Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Thursday, June twenty sixth and closing
Speaker 1: arguments are underway in the Ditty Trial. Welcome to this
Speaker 1: Ditty Update edition of Amy and TJ First robes. Can
Speaker 1: you just believe it? Closing arguments? Seven weeks of this trial,
Speaker 1: this has been going on for which has been engulfed
Speaker 1: in this for so long. It's almost over.
Speaker 2: In a weird way, because we've been following it so
Speaker 2: closely for these past seven weeks, time has flown by.
Speaker 2: I actually can't believe it's almost been two months.
Speaker 3: And yes, to your.
Speaker 2: Point, it feels crazy that it's over or it's about
Speaker 2: to be over.
Speaker 1: And as we speak, folks, says this recording, closing arguments
Speaker 1: are underway. The prosecution is going first. Christy Slavic is
Speaker 1: handling handling it for the prosecution. But Rose, we got
Speaker 1: a better idea this morning. It seemed like every day
Speaker 1: there's a new update to the schedule that is a
Speaker 1: little surprising to us. But we I think this is
Speaker 1: it now, This is going to be the schedule.
Speaker 2: Yes, so the prosecution is going to finish its closing
Speaker 2: arguments today. The defense is not going to begin its
Speaker 2: closing arguments until Friday, and after the defense gives its
Speaker 2: closing arguments, the prosecution will have a chance for rebuttal,
Speaker 2: and then of course the judge has to give the
Speaker 2: jury instructures, instructions that they hammered out yesterday. So for sure,
Speaker 2: I think we can say we thought we were sure
Speaker 2: of but now we're one hundred percent surew Okay, ninety
Speaker 2: nine point nine percent sure that the jury won't even
Speaker 2: begin to start their deliberations until Monday at the earliest.
Speaker 1: Okay, So going with that schedule again, both sides said
Speaker 1: they needed four hours, So help me with this ropes.
Speaker 1: They said they needed four hours, But were they thinking
Speaker 1: two for the closing and then two for a rebuttal?
Speaker 1: Or is this closing going to be four? Then the
Speaker 1: defense is going to do four and then the rebuttal
Speaker 1: could be how long?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: See, I'm confused now about because now Friday could be
Speaker 1: a hell of a day for the jury if they
Speaker 1: have to listen to four hours of the defense and
Speaker 1: then another hour two hours prosecution and then jury instruction.
Speaker 2: So according to court reporters from what I have been
Speaker 2: able to deduce, they say that today will be a
Speaker 2: shorter day Thursday and Tomorrow will be what they described
Speaker 2: as a long day, so I think it'll be what
Speaker 2: they can get in.
Speaker 3: And I don't know how long.
Speaker 2: It seems as though the prosecution is going to or
Speaker 2: expects to take four hours today and then who knows
Speaker 2: how long the rebuttal will be. It might be dependent
Speaker 2: upon what they hear from the defense, so they might
Speaker 2: that might be fluid, that might not even be set
Speaker 2: in stone right now in terms of because how would
Speaker 2: you know what to rebut until you hear what the
Speaker 2: defense actually presents?
Speaker 1: And what do we make of this? With the judge
Speaker 1: of saying about the deliberation schedule, he said he's going
Speaker 1: to kind of leave it in the hands of the
Speaker 1: jury for what their deliberation schedule is going to be.
Speaker 1: I mean, how much leeway do they exactly get? They
Speaker 1: can't have full control. But what did he mean? I
Speaker 1: didn't fully understand.
Speaker 2: I imagine that, you know, they have given up so
Speaker 2: much of their time.
Speaker 3: Perhaps if some members of the.
Speaker 2: Jury need to be home by three or some you know,
Speaker 2: some jury members need to be able to get their
Speaker 2: kids off to school, they might be able to deliberate
Speaker 2: among themselves to pick the hours that work best. For
Speaker 2: the group, and maybe the foreman decides that it might
Speaker 2: be the first chance that they all have to actually
Speaker 2: collectively make a decision on something. Before they actually make
Speaker 2: a decision on the verdict, they'll make a decision collectively
Speaker 2: on their timeline.
Speaker 3: They used to hearing that, I'm not either.
Speaker 2: No. Usually they say jury reports at this time and
Speaker 2: court is out, or at least deliberations will end at
Speaker 2: this time.
Speaker 1: So sometimes the judge will ask the jury, do you
Speaker 1: all want to go a little later today? Sometimes I've
Speaker 1: seen that, but I've never seen I can imagine. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're if you're a juror, right now, they say,
Speaker 1: how what would you like your hours to be? What
Speaker 1: would you ask for?
Speaker 2: I would like to have as long of a day
Speaker 2: as possible to get it done as quickly as I could.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't want to keep coming back each day, So
Speaker 2: give me a nine hour day and a quick lunch
Speaker 2: instead of having to come back day after day after day.
Speaker 2: Especially if some of these folks, they have jobs, they
Speaker 2: have lives, they're missing. What do they get fifty bucks
Speaker 2: a day? You know, and some folks are our wages,
Speaker 2: hourly wages.
Speaker 3: They don't have salaries.
Speaker 2: They're not getting paid by their work, so I would
Speaker 2: think there would be a motivation to go ahead and
Speaker 2: put in the work each day instead of extending the
Speaker 2: days that you have to laborate.
Speaker 1: Would you work through the weekend?
Speaker 3: No, No, I don't think so. No, everybody needs a break.
Speaker 3: Everybody break.
Speaker 1: That's a good point. So we're still waiting on that
Speaker 1: part to fill in about the schedule, but it looks
Speaker 1: like we do have a better idea of how this
Speaker 1: thing is going to go. Now, how this is going
Speaker 1: to go with the with the prosecution, the case they're
Speaker 1: trying to make, We've gotten a little insight. We've listened
Speaker 1: to the first least hour plus now of the prosecution
Speaker 1: doing its clothes, and they are using this word over
Speaker 1: and over and over enterprise, enterprise, enterprise. He was the
Speaker 1: head of an enterprise, enterprise enterprise. They first started with robes,
Speaker 1: this racketeering conspiracy charge, which is the one that has
Speaker 1: the highest possible sentence. He could life in prison for
Speaker 1: this thing. And they're trying to build and explain to
Speaker 1: them piece by piece why he was the head of
Speaker 1: a criminal enterprise. This is why this is kidnapping, this
Speaker 1: is drug distribution, So they're really piecing this thing together,
Speaker 1: and it's, to be honest with you, it's kind of
Speaker 1: some of the legalities of his hart to follow.
Speaker 2: Exactly, so right when they're getting specific about it, and
Speaker 2: they've really been focusing right now at least on the
Speaker 2: racketeering charge, because that is, of course, as you point out,
Speaker 2: the most serious one. So apparently they're giving the jurors
Speaker 2: this instruction. The prosecution is there are four elements to
Speaker 2: convict on a racketeering charge. Those elements are a conspiracy
Speaker 2: to participate in criminal enterprise having an impact on state
Speaker 2: and foreign commerce, they say, did he was knowingly part
Speaker 2: of that enterprise, and then the enterprise agreed to commit
Speaker 2: at least two crimes.
Speaker 3: So I'm already confused.
Speaker 2: So basically, someone Diddy would have had to have commit
Speaker 2: committed two individual acts in any of these categories kidnapping, arson, bribery, bribery,
Speaker 2: drug distribution, sex trafficking, interstate transport for prostitution.
Speaker 3: Forced labor, witness tampering, and obstruction. My head's already spinning.
Speaker 1: And we put this in here, folks, not to say
Speaker 1: it so you would understand it, but for you to
Speaker 1: understand why it's so confusing and what these jurors now
Speaker 1: have to deal with. That's just one little example we
Speaker 1: gave you. There's tons of this stuff in there trying
Speaker 1: to piece through. And what was the thing they did?
Speaker 1: The prosecution took out part of the jury instruction? What
Speaker 1: was it? They wanted the attempted kidnapping taken out? They
Speaker 1: just wanted the word attempted taken out because if you
Speaker 1: have attempted in there, it's such a confusing bit of
Speaker 1: our legal code that they have to figure out if
Speaker 1: you use the word attempted. They just said, the hell
Speaker 1: would it take attempted out? And we just want to
Speaker 1: say kidnapping? He was kidnapping? Folks, Well, it's mine. How
Speaker 1: can they get through this quickly?
Speaker 2: I so, I don't know's that's the number one thing
Speaker 2: I'd like to impart to everyone listening.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I feel for the jury. They again,
Speaker 3: they've been sitting.
Speaker 2: And listening to this testimony, some of it fascinating, some
Speaker 2: of it gripping and even maybe a little entertaining. But
Speaker 2: this is heavy stuff because someone's life is on the line,
Speaker 2: and it is so technical, and there are so many
Speaker 2: categories that you have to say yes or no to
Speaker 2: or maybe I don't know, but I cannot imagine this
Speaker 2: deliberation is going to be quick. Even if you have
Speaker 2: a feeling about what you think, you still have to
Speaker 2: go through each charge, and you have to go through
Speaker 2: the legalities of each charge.
Speaker 3: And what it takes.
Speaker 2: Did the prosecution prove these specific things beyond a reasonable doubt?
Speaker 2: And this is again, like you said, this is just
Speaker 2: the conspiracy. Sorry, this is just the racketeering charge.
Speaker 1: So to that point, again, they're talking about, let's say
Speaker 1: the kidnapping charge. We've been here about kidnapping. Was he
Speaker 1: kidnapped someone kit We all know what kidnapping and we
Speaker 1: think we know what kidnapping is. Well, kidnapping here is
Speaker 1: just restricting Cassie's movements because he didn't want her to
Speaker 1: leave a hotel room because he wanted her wounds to
Speaker 1: heal first. Okay, that could sound like a stretch like kidnapping.
Speaker 1: I know what kidnapping is, but that's a very technical
Speaker 1: term and a technical definition of kidnapping. But they might
Speaker 1: have to figure out that kind of stuff. I do
Speaker 1: not know how they. I would be deliberating for weeks.
Speaker 3: I mean that has happened before.
Speaker 2: It's not often, but this is that complicated. And then
Speaker 2: of course you have Capricorn Clark, who claims she was
Speaker 2: kidnapped by one of Ditty's bodyguards and held against her will,
Speaker 2: she says, for five days, and she says with a
Speaker 2: light detector test because his jewelry witnessing and she didn't
Speaker 2: have an explanation as to why his diamond duel where
Speaker 2: he went missing. She said she was threatened by his
Speaker 2: bodyguard that they were going to throw her in the
Speaker 2: Hudson River. So we do have that direct testimony, but
Speaker 2: is it provable. It's her word against his word.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but she also he kidnapped her because he came
Speaker 1: to her house and said come with me, and she came.
Speaker 1: So that's kidnapping, right That those kinds of legal questions.
Speaker 1: If the guy is I mean, charge him with kidnapping
Speaker 1: is one thing, But is he running a criminal enterprise
Speaker 1: because he's a drug addict, maniac, madman, terrible boss and
Speaker 1: domestic abuser.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's it is a lot. It's a
Speaker 2: huge mountain of evidence and it's a huge mountain to
Speaker 2: climb to prove because what the prosecution has already started
Speaker 2: to tell the jurors is he had an enterprise of
Speaker 2: people working for him. He couldn't do this all on
Speaker 2: his own. He couldn't have done what they say he
Speaker 2: did to these women if he didn't have people helping him.
Speaker 2: And that created more of a a force. So these
Speaker 2: women felt like they couldn't say no because they weren't
Speaker 2: just going up against one person, they were going up
Speaker 2: against all of his employees. And they said, even if
Speaker 2: the lower level employees didn't know crimes for being committed,
Speaker 2: they were still being used as I think they said
Speaker 2: the term foot soldiers see.
Speaker 1: And then I wanted, I thought a big part of
Speaker 1: proving this case had to be that the folks had
Speaker 1: to be willing, had to be knowing participants in that enterprise,
Speaker 1: in that crime taking place.
Speaker 2: I thought, that's so no, they're saying, as long as
Speaker 2: it was just Diddy using people to enforce what he
Speaker 2: was trying to control and what he was trying to get,
Speaker 2: and within what he wanted to get involved criminality, it
Speaker 2: didn't matter if the people who were doing his bidding
Speaker 2: knew it was criminal or not, or knew what was
Speaker 2: going on behind those closed doors in those hotel rooms.
Speaker 2: So yes, their participation wasn't necessary for them to know
Speaker 2: that it was a criminal act.
Speaker 1: We've been covering this or watching this closer than anybody
Speaker 1: probably listening, and we still are trying to piece this together.
Speaker 2: And this was interesting to me too because the drug distribution.
Speaker 2: They're saying, that's a huge part of their argument that
Speaker 2: did he and his inner circle participated in what they
Speaker 2: say are hundreds of acts of drug distribution? But they said,
Speaker 2: if did he only did it twice, just twice where
Speaker 2: he was asking his staff to get drugs and bring
Speaker 2: them to him, that would meet the criteria for racketeering
Speaker 2: conspiracy under the law.
Speaker 3: If he just twice did that. And I didn't realize
Speaker 3: that either.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is I don't know what the lesser punishment.
Speaker 1: It's up to life in prison for that charge. Yes,
Speaker 1: I don't know what the statutes are. I don't know
Speaker 1: what it says with the guide are of what lesser charge?
Speaker 1: Is there a minimum on that? When? What does the
Speaker 1: charge or what does sentence have to be? But that's
Speaker 1: when we Yes, it's technically tech, it could technically legally
Speaker 1: be true, but you said it. This is a guy
Speaker 1: we talk about emotion involved and you just human beings
Speaker 1: on that stand, I'm sending him to life because he
Speaker 1: might have been a super freak and because he might
Speaker 1: have been a bad guy because he had a drug
Speaker 1: at it. And then you could look at that and go, yeah, technically,
Speaker 1: by the law, he should be going to prison for
Speaker 1: the rest of his life. And maybe that's it, But
Speaker 1: there's so much, there's so many mitigating and complicated factors here.
Speaker 2: Well, I was gonna say something else that they were
Speaker 2: trying to impart to the jury, this idea that did
Speaker 2: he didn't take no for an answer, that he never
Speaker 2: took no for an answer, You couldn't tell him no,
Speaker 2: and that was part of his enterprise, that he had
Speaker 2: so much control over all of his employees, and then
Speaker 2: who they claim are his sex traffic victims as well,
Speaker 2: that he was a man who you had to say
Speaker 2: yes to.
Speaker 1: They also flat out sett also, she said a short
Speaker 1: time ago in court that of course he blew up
Speaker 1: kid cut his car. I mean the prosecute she just
Speaker 1: flat out set as of the jury and the closing,
Speaker 1: which nobody now can object and now the way it
Speaker 1: can come back and necessarily rebutt it in real time.
Speaker 1: She said no he didn't cut the hole out in
Speaker 1: the top of the car, but she is asking the
Speaker 1: jury to essentially use common sense. Of course he was
Speaker 1: behind it. Of course he was. This is gonna be
Speaker 1: a fascinating day. For four hours they get to make
Speaker 1: their case once again, and they're taking folks through a
Speaker 1: piece by piece by piece. We do have a few
Speaker 1: quotes here, at least from the court room as well,
Speaker 1: and again this was very early on started this out.
Speaker 1: This might have been in the first sentence or two.
Speaker 1: He's the leader of a criminal enterprise, right, this is
Speaker 1: the guy we all watched. What do we think we
Speaker 1: were watching of medium mogul, a music souper, superstar, producer
Speaker 1: of music genius. I don't know what do we think
Speaker 1: we were watching? They say we were watching a guy
Speaker 1: who was the head of a He was a mob boss.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: They described someone who spent most of his time, at
Speaker 2: least in the later years, organizing and fulfilling his deviant
Speaker 2: sexual fantasy. Said it was literally almost his full time
Speaker 2: job at a certain point, and then getting other people
Speaker 2: because he couldn't have done it all the way he
Speaker 2: did it unless he had people working for him and
Speaker 2: organizing it all and making it happen, and so yeah,
Speaker 2: he said, excuse me. The prosecution said, I thought this
Speaker 2: was really interesting. These are not separate stories. They're all
Speaker 2: chapters in the same book. The prosecutor said, the story
Speaker 2: of Sean Combs and the criminal enterprise he led it
Speaker 2: is the same book.
Speaker 3: And so that's what they're trying to say.
Speaker 2: This is all a part of a larger grand scheme,
Speaker 2: and that's where you get this racketeering charge.
Speaker 1: It's just wild to think that the purpose isn't the
Speaker 1: argument here that the purpose of Bad Boy Entertainment was
Speaker 1: really to run sex trafficking? Is that what we're is
Speaker 1: that the argument.
Speaker 2: It's what it sounds like, and that we heard and
Speaker 2: yet we heard Brandon Paul say it was one percent
Speaker 2: of his job.
Speaker 3: So I'm sure the.
Speaker 2: Defense is going to have plenty to say to counter
Speaker 2: what the prosecution is.
Speaker 3: The picture the prosecution is.
Speaker 2: Trying to paint right now that this was basically what
Speaker 2: did he did all the time, and he got his
Speaker 2: employees to make it happen pretty much at least weekly,
Speaker 2: but sometimes multiple times within the week.
Speaker 1: This is incredible. They called it a methodical pattern of
Speaker 1: violence and coercion and manipulation said did he thought that
Speaker 1: his fame, wealth and power put him above the law.
Speaker 1: But over the course of his trial, his crimes have
Speaker 1: been exposed. And that's it, right. The brutal crimes at
Speaker 1: the heart of this case sex trafficking. That's what they're saying.
Speaker 1: The brutal crimes at the heart of this case, sex trafficking.
Speaker 1: That's what's the sex trafficking charge. Two of them, those
Speaker 1: are the ones that are fifteen years minimum, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: and then it's ten years maximum on the prostitution charge.
Speaker 1: So the sax trafficking cases are very serious.
Speaker 2: You know, this is this is overwhelming, and the fact
Speaker 2: that they came out with a bang, I have to say,
Speaker 2: she just the prose prosecutor, Christie Slavic, has come out
Speaker 2: with a bang. Just listing, listening, listening, So I wonder
Speaker 2: now they'll go through methodically. It was described as like
Speaker 2: the most intense and complex PowerPoint presentation you've probably ever
Speaker 2: witnessed in your life. And that's what these jurors are
Speaker 2: witnessing right now in court today.
Speaker 3: And it's just begun. That's the crazy thing.
Speaker 1: Let me give you through all this, it's not a
Speaker 1: lot of every once in a while, we usually find
Speaker 1: a way to just have a laugh or a smile,
Speaker 1: you know, a little levity in some of these things
Speaker 1: that've been brutal. This is at least one quote from
Speaker 1: Slavic that I think most people will find a little funny.
Speaker 1: Talking about Kid Cutty and saying that Diddy, yes was
Speaker 1: behind the bombing of the man's car. She says, quote,
Speaker 1: of course the defendant was behind this. Now, it shouldn't
Speaker 1: come as a surprise to you that we're not suggesting
Speaker 1: the defendant personally cut the hole in Kid cut his Porsche.
Speaker 1: You heard the audio notes the defendant didn't even buy
Speaker 1: his own soup. Wow, that's okay. I'll give her that one.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay.
Speaker 2: That might not be a Perry Mason moment like we
Speaker 2: saw with the defense, but that certainly was something that
Speaker 2: landed right like, Okay, that okay, fair.
Speaker 3: Fair point.
Speaker 1: You can't make the argument, yeah, he would have he
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with that. Well, yeah, of course
Speaker 1: he wouldn't. He didn't even buy his own soup.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And you know, to get more specific about what Slavic
Speaker 2: said about this racketeering conspiracy, and I was talking about
Speaker 2: how all of the folks who got his soup and
Speaker 2: did his other bidding in terms of getting him drugs
Speaker 2: and everything else he needed. She said that the law
Speaker 2: recognizes when someone commits a crime as part of a group,
Speaker 2: they're more powerful and more dangerous, and she said that
Speaker 2: is what happened in this instant instance with Diddy. She said,
Speaker 2: obviously Didty was already a very powerful man, but he
Speaker 2: became more powerful and more dangerous because of the support
Speaker 2: of his inner circle and his businesses. And that is
Speaker 2: the enterprise that they're talking about that he created. And
Speaker 2: she acknowledged that, yes, this does sound like and is
Speaker 2: more often associated with the mafia or with organized crime,
Speaker 2: and that's where a lot of folks have been like,
Speaker 2: come on, she did. She acknowledged that because people have
Speaker 2: been saying that from the start of this trial that
Speaker 2: maybe the prosecution is overreached. They're trying too hard to
Speaker 2: put him behind bars for too long. They could have
Speaker 2: just charged him with domestic abuse. I don't know if
Speaker 2: there's a federal charge for that, but at least the
Speaker 2: state could have. But there could have been lesser charges
Speaker 2: that would have been easily provable, including drug charges, But
Speaker 2: they went for the big charge of racketeering, and she acknowledged, yes,
Speaker 2: that's usually where it is applied to, but in this
Speaker 2: case it also applies.
Speaker 1: I missed that note, So yeah, I mean whatever, but yeah,
Speaker 1: she's just kind of acknowledging the oh wow, I miss that.
Speaker 2: Yes, she said the defendant used power, violence and fear
Speaker 2: to get what he wanted. And that does sound like
Speaker 2: a boss.
Speaker 1: But that is hard to think of the Five Families
Speaker 1: of New York right to think of what they operated,
Speaker 1: what they did, and tossing people in the river and
Speaker 1: taking out hits, and there's drugs and there's all this
Speaker 1: kind of racketeering and running. All that stuff going on
Speaker 1: is one thing. The dude was feeding his sexual desires.
Speaker 1: That was his ultimate aim, right.
Speaker 2: And it didn't matter, according to the prosecution, who he hurt,
Speaker 2: what he had to do, and he used physical violence
Speaker 2: as a form of intimidation to make sure that he
Speaker 2: kept people where he wanted them, including yes, Cassie and
Speaker 2: Jane and the other women who we heard from during
Speaker 2: this trial. It's interesting, while all of this picture is
Speaker 2: being painted of Diddy as this mob boss like man,
Speaker 2: he's wearing this light blue sweater and a white collared shirt,
Speaker 2: he's pouring water from a craft. But they said he's
Speaker 2: so This was interesting to me too.
Speaker 3: The court reporter said.
Speaker 2: Throughout the trial, he's been intense, he's been involved, he's
Speaker 2: been listening.
Speaker 3: But he seemed confident.
Speaker 2: And you know, we even heard him with the judge jovially,
Speaker 2: you know, saying.
Speaker 3: Thank you and you're doing a good job. Just really confident.
Speaker 2: They said today his body language suggested that he was nervous.
Speaker 2: They said he was rubbing his palms together when the
Speaker 2: jury walked in, that he was shifting his weight from
Speaker 2: foot to foot. And that makes a lot of sense
Speaker 2: because this is it, this is it, and this is
Speaker 2: the last word the prosecution, Well, the prosecution gets to
Speaker 2: have a rebuttal, but coming up, this is his last
Speaker 2: chance at defending himself and his last chance to make
Speaker 2: the jury believe that he is not responsible for these
Speaker 2: heinous crimes.
Speaker 1: Well, at least he's not a mob boss. I guess
Speaker 1: he's trying.
Speaker 2: To make the they're kind of saying he was a
Speaker 2: mob boss.
Speaker 1: Yes, mob bosses. Last thing on this, because I love
Speaker 1: there's a lot of mob history I do follow. But
Speaker 1: the purpose of the enterprise was to make money, right, yes,
Speaker 1: and the crimes were all committed for the sake of
Speaker 1: making money for that enterprise.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 1: Did he had an enterprise that was making money through music, correct?
Speaker 1: And then that enterprise was used for the sex parties.
Speaker 2: It almost seems like the money was his side hustle
Speaker 2: to fund what his main goal was, which was to
Speaker 2: satisfy his sexual needs.
Speaker 1: But he is funding the criminal behavior versus the criminal
Speaker 1: behavior funding the enterprise. That's the opposite. I am blown away.
Speaker 1: They treat him like Fattonian, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, and it's I think a lot of people
Speaker 2: that that was kind of a crazy notion. But the
Speaker 2: prosecution is leaning in and doubling down on that theory
Speaker 2: and whatever the money was there to make it happen,
Speaker 2: and they're saying that he used illegal means to get
Speaker 2: what he wanted.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating, fascinating, fascinating. Well, folks, we're going to hop
Speaker 1: back on again later today because you have the second
Speaker 1: half of the prosecution's closing argument is going to be today.
Speaker 1: We're going to hop back on and let you know
Speaker 1: how they close up, how they finish up today. But
Speaker 1: we always appreciate you listening.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I'm TJ. Holmes, along time, my partner Amy Robot will
Speaker 1: talk to YUSS