Speaker 1: Hey, there are folks. It is Friday, December twelfth and
Speaker 1: we are officially on verdict watch in the Brian Walsh trial.
Speaker 1: We talked to you earlier about the defense it's closing argument.
Speaker 1: We want to talk to you now about the prosecutions
Speaker 1: closing argument. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy
Speaker 1: and TJ. We talked so much robed about how Larry Tipton,
Speaker 1: the defense lawyer, was very performative and some of his
Speaker 1: antics and he made you sit up and watch. It
Speaker 1: seemed like the prosecution was trying to pick up some
Speaker 1: of those tricks to a certain degree.
Speaker 2: Yes, we saw the lead prosecutor, the female prosecutor, be
Speaker 2: more dramatic. She was not monotone, that's for sure. But unfortunately,
Speaker 2: and I say unfortunately, because she went too far in
Speaker 2: the other direction. She went from whispering at times to
Speaker 2: feeling sarcastic in others to yelling and I'm not exaggerating
Speaker 2: almost I jumped up and I said, why is she
Speaker 2: yelling at the jury. So it was an attempt to
Speaker 2: be more performative, to be more theatrical, which I think
Speaker 2: was needed. She just it didn't feel like it's in
Speaker 2: her wheelhouse.
Speaker 1: It didn't feel natural, it didn't feel normal. It felt
Speaker 1: like it really like she was feigning every emotion she
Speaker 1: was trying to deliver. I don't know this woman. I
Speaker 1: hate to be don't want to criticize the job they
Speaker 1: have done, but we are sitting there as casual observers,
Speaker 1: and this is how things are coming across to us. Yes,
Speaker 1: she was more animated. Yes, it did seem intentional. It
Speaker 1: seemed like almost on her page where she was reading something,
Speaker 1: it was said in parentheses, yell this line, yeahs for
Speaker 1: this line.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 2: I feel like she practiced this at home. And look,
Speaker 2: you know what, it may not matter what she said
Speaker 2: and how she said it might not matter as much
Speaker 2: as what she said to the jury and what they're
Speaker 2: going to believe in what they're not going to believe.
Speaker 2: But it is interesting observing it how important it is,
Speaker 2: or it seemed to us, how you say something, yes,
Speaker 2: and when you say something and it matters. The information
Speaker 2: is important, of course, actually it should be the only
Speaker 2: thing that really matters. But we're all human beings and
Speaker 2: how we receive it and how we see it delivered
Speaker 2: to us absolutely impacts the weight we give the information.
Speaker 3: We're receiving that is that.
Speaker 1: Is the best way to put it, and the way
Speaker 1: I'm receiving her message. It didn't. Again, we've been keeping
Speaker 1: ourselves in that lane and being the jurors. But yeah,
Speaker 1: she only went. She didn't go as long as Tipton,
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 3: No, only thirty four thirty five minutes.
Speaker 1: Okay, So now let's get into the meat and potatoes
Speaker 1: of what she had to say and rope she started out,
Speaker 1: and it We've been waiting to hear them say how
Speaker 1: she met this violent end, and I thought maybe we
Speaker 1: were getting close to that, but she wrapped up and
Speaker 1: sent that jury into that jury room to deliberate, and
Speaker 1: none of us still have any idea what their theory
Speaker 1: is about how she died.
Speaker 2: No her, they just stuck with the violent end and
Speaker 2: common sense. Those were the two big themes that they
Speaker 2: were pointing out, that yes, she was murdered, she met violence,
Speaker 2: that Brian Walsh was cool and calculated, because she could
Speaker 2: point to that in the surveillance video, and certainly she
Speaker 2: kept bringing in some of.
Speaker 3: His interrogation by police where he just.
Speaker 2: Seems so casual and so cool and nonchalant.
Speaker 3: So she was doing that. But again, there was no
Speaker 3: and actually we were surprised.
Speaker 2: She pointed out, Basically, we don't have the body, and
Speaker 2: so we can't tell you how she died without an autopsy.
Speaker 3: We don't know.
Speaker 1: I stopped. I don't know if I heard the next
Speaker 1: two or three sentences because I was stuck on that sentence.
Speaker 1: She said, the medical examiner, it's impossible for the medical
Speaker 1: examiner to determine how she died.
Speaker 3: Probably don't want to reiterate that to the jury.
Speaker 1: Wait what yeah, hey, wait what you're telling me that
Speaker 1: it's impossible. So you're telling me you don't know, right,
Speaker 1: is how I took that line. Now, she tried to
Speaker 1: land it by saying, the reason we don't know it's
Speaker 1: because he was calculated making sure we couldn't find the body.
Speaker 1: That's what she was trying today.
Speaker 2: I feel like though she could have taken it so
Speaker 2: much further and said, you know, we don't know if
Speaker 2: he strangled her, if he stabbed her with that knife,
Speaker 2: if he you know, if he suffocated her with the pillow.
Speaker 3: We don't know.
Speaker 2: But what we do know is he made damn sure
Speaker 2: we weren't going to find out because he got rid
Speaker 2: of that body like I.
Speaker 3: Was thinking in my mind.
Speaker 2: Granted I don't know what she could have said that
Speaker 2: could have painted that picture using the evidence she had,
Speaker 2: that he did make sure that no one got their
Speaker 2: hands on her body. He did make sure there was
Speaker 2: no evidence left behind. That's because he murdered her.
Speaker 1: Maybe the jurors aren't like us, right, we've been in television.
Speaker 4: Maybe maybe we want that and they don't need it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's true, and you shouldn't need it. But this isn't us.
Speaker 4: This is Every lawyer out there will tell you this
Speaker 4: stuff matters. They will tell you how you deliver, who
Speaker 4: the messenger is, they will tell you it all matters
Speaker 4: and robes the closing. For me, I wrote it down.
Speaker 4: You and I wrote the same thing down.
Speaker 1: The themes common sense and context. She sent them in
Speaker 1: there saying, use your common sense. She didn't send them
Speaker 1: in necessarily. Look at this evidence, look at this, remember this.
Speaker 1: Remember that she said common sense, common sense, common sense,
Speaker 1: and kept relying on this idea that yes, this happened,
Speaker 1: and this happened. Yeah, it doesn't prove anything, but you
Speaker 1: have to remember context. Wink wink not. It was almost
Speaker 1: like she was saying, come on, y'all y'all know this
Speaker 1: dude killed his wife. That is how the entire closing
Speaker 1: sounded to me. It was really a real big come on, y'all,
Speaker 1: come on, come on, we know he did it.
Speaker 2: I actually thought it was interesting because yes, that was
Speaker 2: the gist of it, like that is a very good
Speaker 2: way to sum it up. And I do think it
Speaker 2: was the first time she even gave the jury. She
Speaker 2: connected some dots that she did not connect while the
Speaker 2: testimony was happening, which we were complaining about. But she
Speaker 2: finally then in her closing arguments, pointed out that she
Speaker 2: felt like Brian misplacing his phone was calculated and he
Speaker 2: misplaced his phone early in the night on New Year's Eve,
Speaker 2: but she said that was all a ploy so that
Speaker 2: he could explain why he didn't know or he hadn't
Speaker 2: been in contact with his wife for so long because
Speaker 2: he had misplaced his phone, and also then he could
Speaker 2: go do some of the stuff he needed to do
Speaker 2: without his phone tracking him. So now she points that out.
Speaker 2: Then she points out just even like he was putting
Speaker 2: on a show basically for the friend who was over
Speaker 2: a gem because he knew what he was going to do,
Speaker 2: the fact that he.
Speaker 1: Because that Frank, I don't understand, was convincing.
Speaker 2: It was a happy, joyful occasion. So that is what
Speaker 2: she claims. The prosecution claims Brian wanted to happen. They
Speaker 2: also claimed these searches for the Porsche and the diamonds
Speaker 2: and all of that was just all to throw Anna
Speaker 2: off his tracks. That really he had also searched divorce,
Speaker 2: best ways to divorce if you're a man, So he
Speaker 2: was figuring out what his options were and at some point,
Speaker 2: according to the prosecution, he landed on murder. He had
Speaker 2: to kill her, and so all of this, they say,
Speaker 2: was because he was angry about her missing Thanksgiving. They
Speaker 2: claimed that he apps, well Thanksgiving, she was going to
Speaker 2: her mother's at Serbia, but they claim he knew because
Speaker 2: they shared the same bank account, that she actually went
Speaker 2: to Dublin with her boyfriend.
Speaker 1: She missed both of those.
Speaker 3: Yes, she missed Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: And was the mom. She just said the mom was sick.
Speaker 2: I believe she did ultimately go, but I actually cannot
Speaker 2: tell you, babe.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I know that.
Speaker 2: So they were claiming, hey, look, he knew about something
Speaker 2: else on the bank account. He knew she came back
Speaker 2: through Frankfurt. So come on, of course she he knew
Speaker 2: that she was in Dublin overnight on Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: So listen to what you just said. Of course, come on,
Speaker 1: come on, that is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: So she's connecting these dots and saying and all of
Speaker 2: it is very plausible, and I would say likely even,
Speaker 2: but they didn't prove it. They're actually just saying, of
Speaker 2: course he knew, of course he he And so he
Speaker 2: was angry since then, and then she misses Christmas, even
Speaker 2: Christmas Day. Now he's livid. So now he's sitting there
Speaker 2: plotting how he's going to get rid of her on
Speaker 2: New Year's Eve. And he's got a whole plan in place.
Speaker 1: You know, I they laid out I think Rose forgive
Speaker 1: me if I missed it during the testimony, but they
Speaker 1: laid out this, this reasoning, this logic for why he
Speaker 1: killed her that seemed to go. It seemed to be
Speaker 1: a little different from the other motive, meaning he had
Speaker 1: to take care of the kids. He had to, like
Speaker 1: as a condition of him not going to jail. He
Speaker 1: needed the kids. And if his wife is now possibly
Speaker 1: going to leave him for another man and the kids
Speaker 1: go away, then he has no money, and he has
Speaker 1: no woman. They built a case for a motive that
Speaker 1: I didn't necessarily hear built throughout.
Speaker 3: Desperation, is what it sounded like.
Speaker 2: Here's a man who's about to go to prison for
Speaker 2: a year or two, whose children are now going to
Speaker 2: be living with his wife, who's now going to move
Speaker 2: full time into this town home who she bought from
Speaker 2: her now boyfriend, And in his mind he could be thinking,
Speaker 2: and the boyfriend's just going to move in, I'm going
Speaker 2: to be replaced while I'm in prison, and I'm going
Speaker 2: to come back to no money and no family. That
Speaker 2: is what they were suggesting at the end in closing.
Speaker 1: I didn't hear necessarily that pieced together during this.
Speaker 2: I did not hear that through the line at all
Speaker 2: during And that was what we have been complaining about,
Speaker 2: because when they had moments with witnesses where they could
Speaker 2: have woven the story, and it did require the prosecutor
Speaker 2: to provide the context to weave the story, to get
Speaker 2: the witnesses to fill in the blanks for the story
Speaker 2: they were creating. It's almost as if they came up
Speaker 2: with that to wrap it all up. In addition to
Speaker 2: he was jealous and he needed the money, but it
Speaker 2: was more about desperation and no options. If he were
Speaker 2: to divorce her, he would lose, and so he needed
Speaker 2: to find a way when he came back from serving
Speaker 2: his time where he would have all the money because
Speaker 2: everything was in her name because of his financial issues
Speaker 2: in his federal case against him, he put all of
Speaker 2: their assets in her name. So now he's like, I
Speaker 2: just screwed myself. But I don't feel like they did
Speaker 2: that good of a job during the trial explaining that
Speaker 2: through testimony.
Speaker 1: Where did she nail it? I'm looking at some of
Speaker 1: my notes here, Where did you you really think she
Speaker 1: did make some good points that the jury may remember
Speaker 1: when they go in there. I'm looking at my notes here,
Speaker 1: and I don't she had this line. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was that impactful. He cut up Anna's body and threw
Speaker 1: her in the dumpster. Now, the way I just said it,
Speaker 1: she was screaming that line. She was screaming that line,
Speaker 1: and that were pauses in between, is that it was
Speaker 1: a moment I remember for being a little awkward, not impactful.
Speaker 2: What she was saying was impactful. How she was saying
Speaker 2: it was detracting from what she was saying. It was
Speaker 2: a sentence actually funny enough that didn't need any louder.
Speaker 2: And actually that might have been one where I would
Speaker 2: have gone slower and softer for people to really let
Speaker 2: that sink in. When she shouted it, it felt aggressive
Speaker 2: and like it was too much.
Speaker 3: It didn't work.
Speaker 1: Well, you're a performer, you are, no, I'm serious. What
Speaker 1: I'm saying is these things you're talking about, how that
Speaker 1: think when something is when the words themselves here, you
Speaker 1: go rope. This is a very good example. You've been
Speaker 1: talking about it, all those searches and writing that he had.
Speaker 1: When something is that impactful, you don't have to shout right,
Speaker 1: you just repeat it, folks. He cut up the woman
Speaker 1: he loves, he said he loves, and he put pieces
Speaker 1: of her in different dumpsters, like saying that, and she
Speaker 1: shouted it in a different type of way. And again,
Speaker 1: we were sitting here and we're being acting coaches or
Speaker 1: something and being critical of performance. But this is how
Speaker 1: we received the closing arguments in a trial we have
Speaker 1: watched every second.
Speaker 3: Do you know what's interesting?
Speaker 2: She could have even played off of Larry Tipton, the
Speaker 2: defense attorney, saying that the only evidence shows that there
Speaker 2: was love. I would have taken that and said, if
Speaker 2: that's love is chopping up you know, I would have
Speaker 2: taken his last line about that and just twisted it.
Speaker 1: You know, we know some attorneys that that would have
Speaker 1: been the first line in their closing. They would have
Speaker 1: played off that Larry Tipton said, the only thing there is,
Speaker 1: the only thing there's evidence of is love. That's the
Speaker 1: next thing.
Speaker 2: He right, he just gave you gold to work off
Speaker 2: of when you have those searches. I would have said,
Speaker 2: is this love and then how to cut like, you know,
Speaker 2: up my wife's body whatever, you know.
Speaker 3: All all of those searches.
Speaker 1: Just wow, just go. I mean that's a very good point.
Speaker 3: And we yes, yeah, I missed out fortinday.
Speaker 2: In fact, I just thought about that as you were
Speaker 2: saying what you were, when you were describing how she
Speaker 2: was saying things. I started thinking about what Tipton said,
Speaker 2: and I thought, wait, she totally could have viscerated that
Speaker 2: line with the evidence that she does have, because there
Speaker 2: is evidence. Yes, they are lacking very important evidence akaa body,
Speaker 2: but there is so much evidence pointing to his guilt,
Speaker 2: maybe even his guilty conscience. You could have taken that
Speaker 2: murder work, because so much was made of why did
Speaker 2: he use the word murder in his searches? Six hours afterwards?
Speaker 2: She could have pushed this guilty conscience idea. She could
Speaker 2: have pushed so many other explanations other than the one
Speaker 2: the defense gave.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're going to have to help me here, bab
Speaker 1: you just made me remember it. She made a very
Speaker 1: good point about a search, and I hadn't heard anybody
Speaker 1: say it before, and I said, oh, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: It was. She made a very good point. I've said
Speaker 1: that is a winning like. She made me sit up
Speaker 1: and think about a search he had, and she said, well,
Speaker 1: why would he say? Ah, this is what it was.
Speaker 3: I wish I could help you. I don't know which
Speaker 3: one you're talking.
Speaker 1: This was it, she said. If he's desperate and his
Speaker 1: wife just died, the first thing you're looking for is
Speaker 1: not to chop up a body. The first thing you're
Speaker 1: thinking is sudden death. What possibly happened brain aneurysm. That
Speaker 1: would have been your.
Speaker 3: Deep van thrombosis whatever it is.
Speaker 1: Thing but she made when she said that, I.
Speaker 3: Said, Babe, that you're right.
Speaker 2: When she said that, I remember thinking, now you just
Speaker 2: spoke to me, and when she talks about common sense,
Speaker 2: that's exactly that moment when you say, right, if I
Speaker 2: walked in on the person I loved dead, and I'm
Speaker 2: even if I'm thinking, oh no, they're going to think
Speaker 2: that I had something to do with it for whatever
Speaker 2: reason in my past, I would be immediately considered guilty.
Speaker 2: I'd still the first thing would be mouth to mouth.
Speaker 2: You'd want to see if you could resuscitate.
Speaker 3: Somebody, how to check a pulse.
Speaker 2: You'd want to yes, And if I'm going to start
Speaker 2: searching stuff, I'm going to start trying to figure out
Speaker 2: what happened?
Speaker 3: How can I help?
Speaker 2: Is there any remedy for what does alcohol poisoning look like?
Speaker 2: Whatever I think could have happened. But honestly, more importantly, babe,
Speaker 2: you just would call nine one one because you'd want
Speaker 2: that person to have a shot. Maybe they could be resuscitated,
Speaker 2: maybe something could be given to them that could alter
Speaker 2: the the current state of their bow.
Speaker 1: That was the one. I mean, let me give the
Speaker 1: prosecution credit on that one. Yep, you're right, they made
Speaker 1: that point and that was common now that's used in
Speaker 1: common sense absolutely like wait, and he had a lot
Speaker 1: of hours to do anything related to resuscitating or first
Speaker 1: aid and whatever. Maybe, but folks, stay here, we'll tell
Speaker 1: you now how could change a verdict because the jury
Speaker 1: doesn't have just one option for finding him guilty. And
Speaker 1: Roosees and I, who have watched every moment of this trial,
Speaker 1: will give you our predictions for what this jury is
Speaker 1: going to do.
Speaker 2: Stay here, Welcome back everyone, as we await the jury's
Speaker 2: verdict in the Brian Walsh trial. The jury was handed
Speaker 2: the opportunity to start deliberating earlier this afternoon, after we
Speaker 2: heard from both the prosecution and the defense give their
Speaker 2: closing arguments. The judge gave instructions. But the big difference
Speaker 2: from the charges Brian wash is facing versus what the
Speaker 2: jury can consider to convict him of has changed. At first,
Speaker 2: we just we were told, hey, he is being charged
Speaker 2: with first degree murder premeditated murder, and he had already
Speaker 2: pled guilty to the lesser charge that involve dismembering his
Speaker 2: wife's body and misleading investigators, so we knew he was
Speaker 2: already guilty on those and the only other charge that
Speaker 2: they were considering or pursuing was that first degree murder charge. Well,
Speaker 2: they decided to give the jury more than just two options,
Speaker 2: not guilty or guilty as charged. So now they can
Speaker 2: come back with a not guilty verdict. They can come
Speaker 2: back as guilty as charged murder in the first degree,
Speaker 2: or the jury can come back with guilty of murder
Speaker 2: in the second degree.
Speaker 1: MM, which, Kay, I don't know. If you have it
Speaker 1: in front of you, we can look it up right quickly.
Speaker 3: I was just going to do that.
Speaker 1: What was sentence that possibly carries and the distinction as well?
Speaker 1: There are distinctions of course, Uh was stavery target of
Speaker 1: one one I put? In Massachusetts yep, first and second
Speaker 1: degree murder. There is a difference, certainly time difference, and
Speaker 1: the premeditation wouldn't necessarily be there, so correct.
Speaker 2: So in Massachusetts, second degree murder is an unlawful killing
Speaker 2: committed with malice afterthought, so the intent to kill or
Speaker 2: cost various harm or extreme atrocity or cruelty, but without
Speaker 2: the deliberate premeditation required for first degree murder. A sentence
Speaker 2: conviction carries a life sentence with parole eligibility often after
Speaker 2: fifteen years.
Speaker 3: Court sets the exact minimum.
Speaker 2: Yes, that'd be a big difference to get second degree
Speaker 2: versus first degree murder.
Speaker 1: They have options. Now, what do you think you want
Speaker 1: to tell us? Yes, you know, what do you think?
Speaker 2: I believe after everything I've seen and heard, I believe
Speaker 2: the jury is going to come back with a second
Speaker 2: degree murder conviction. Why Because I think that using common
Speaker 2: sense and seeing the evidence from the searches, the use
Speaker 2: of the word murder, his inability to be trusted in
Speaker 2: terms of what he says, and the unbelievable, tiny, small
Speaker 2: minute chance that she died of something other than murder
Speaker 2: that would all weigh to me.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 2: I feel like he absolutely caused her death. I don't
Speaker 2: know how he did it, and I don't know that
Speaker 2: he premeditated it. I don't believe necessarily. I think it's
Speaker 2: very possible and maybe even probable that he did. I
Speaker 2: do think he saw text messages, he did google William
Speaker 2: Fasteau's name. I do think that he knew so, but
Speaker 2: I don't think that the state proved premeditation.
Speaker 1: There you go. So I have opinions, But as a juror,
Speaker 1: am I supposed to I'm supposed to go with what
Speaker 1: you showed. I am convinced of something because of what
Speaker 1: you proved to me, and I'm just not there on it.
Speaker 1: So I, while I was talking to you earlier, if
Speaker 1: the first degree murder, I said, this is gonna be
Speaker 1: a hunger. I'm gonna miss her do this all over again. Right,
Speaker 1: But they gave them an option. They gave them. Anybody
Speaker 1: who's having some doubts, with some questions like you and
Speaker 1: I and listening to the prosecution now has an option
Speaker 1: of going, Okay, my common sense tells me this dude
Speaker 1: probably did this, but they didn't prove it. But now
Speaker 1: this gives me an option to go, eh, a little
Speaker 1: win for you, a little win for you. Maybe he
Speaker 1: still gets punished because it seems like you do want
Speaker 1: to punish him, right, don't you feel that, like just
Speaker 1: there's about him? No, you don't see anything about him
Speaker 1: that makes you root for this guy in the trial.
Speaker 1: There's not just right, he's accused of something contructious. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they've given them an option now that.
Speaker 2: They could say, okay, so what do you think the
Speaker 2: jury is going to come back second?
Speaker 1: Agree?
Speaker 2: And you know what, that's a win for Brian Walsh
Speaker 2: because they were not the prosecution was not willing to
Speaker 2: offer him any lesser charge. And he tried because he
Speaker 2: pleaded guilty to the dismemberment charges and the misleading police charges,
Speaker 2: and the hope was that he could get a lesser
Speaker 2: charge for murder. The prosecution was like, absolutely so they
Speaker 2: had to take their chances at trial and this for him,
Speaker 2: other than obviously not guilty, would be the best case scenario.
Speaker 2: But if he gets a second degree murder conviction, that's
Speaker 2: a win for him and a win for his attorney.
Speaker 1: And like we say, we only need one on that jury, right,
Speaker 1: that could be one that's so overwhelmingly convinced that there
Speaker 1: is no way, given what the prosecution gave me, that
Speaker 1: you just need one.
Speaker 2: And what's so hard to know is how long you know, yes,
Speaker 2: you just need one. So how long is it going
Speaker 2: to take?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: Are they all on the same page now that they
Speaker 2: have this other lesser charge as an option, or are
Speaker 2: there going to be die hard folks there who think.
Speaker 3: He premeditated this, he did this? I want first degree?
Speaker 2: Will that complicate the negotiations that go on in a
Speaker 2: jurors room now that you have multiple options, you.
Speaker 1: Know that if I'm voting, the thing that would shock
Speaker 1: me is a first degree murderer.
Speaker 3: That would shock me.
Speaker 2: So you think either second degree murder or not guilty,
Speaker 2: you think you don't think they're going to come back
Speaker 2: with the first degree murder Charch.
Speaker 1: Now that's the only one that would absolutely shock me.
Speaker 2: I actually agree with you, babe. I would be shocked
Speaker 2: if they get their first degree murder charge after everything
Speaker 2: we saw and the quality of his defense team.
Speaker 1: Well, folks, this has been fascinating, but as we sit here,
Speaker 1: we are officially on verdict watch. I believe she's going
Speaker 1: to let them go home tonight and they'll have the weekend. So, man,
Speaker 1: can you imagine going home and sitting on this over
Speaker 1: the weekend.
Speaker 2: Come back on Monday, and you know, we'll see how
Speaker 2: quickly they can because they will have deliberated essentially for
Speaker 2: at least three hours, three or four hours today, so
Speaker 2: maybe they will have made some headway.
Speaker 3: Maybe we'll have some questions.
Speaker 2: On Monday, we can kind of get a sense of
Speaker 2: where they are in their deliberation process, but we will
Speaker 2: stay on top of it. Everyone, So thank you for
Speaker 2: listening to us. We always appreciate that. I'm Amy Roboch
Speaker 2: alongside TJ.
Speaker 3: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon. The catch and Taken