these photos,
Speaker 4: uh to kind of show there's a couple of reasons
Speaker 4: for this. I wanted to show some of the people
Speaker 4: that were around a lot and they appear in this photo.
Speaker 4: We believe Celeste is also just off frame here. And
Speaker 4: and also you know we talked about the phone right
Speaker 4: there that's shows that it's on connected to the Wi
Speaker 4: Fi system of the house. And we did this because
Speaker 4: we wanted to let everybody we've heard I've heard recently
Speaker 4: that there's a few people that still are not co
Speaker 4: operating and or aren't being fully truthful, and I think
Speaker 4: it's important that people realize that there are things like
Speaker 4: the Wi Fi router at the house that it's gonna
Speaker 4: log exactly when they were connected to that that router,
Speaker 4: and you know what days and what times and and
Speaker 4: things like that. So we just thought it might be
Speaker 4: important for those people to think about and maybe it's
Speaker 4: time to be fully truthful about you know, who was,
Speaker 4: who was there, and who was I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, hold on, you cut out on it. You're saying
Speaker 1: that the LAPD can mine the Wi Fi connections in
Speaker 1: the home from the time they believe Celeste began living
Speaker 1: there until her death, and they can determine who was
Speaker 1: in the home and get those cell numbers, connect those
Speaker 1: cell numbers to owners, and then get witnesses. Is that
Speaker 1: what you just said if if.
Speaker 4: They did the forensics on the router. Look, you know,
Speaker 4: we don't have that type of relationship with the LAPD
Speaker 4: where they're telling us exactly what they've done. These are
Speaker 4: things that we're throwing out there hoping that they are
Speaker 4: being done because we think they're very important, especially if there's.
Speaker 1: A lot See Fisher, You're absolutely right, but I want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about a neo aka Neo the
Speaker 1: Asian aka hiding under mommy's bed and another jurisdiction refusing
Speaker 1: to the grand jury. Guess what, he was arrested and
Speaker 1: brought to the grand jury. So if d Forbidy's family
Speaker 1: doesn't want the same treatment, they better hop on over
Speaker 1: to that California grand jury and start talking. Tell me
Speaker 1: what you know about Neo the Asian. His words, not mine,
Speaker 1: brought into the grand jury? Did he go to grand jury?
Speaker 1: Steve Fisher showed up at that building.
Speaker 4: They showed the prosecutor arriving at that building. He was
Speaker 4: only in there. They say thirty to forty minutes. The
Speaker 4: only thing that I confer from that, and I don't
Speaker 4: have any inside information on this, but I have to
Speaker 4: believe that he bleeded the fifth because there's not I
Speaker 4: can't believe there's a thirty or forty minute by the
Speaker 4: time you would arrive, get sworn in and all that.
Speaker 4: You know, He's got a lot more information than thirty
Speaker 4: or forty eight minutes worth, I would hope. So I
Speaker 4: think he pleaded the fifth, which is obviously is right
Speaker 4: to do so. But as a non lawyer, I can
Speaker 4: look at that and say, well, that said something to me,
Speaker 4: you know.
Speaker 1: And well, you're right, Steve Fisher, that timing cannot be denied.
Speaker 1: D four vd's friend D four vd's seemingly best friend,
Speaker 1: Neo Langston, did appear from of an LA grand jury
Speaker 1: and the investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas. He
Speaker 1: was arrested for failure to appear. He was dragged back.
Speaker 1: He did go into the grand jury. The twenty three
Speaker 1: year old was at the courthouse this past Wednesday, a
Speaker 1: grand jury, as you know, convened since November investigating this.
Speaker 1: But he didn't stay long, about forty minutes and then
Speaker 1: left the courthouse, refusing to answer questions as he left. Now,
Speaker 1: we tried to get a comment from the Deputy District
Speaker 1: Attorney Silverman, who was presenting case to the grand jury.
Speaker 1: No good, wouldn't taught agree. Don't blame her, but I
Speaker 1: do believe that Steve Fisher is correct. Straight back out
Speaker 1: to our friend Joanna and neevis veteran trial lawyer in
Speaker 1: this jurisdiction. You know what, fine, if you don't want
Speaker 1: to testify, you can be put on as a co
Speaker 1: defendant on that indictment, real simple, or you can be
Speaker 1: an unnamed co conspirator or I'm very surprised the state
Speaker 1: didn't do this, Joanna. Give him immunity and make him testify,
Speaker 1: because the reason you take the Fifth Amendment right to
Speaker 1: rein silent is because it could hurt you at your
Speaker 1: upcoming trial. But if the state says, okay, you have immunity,
Speaker 1: like you know you're immune from the flu or you
Speaker 1: get the COVID VATSA, you're immune, you think same thing.
Speaker 1: You are not going to try you. And if we're
Speaker 1: not going to try you, then you don't get to
Speaker 1: take the fifth I'm very surprised. What do you think, Joanna?
Speaker 3: I agree with you, Nancy. I mean, as a lawyer,
Speaker 3: I would have been talking to my client beforehand, talking
Speaker 3: to the district attorney and negotiating some type of immunity
Speaker 3: deals so to protect this interest. And so that also
Speaker 3: leaves that opening of like, okay, if he really went
Speaker 3: in there and led the fifth or why didn't that
Speaker 3: occur ahead of time? But maybe they just had some
Speaker 3: very straightforward cross examination questions, except some very or i'm sorry,
Speaker 3: investigative questions where they're getting their yes and no answers.
Speaker 3: And this is all I wanted from that witness and
Speaker 3: leaving the door open to pursue something later on if
Speaker 3: they need to. I just I do find it confounding
Speaker 3: that they would not have negotiated something prior to him
Speaker 3: going in there.
Speaker 1: How about this, Joeanna. Maybe they put him up and
Speaker 1: try to get him to testify without an immunity deal
Speaker 1: in place, and then when he would and then they
Speaker 1: had to go meet converse decide whether or not to
Speaker 1: Granham immunity or to charge him, because put Steve Fisher up. Please,
Speaker 1: Steve Fisher, you went before LAPD did You thought of
Speaker 1: it before they did, and you executed it before they did.
Speaker 1: You went to all the neighbors and you got their
Speaker 1: ring cam, their doorbell cam. And we see how important
Speaker 1: that is in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance, right, how valuable
Speaker 1: that is. And you got video of someone moving Defour
Speaker 1: VID's tesla around, we believe with Celeste body in the trunk.
Speaker 1: And you're telling me tonight that it was or was
Speaker 1: not Neo Langston.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm not saying either of those. You know I
Speaker 4: can't do that. Here's here's the the you know the
Speaker 4: problem with the surveillance in that neighborhood. The car was there.
Speaker 4: I mean, this shoe was in that trunk for months,
Speaker 4: and that overwrites. And so although there's a lot of
Speaker 4: cameras in that neighborhood and there's a lot of surveillance
Speaker 4: to get some of it, doesn't go back far enough
Speaker 4: and from other ends.
Speaker 1: Steve Fisher again, Steve, I had no idea you could
Speaker 1: do the backstroke. So well, isn't it true that you
Speaker 1: told me, you told me you saw the face at
Speaker 1: least once of a person moving the tesla? Yes, okay,
Speaker 1: that's all. No further questions, but you're not telling me
Speaker 1: and I understand that, but I'm going to keep asking.
Speaker 1: Dave Mack, have we missed anything? Nea Langston appears at
Speaker 1: the grand jury, apparently takes the fifth I believe Steve
Speaker 1: Fisher and Joeanna and theevis are exactly correct. He may
Speaker 1: be named as an Underdidy codes Bert conspirator. He may
Speaker 1: be not named and given immunity in exchange for his testimony.
Speaker 1: The family refusing the family of d for we d
Speaker 1: David Anthony Burke refusing to honor a subpoena. I've got
Speaker 1: advice for them as a lawyer, not that you need it.
Speaker 1: Because mister Burke is a lawyer. Either HI tell it
Speaker 1: over to grand jury in your own car, or you
Speaker 1: can ride in the back of a sheriff's deputy. Those
Speaker 1: are the choices. Have we missed anything, No, you.
Speaker 2: Got everything, Nancy. The one thing that we talked about
Speaker 2: yesterday was about what we actually saw at the very
Speaker 2: last lines of the documentation yesterday, and that is the
Speaker 2: people of the state of California versus David Anthony Burke.
Speaker 2: That's our bottom line. We actually know that it's not
Speaker 2: just an investigation into the death of Celeste, it actually
Speaker 2: is an investigation of David Anthony Burke.
Speaker 1: If you know or think you know anything about the
Speaker 1: death of this little girl, Celeste Rivas Hernandez, please dial
Speaker 1: two one three four eight six six' eight nine. Zero
Speaker 1: thank you to our guests for being with, us but
Speaker 1: especially to you for joining us in our search for
Speaker 1: justice For. Celeste Nancy gray signing, Off i'll see you tomorrow,
Speaker 1: night and until, then good, night. Friend