Speaker 1: Hey, that folks did. It's Saturday, August fifteenth, and after
Speaker 1: pleading not guilty to all charges in its state and
Speaker 1: federal case, and after a year and a half of
Speaker 1: going in and out of state in the federal course,
Speaker 1: dealing with hearing, after hearing and fighting the charges, Luigi
Speaker 1: Mangioni has pleaded guilty. And with that, welcome to this
Speaker 1: episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. The last couple of days,
Speaker 1: it was kind of bubbling up that this was a possibility.
Speaker 1: Still still stunned by this.
Speaker 2: I was just going to say it was still remarkable,
Speaker 2: and yes, stunning, that is the right word to describe
Speaker 2: what it was like to see and to read about
Speaker 2: Luigi Mangioni fully admitting guilt to what we all saw
Speaker 2: there in midtown Manhattan, captured on surveillance video. But still
Speaker 2: to hear him admit it, you don't get that, and frankly, victims'
Speaker 2: families don't get that very often.
Speaker 1: Road he's pleading not guilty, We're all curious what argument
Speaker 1: is he going to make in court when there is
Speaker 1: a video of the crime that's everywhere. The evidence is
Speaker 1: as close to insurmountable as you're going to get in
Speaker 1: a case like this, so we were all curious. But
Speaker 1: he was fighting, even had some victories in some of
Speaker 1: these hearings roads with some things getting thrown out. Hew,
Speaker 1: he even had some murder charges federally dismissed, so it
Speaker 1: looked like he was putting up a decent fight with
Speaker 1: some damn good lawyers.
Speaker 2: Yes, he has the best lawyers in the business, and he, yes,
Speaker 2: at one point was facing the possibility of the death penalty.
Speaker 2: But the federal case and the charges that he pleaded
Speaker 2: guilty to, interestingly enough, technically neither one of them were
Speaker 2: murder charges, which is pretty significant. So yes, his lawyers
Speaker 2: made significant headway in terms of getting some of those
Speaker 2: charges reduced thrown out, and yet he still faces life
Speaker 2: behind bars.
Speaker 1: Let's get your caught off, folks on what exactly happened
Speaker 1: this week. There was not was not a scheduled hearing
Speaker 1: for Friday, at least that's how the week started. But
Speaker 1: the attorneys, as the judge in the federal case, they asked, Robes,
Speaker 1: can we have a conference on Friday? So that got
Speaker 1: everybody kind of buzz who Yes.
Speaker 2: A joint request from the prosecution and the defense. You
Speaker 2: rarely see a joint petition filed. When you've got some
Speaker 2: case as significant as this, or truly any criminal case,
Speaker 2: they usually can't agree on anything.
Speaker 1: And what's the word that was everywhere was hurriedly or hastily.
Speaker 2: Hurriedly this is what I saw everywhere, hurriedly put together
Speaker 2: this request. And that's why everyone began to put the
Speaker 2: pieces of the puzzle together and thought, surely there must
Speaker 2: be some sort of plea deal even that has been
Speaker 2: struck between the two.
Speaker 1: So that was and that makes sense. And you add
Speaker 1: to this Rhodes people piecing this together, and both sides
Speaker 1: weren't talking, of course, but Robes there was word that
Speaker 1: Brian Thompson's family was going to be in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: That stood out to a lot of.
Speaker 2: Folks absolutely, and they were there to hear what luism
Speaker 2: MANNGIONI had to say.
Speaker 3: I can't even imagine.
Speaker 2: This was December of twenty twenty four, this crime where
Speaker 2: Brian Thompson was shot in the middle of a Manhattan
Speaker 2: street with a sidewalk as he was walking into a
Speaker 2: business conference, just being thrust into that sort of trauma
Speaker 2: in front of the world. And now to sit there
Speaker 2: in this courtroom and hear this young man admit what
Speaker 2: he did and why he did it.
Speaker 1: So, like you just said, Ropes, he's going to admit
Speaker 1: to it. So with the past couple of days, both
Speaker 1: sides asking for this conference, like you just said, and
Speaker 1: everybody was throwing around plea deal, that is not what
Speaker 1: this was. It was a plea but there was no
Speaker 1: deal apparently, Yeah.
Speaker 3: And they made that very clear.
Speaker 2: The prosecutors, as we pointed out, did not speak, but
Speaker 2: as they were going into the courtroom, they were still
Speaker 2: telling reporters there is no plea deal. There is no
Speaker 2: plea deal, and they wanted that to be very clear
Speaker 2: that they're not offering him something in exchange.
Speaker 3: For this guilty please.
Speaker 2: So there are a lot of questions as to why
Speaker 2: he chose this route. Earlier in the summer we heard
Speaker 2: him potentially going to put up a insanity defense. So
Speaker 2: there have been a lot of ups and downs, and
Speaker 2: this case has been surprising from the get go.
Speaker 1: So there's no plea, right and he goes into court
Speaker 1: to plead guilty. Now the question will be, and we
Speaker 1: will answer it here, why he would do this? Now
Speaker 1: there does seem to be a clear answer to that,
Speaker 1: but it's not clear if it's going to pay off
Speaker 1: for him, we will explain. But in the court room
Speaker 1: yesterday we just mentioned Brian Thompson's family, it's something rope.
Speaker 1: They have to sit in the front row right feet
Speaker 1: away from this guy. I don't know what that feels like.
Speaker 1: We see this plenty of times in criminal cases. I
Speaker 1: just see it's remarkable to see.
Speaker 2: The energy that would be emitting from you towards him,
Speaker 2: just to be in the same room, to be breathing
Speaker 2: the same air, and yes, to just be a robe
Speaker 2: back from where Luigi Mangioni is, that had to be
Speaker 2: an unforgettable and gutting situation.
Speaker 1: Mangioni, who was in the courtroom in a tan prison
Speaker 1: out fit, white T shirt underneath, and they say he
Speaker 1: was shackled. I saw this, Robes. He was shackled behind
Speaker 1: his back. His hands were behind his back. So that
Speaker 1: again federal court, they don't mess around too much. But yes,
Speaker 1: that's how he came into court. It started with the
Speaker 1: defense saying to the judge that their client is prepared
Speaker 1: to plead guilty to the indictment at this time, and
Speaker 1: Robes this is where well, at least those in the
Speaker 1: courtroom hearing Mangioni hearing his voice and hearing him explain
Speaker 1: things for the first time, so he had to be
Speaker 1: asked a series of questions for the judge to just
Speaker 1: know he's of sound mind and he was able to
Speaker 1: make this decision on his own. But then Robes, he
Speaker 1: asked him a series of questions and Mangioni is required
Speaker 1: because he's pleading guilty, to tell the truth about the incident,
Speaker 1: and Robes this, I mean, this was the drama of
Speaker 1: the day. After a year and a half and of
Speaker 1: us seeing that video, we heard from the guy who
Speaker 1: pulled the trigger about why he did this and to
Speaker 1: a certain degree, how he did this.
Speaker 3: Yes, it was pretty remarkable.
Speaker 2: He talked about how he had years of severe back
Speaker 2: pain and had spent those years trying to fight insurance
Speaker 2: companies the healthcare industry to get the treatment he needed,
Speaker 2: the pain relief he needed, and the frustrations he felt
Speaker 2: from that experience led him to come up with this plan,
Speaker 2: and I thought it was pretty interesting. He actually posed
Speaker 2: as an investor of the United Healthcare Leadership. He emailed
Speaker 2: them so he could get the details of their conference
Speaker 2: so he would know where to be lying in wait
Speaker 2: to do what.
Speaker 3: He intended to do. I mean, this is a smart kid.
Speaker 2: He's an Ivy League educated kid, and he planned this
Speaker 2: out meticulously, but it came from a place of pain.
Speaker 1: And again, there were some suggestions about this right during
Speaker 1: when the crime did happen and after he was arrested,
Speaker 1: that he had some problem, yes with the health care industry,
Speaker 1: and this was him exacting revenge on it. And that's
Speaker 1: why a lot it's weird to say a murderer gained popularity,
Speaker 1: but a lot of people robes do have problem with
Speaker 1: the health care industry and jumped on and became supporters
Speaker 1: of his because of that.
Speaker 2: Yes, one of them actually shouted out America Loves Luigi
Speaker 2: to Brian Thompson's family as they were leaving court.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's how passionate some of these people are.
Speaker 3: They're called what is it manginist does or something like that.
Speaker 3: It's so weird.
Speaker 2: It's as if he's some pop stars, some Taylor's Swift adjacent,
Speaker 2: just hero or something. Among this group of people who
Speaker 2: come out. They say it was a smaller crowd yesterday,
Speaker 2: which is interesting outside the federal courthouse, but he has
Speaker 2: a he brings a crowd of folks to cheer him
Speaker 2: on at all of these court hearings. It really is
Speaker 2: hard to imagine people celebrating this man who took a life,
Speaker 2: a father, a husband, and you could see the pain
Speaker 2: on his wife's face.
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily I would love to get some psychologists
Speaker 1: to explain this type of fandom. Are they all just
Speaker 1: just it's I don't know, there's no reason to celebrate,
Speaker 1: to cheer, to root forward. Now, everybody's deserving of a
Speaker 1: robust defense, sure, but that's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: But to celebrate as if we're celebrating him for what
Speaker 1: he did, to clap, to applaud, to be a fan
Speaker 1: of someone specifically because they murdered somebody who was representing
Speaker 1: an industry you don't like. It's just that there's no
Speaker 1: discussion in that. There is no argument to be made.
Speaker 1: There's no debate. We should have no regarding that.
Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: There are plenty of other methods in which you can
Speaker 2: voice your concern, try to make change in the industry. Again,
Speaker 2: a smart kid, there were plenty of things he could do,
Speaker 2: including running for office and making changes. I mean, there
Speaker 2: are that people can do other than destroy someone's entire family.
Speaker 1: So we did hear from Mangioni at at some point
Speaker 1: this seems I couldn't tell Rosie there's a script he
Speaker 1: was reading from, but he I don't know. Some of
Speaker 1: the language in the way he said it seemed a
Speaker 1: little odd, but maybe he had to read a particular
Speaker 1: script trying to remember it. Even I don't know.
Speaker 2: It seemed very You know when you have a legal
Speaker 2: document and you know a lawyer, like, whatever your statement is,
Speaker 2: it's been thoroughly lawyered. That's what this seemed like to me,
Speaker 2: a thoroughly lawyered statement.
Speaker 1: So this was him in the courtroom. Quote. This is
Speaker 1: from Mangioni again. Quote on the morning of December fourth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, I shot mister Thompson in Manhattan and
Speaker 1: he died. When I did so, I understood that my
Speaker 1: actions could place him in fear of death or serious
Speaker 1: bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.
Speaker 1: So and there it is Ropes. After all this we've
Speaker 1: been waiting a year and a half, like what defense
Speaker 1: is there? Where we see you on camera? What is
Speaker 1: the defense? But does have him say it out loud?
Speaker 1: I did it, YEP, I was responsible and I knew
Speaker 1: what I was doing was wrong.
Speaker 3: Yep, I mean, look it is.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a relief I would imagine for Thompson's
Speaker 2: family and certainly for federal prosecutors, even that he stood
Speaker 2: there in front of a judge, sworn in under oath
Speaker 2: and it fully admitted this crime and explained why he
Speaker 2: did it. Think about how many victims' families get that
Speaker 2: kind of And I hate to use the word closure,
Speaker 2: because it's never over it. There's never full closure for
Speaker 2: someone who loses someone that young.
Speaker 3: In their life. I mean, that's just an awful story.
Speaker 2: But most families don't get that, and there is some
Speaker 2: sort of there has to be some sort of emotional
Speaker 2: satisfaction or it allows certain healing to begin when you
Speaker 2: know someone's admitted the crime, explained why they committed the crime.
Speaker 3: He didn't apologize for it, but so rarely do you
Speaker 3: get the why.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a good note to bring up robes.
Speaker 1: He didn't apologize for Dan. By all accounts, he was
Speaker 1: not remorseful in the least bit.
Speaker 3: Unemotional is how he was described.
Speaker 1: Never showed an ounce of remorse for what he did.
Speaker 1: How does that play into sentencing. How does that play
Speaker 1: into closure for the family, don't know.
Speaker 2: It usually does play into sentencing, though, judges usually do
Speaker 2: take that into consideration, and he'll have another opportunity to
Speaker 2: speak when he is sentenced, and maybe then, maybe then
Speaker 2: we would see or hear some sort of remorse. Don't know,
Speaker 2: and don't know how sincere it would be.
Speaker 1: So after fighting for a year and a half, why
Speaker 1: do this now? It's legal strategy. We're told this is
Speaker 1: his federal case. These were two stalking convictions because the
Speaker 1: previous charge having to do with murder in the federal
Speaker 1: case was actually dismissed some months ago. Has to do
Speaker 1: with the legal precedent, has to do with the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court President, the whole bunch of back and forth. Even
Speaker 1: if I did fully understand it, I wouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to fully explain it. So what I'm saying is there
Speaker 1: was a reason, a technical, legal, technical reason, that that
Speaker 1: had to be dismissed. So robes he just pleaded guilty
Speaker 1: to two charges, neither one includes murder. It seems counterintuitive, like,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, he murdered the guy he's admitted to murdering,
Speaker 1: so why isn't he pleading guilty to a charge of murder.
Speaker 2: Right, it's stalking resulting in death basically, and it still
Speaker 2: carries life a maximum life sentence.
Speaker 3: He could serve less than life, that is true.
Speaker 2: And when you have a federal sentence, you serve eighty
Speaker 2: five percent of it period.
Speaker 3: There is no.
Speaker 2: Parole or you get out early for good behavior. None
Speaker 2: of that happens in federal prisons.
Speaker 3: But he does.
Speaker 2: And he could serve less than life if he ended
Speaker 2: up with just the federal charges and he only served
Speaker 2: eighty five percent of that sentence.
Speaker 1: There's your answer, folks. So why do this now? Why
Speaker 1: plead guilty now? Because Robes, this is the possibility of
Speaker 1: keeping him out of prison for the rest of his life,
Speaker 1: because it's a pretty tough statute in the state of
Speaker 1: New York that doesn't allow for double jeopardy, and Robes,
Speaker 1: it's interesting here. Yes, it's stalking, it's not murder. The
Speaker 1: state charge is a murder charge. But the way the
Speaker 1: statute in New York is written, Robes, it says that
Speaker 1: you can't be charged for the same incident and not
Speaker 1: just doesn't have to be the exact same charges exactly.
Speaker 2: And so it's been that that is their long game
Speaker 2: that it seems he'd rather be in a federal prison
Speaker 2: than their state prison. Actually looked it up and said
Speaker 2: federal prisons are considered safer and better funded than state prisons.
Speaker 2: They have fewer violent offenders and better programs. The drawback
Speaker 2: for a federal prison is that you do have to
Speaker 2: serve eighty five percent of your sentence. But look, if
Speaker 2: you're already looking at an extended sentence and nearly most
Speaker 2: of your life, you'd rather be in a better funded
Speaker 2: facility that has fewer violent criminals. So he's literally trying
Speaker 2: to choose where he spends he This was them knowing
Speaker 2: and acknowledging that they did not actually have a snowball's
Speaker 2: chance in hell of getting him on guilty. Please, so
Speaker 2: let's just pick the better prison system to be in
Speaker 2: federal versus state.
Speaker 3: That does seem like what their choice was.
Speaker 1: Sick crazy, You've got bad options. If those are your options, Yep,
Speaker 1: which prison do you want? I'll take the federal. Better
Speaker 1: be in an embusy suite than a motel six.
Speaker 2: Are his choices exactly exactly, and Manngioni's attorneys this was
Speaker 2: in a statement correct after explaining basically why they believe
Speaker 2: this state trial should not proceed, he said. They say
Speaker 2: he's been unfairly treated since the outset in every way,
Speaker 2: two simultaneous prosecutions in two jurisdictions. Who are trying to
Speaker 2: punish him twice for his exact conduct. New York law
Speaker 2: does not permit a person to be prosecuted and punished
Speaker 2: twice for the exact same crime under a statute that
Speaker 2: covers successive prosecutions. It's also known as the jeopardy law.
Speaker 2: Today's guilty plea triggers this statute. And we just filed
Speaker 2: our motion in state court explaining why the state charges
Speaker 2: must be dismissed under New York's double jeopardy protections.
Speaker 1: They make it clear what they're doing here. This is automatic,
Speaker 1: so robes. What if what if this judge, this federal judge,
Speaker 1: doesn't give him life in prison? What could he give
Speaker 1: him for the stalking charges? Twenty five five?
Speaker 2: If he could, I mean he could give him twenty five,
Speaker 2: He could give him thirty.
Speaker 3: He knows the world is watching.
Speaker 2: He also knows if the state drops his case or
Speaker 2: is forced to drop its case, that this will be
Speaker 2: his only punt.
Speaker 1: This is it, This is it, and we should rose
Speaker 1: because this state trial is supposed to be happening in
Speaker 1: a matter of weeks, right September eighth. I think I
Speaker 1: have it right, So Robes, there needs to be movement
Speaker 1: on what's going to happen here before September eighth. So
Speaker 1: after a year and a half of hearing after hearing
Speaker 1: after hearing, we have like a three week sprint to
Speaker 1: get this case resolved completely. With MANGIONI ropes, how could
Speaker 1: the jet There's no way he's going to give him
Speaker 1: twenty five what's eighty five percent of twenty five?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not anywhere near enough, and I don't think
Speaker 2: anybody would accept that.
Speaker 3: But I was even thinking, how do you quantify life?
Speaker 3: Is that fifty years?
Speaker 2: He's twenty eight, so what is that fifty years? And
Speaker 2: then what's eighty five percent of fifty years?
Speaker 1: I don't think the family or many people will accept
Speaker 1: anything short of him spending the rest of his life
Speaker 1: in prison. Will that?
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I think most everyone agrees he should be in prison
Speaker 2: for life.
Speaker 3: But yeah, what is a life term? What is that
Speaker 3: equal to in years?
Speaker 1: In years? For god, that's twenty eight? Yeah, to guarantee
Speaker 1: that he'll still end up behind that. This is going
Speaker 1: to be fascinating for the next couple of weeks. Here
Speaker 1: we did here, of course, we just let you hear
Speaker 1: from Mangioni's attorneys. We also heard from the district attorney
Speaker 1: who is none too pleased that his case might be
Speaker 1: getting hijacked. We'll let you hear that. Also, will let
Speaker 1: you hear from the family. Brian Thompson's family also put
Speaker 1: out a statement to express how they felt about what
Speaker 1: we've seen in this case in the past twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: All right, folks, we continue here on this Saturday on
Speaker 1: Amy and TJ have several developing stories. We usually get
Speaker 1: up in the morning robes and we like to do
Speaker 1: something a little lighter, a little more fun. But there
Speaker 1: are a couple of stories that have been bubbling this week.
Speaker 1: We're talking about Mangioni now with his case, but also
Speaker 1: there were two other significant stories with significant updates that
Speaker 1: we're going to be getting into on our morning feed
Speaker 1: that you can look for right after this episode. What
Speaker 1: having to do ropes with that Cambridge professor who is
Speaker 1: at the center of plagiarism charges. He is now dead
Speaker 1: been found dead in London we're going to get into that.
Speaker 1: And also another story out of Texas. This one's fascinating
Speaker 1: to me, the legal back and forth over a surrogate
Speaker 1: who didn't want to have an abortion at the request
Speaker 1: of the parents.
Speaker 2: Yes, and now that baby has been born and there
Speaker 2: are plenty of legal filings flying, but yes, it's forcing
Speaker 2: a lot of well certainly the state of Texas to
Speaker 2: make some decisions because there is plenty of legal action
Speaker 2: going on because yes, the biological parents didn't even want
Speaker 2: the child to exist.
Speaker 1: So yes, those were significant, very buzzy stories. This week,
Speaker 1: we're get the updates on both of those as well.
Speaker 1: Again those episodes of being our feed right after this one.
Speaker 1: But Ropes. Getting back to Mangioni the DA as you know,
Speaker 1: the state and the Feds have been arguing over who
Speaker 1: gets this guy first, and it looks like the state
Speaker 1: was going to via trial, but now the Feds have
Speaker 1: with the.
Speaker 2: Plea and there are so many angry folks, including the
Speaker 2: judge who it seems was overseeing the state case. He
Speaker 2: basically said that the Feds renigged on their agreement basically
Speaker 2: because the state had done all the work and was
Speaker 2: prepared and was ready to go, and it had already
Speaker 2: been agreed that they were going to try their case first.
Speaker 1: So the guy wants the plee we're supposed to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but obviously there was negotiations going on behind.
Speaker 1: Don't let him plead? What is the option there?
Speaker 3: Exactly? But yes, feathers are ruffled, so to speak. The
Speaker 3: DA put out this statement.
Speaker 2: Since December twenty twenty four, the Manhattan DA's office has
Speaker 2: been tirelessly preparing to pursue a trial conviction in New
Speaker 2: York State Supreme Court for the alleged cold blooded murder
Speaker 2: of Brian Thompson. We are encouraged that mister Thompson's family
Speaker 2: received a measure of accountability today. While federal sentencing is pending,
Speaker 2: we are prepared to litigate the defense motions. The Manhattan's
Speaker 2: DA office remains committed to seeking justice for mister Thompson
Speaker 2: and his family.
Speaker 1: Or is that line in there? Federal sentence is a
Speaker 1: measure of accountability, a measure. What they're saying is that
Speaker 1: ain't good enough. So that's where we're coming in.
Speaker 3: We want him convicted of this murder. That's exactly what
Speaker 3: they're saying.
Speaker 1: The family did put out a statement as well, saying
Speaker 1: that the guilty plea marks an important step toward justice
Speaker 1: for Brian and for our family. Nothing will use the
Speaker 1: pain of losing him. We're grateful for the federal justice
Speaker 1: system been holding him responsible for this heinous act. Now
Speaker 1: we look to the court to ensure that sentencing reflects
Speaker 1: the severity of this crime. We remain mindful that additional
Speaker 1: proceedings in New York and Pennsylvania are still to come,
Speaker 1: and we continue to seek the justice Brian deserves. Robes.
Speaker 1: It sounds like they left room to be open for
Speaker 1: the state case to go away.
Speaker 3: Yes, because they understand that it very likely might.
Speaker 2: I'm sure they have been prepared for the possibility that
Speaker 2: this is it and he's going to prison for the
Speaker 2: rest of his life. It's probably annoying that he in
Speaker 2: a way, if this ends up being his only proceeding
Speaker 2: and the state charges go away, it is probably annoying
Speaker 2: to the family. Do you think he kind of in
Speaker 2: a way got to manipulate or got to choose what
Speaker 2: prison system he's in. Look, I mean, you have less
Speaker 2: violent criminals in federal prison. It's going to be a
Speaker 2: better experience for him, and that might be a little
Speaker 2: annoying that he got to, in a way choose by
Speaker 2: quickly pleading to the federal case ahead of the state trial.
Speaker 1: What's acceptable ultimately to the family. I suppose Robes would
Speaker 1: just be life knowing he's not going to get out
Speaker 1: of prison. But there's that line in there saying we
Speaker 1: look to the court now to ensure sentencing reflects the
Speaker 1: severity of the crime. That makes it sound to me
Speaker 1: Robes is we don't care that much about the murder conviction.
Speaker 1: We just want to make sure whatever sentence he gets
Speaker 1: reflects what he did. And that makes sense, And that
Speaker 1: makes sense. But I mean, I'm they always consult with
Speaker 1: families prosecutors do I wonder do they want to go
Speaker 1: sit through a state trial?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know. Everyone's different.
Speaker 2: If you have the if it actually would make you
Speaker 2: feel better to see it litigated and to see everything
Speaker 2: take place, does that give you some sense of I
Speaker 2: don't know, you're a part of the process where you're
Speaker 2: getting justice for your loved one.
Speaker 3: Or is it better to just not have to go
Speaker 3: through that you knew.
Speaker 1: He already is going to prison for the rest of
Speaker 1: his life. Do you want to go sit in state
Speaker 1: court every day for several months, walking past those protesters,
Speaker 1: walking past his supporters, doing all that. Is it that
Speaker 1: important to you that on the record it says murder
Speaker 1: conviction for me and wouldn't for me.
Speaker 3: It wouldn't be. But it's and you don't know. I
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 2: Until you go through it, until you've lost your husband,
Speaker 2: your your children's father.
Speaker 3: You don't know your son. Yeah, it's hard to say.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, the sentencing we speak of will happen
Speaker 1: on December eighteenth, at least that's when it's scheduled. And
Speaker 1: we do not know, folks, what is going to happen
Speaker 1: in the state case. Is a state trial going to
Speaker 1: go forward? Are these charges going to get dropped? We
Speaker 1: don't know, But answers have to come. They have to
Speaker 1: come soon, because that state trial is scheduled for September
Speaker 1: the eighth and rope. They already announced that the jury
Speaker 1: was supposed to be anonymous. Yeah, so things are in motion.
Speaker 3: We shall see, all right, folks.
Speaker 1: Just wanted to give you that update again. Two other
Speaker 1: episodes you'll see this morning on our Feet having to
Speaker 1: do with those other major stories that are bubbling as well.
Speaker 1: So look for those. We appreciate you always spending some
Speaker 1: time with us on TJ on behalf of my dear
Speaker 1: Ammy Robot. We'll talk to yall soon, m