Blaise Taylor Murder Trial - Day 1 key analysis

[00:00:00] Carl Steinbeck: hi everyone good afternoon carl steinbeck here sunday afternoon i was planning on jumping on tonight as well i was planning on being on last night but as you know from my post my sister fuller sister had a medical situation that came up and uh just had no interest in live streaming because my sister is having some kind of predicament health-wise so anyway things are stabilized thankfully and i really appreciate and she appreciates and um leslie and the family appreciate all your well wishes i can't believe you guys actually type things of support and even hearted stuff so that's very kind and sweet of y'all and uh like i said it means a lot and so um what i wanted to do is uh because leslie's going to be on um work duties for the rest of the night i figured i would try to cover up as much as a cover as much as this case as i can in this short condensed frame so i plan on doing probably a two-hour live stream here followed by a break and then maybe getting on another two hours so it's going to be sort of a marathon run here if all goes well but what i'm going to jump into now is day one some of the key takeaways key witness testimony from day one and what i'm looking for in a murder case the first responders when you have the defendant right there with first responders being able to somewhat observe while they're frantically trying to save the life of the victim the demeanor and behavior and character and all that of the of the accused right there is a very telling thing that um that i've been that i'm looking for to indicate guilt or innocence and so i'm looking for clues as to is this guy get acting like he's wanting the person saved or is he acting like you know it's not a big deal uh to them or are they just faking it and trying to act like they're concerned so any anything in between you got the full gamut of things so just try to come into it with an open mind and uh so let me go ahead and we're going to go to one of the emt for persons that responded this from court tv let me span that [00:02:09] Speaker 2: good morning mrs baldwin can you please state this by your name for the court reporter marisol baldwin [00:02:19] Marisol Baldwin: it's m-a-r-i-s-o-l-b-a-l-d-w-i-n and miss baldwin where are you employed national fire department how long have you been with nfd um nine years and eight months how are you currently they're not responsible for any working on the 25th i was a working as an advanced emp and on the 25th did [00:02:43] Speaker 2: you respond to an incident located at 15 22 11 and pike apartment 107 yes is that here in davidson county yes do you recall what type of incident you were initially responding to i believe our cad [00:02:57] Marisol Baldwin: system said allergic reaction and were you in the ambulance yes as the driver the passenger driver [00:03:06] Speaker 2: and did you respond to that apartment with lights and sirens yes why that's our policy every call gets lights and sirens and do you recall what you initially witnessed when you arrived at the apartment [00:03:20] Marisol Baldwin: complex um as we arrived we were led into the apartment and we found our patient lying in um one of the bedrooms in the apartment she was lying face down on a comforter okay do you recall who led [00:03:37] Carl Steinbeck: you to the apartment yes okay right there she's five months pregnant and she's lying face down that automatically is sending up uh warning flags for me it's like wait a minute why would you allow somebody be on their back like it aren't you giving them mouth to mouth aren't you trying to like have some kind of eye contact face contact with them you let them being face down on a uh in a thick comforter that that makes no sense to me [00:04:09] Marisol Baldwin: you're pointing at someone yes i'm sorry did you see a male that day [00:04:12] Speaker 2: yes yes the team in the courtroom yes can you point him out to scratch something he's wearing um blue suit with white she's identifying the defendant [00:04:36] Marisol Baldwin: yes [00:04:41] Speaker 2: okay i could publish the first photo we have one of powerpoint so it'll be [00:04:45] Speaker 4: digital okay [00:05:03] Marisol Baldwin: miss baldwin what are we looking at this is the um apartment as you go in the front door this is what [00:05:11] Speaker 2: we saw okay and the two females standing on the left they go there i mean watching what you mean by that [00:05:18] Marisol Baldwin: um and we are questions that we were asking what were you asking um if she was allergic to anything because it did come in as an allergic reaction and all he was saying was she ate bad food [00:05:37] Speaker 2: she ate bad food really was he able to give you any other information about generally about who she was in her health history not that i recall okay and when you got to the [00:05:51] Marisol Baldwin: apartment was that scene considered safe initially yes but um we didn't really have our firefighters there yet and with uncooperative family or bystanders we deemed it unsafe okay um what do you mean by uncooperative family members um the male there was kind of getting in our working space and we couldn't properly assess and [00:06:23] Speaker 2: treat the patient okay what do you mean by that that he was getting in your working space he wasn't letting [00:06:29] Marisol Baldwin: us do our job he was in our face just trying i don't know what he was trying to do but we were trying to get her on our stretcher wasn't following the commands that we were asking him and what commands were you asking him we usually don't want family in in our working space so we were probably telling him to step aside and where did you find the patient we found her in the bedroom to the right um of this kitchen she was on the bed she looked like a comforter that she was on and she was based down um and is that the [00:07:17] Speaker 2: second photo that you have yes and is that what we're looking at right here yes so while she's on [00:07:24] Carl Steinbeck: the bed she's going to go on to say she's at the end of the bed facing sideways and so he's interfering getting in their face and they basically don't deem it a safe situation with him there i mean that's really bizarre and i think it's something that is definitely raising uh some red flags there for the [00:07:41] Marisol Baldwin: jury and can you describe to the jury how she was laying on the bed um she was laying horizontal so not how you would typically sleep where the pillows are she was towards the end of the bed and she was on [00:07:56] Carl Steinbeck: her face face down and what about breathing if you're face down how are you able to breathe so if you're already being um choked out with some bad food or something i mean that's sort of like the last thing you want to do is being face down on the flip side of it of course if you're on your back you could be choking worse because the obstruction if there's an obstruction for example can't come out but just her on her face down like that's just so bizarre and at some point did you roll miss benning [00:08:29] Speaker 2: over yes okay and can you describe to the jury what you saw when you rolled this thing we rolled her over [00:08:38] Marisol Baldwin: and we um immediately noticed that she was unresponsive she didn't um respond to us flipping her over on her back and we noticed that she had some kind of fluid around her mouth okay um was that fluid any particular color color color do you call it was um like a light pink in color [00:09:06] Speaker 2: we've already kind of touched on this but based on your experience did it appear miss benning was suffering from an allergic reaction [00:09:14] Marisol Baldwin: not fully that that wasn't we were definitely trying to cross off multiple things that it could be but it wasn't a typical response that we would see for an allergic reaction [00:09:30] Speaker 2: was miss benning limp yes and did miss benning have a pulse [00:09:43] Marisol Baldwin: so at what time when we um i don't personally remember checking it would that have been something [00:09:51] Speaker 2: that the medic did yes and at any point did the mail in the apartment try to touch miss benning [00:10:00] Marisol Baldwin: yes okay can you describe to the jury what happened um so our firefighters were pulling their truck into the parking lot so they were a little bit behind us but we couldn't physically carry her my partner and i and he he took it upon himself to do it and we don't allow help from outside agency like from our people and he attempted to do that so that's what i meant that he wasn't listening to our commands um and then he eventually placed does that [00:10:36] Carl Steinbeck: sound like a consciousness of guilt type behavior like he's trying to show that he's so involved he's actually trying to help because he doesn't he wouldn't have done anything to cause this right or is he freaking out because he has gone too far he was just trying to have the baby aborted without the mother's knowledge and so this thing's sort of spiraling out of control that he's not worried that this is going to be a double homicide kind of situation [00:11:00] Marisol Baldwin: okay so right in front of the island um just in that empty space that's where he put her and then when our firefighters got there then we all lifted her and put her on our stretcher okay and then what did you do with miss benning we willed her to the ambulance [00:11:28] Speaker 2: at any point do you recall someone else showing up yes a young lady and what do you recall about that [00:11:35] Marisol Baldwin: young lady's demeanor she was hysterical she was crying asking us questions trying to get inside the [00:11:42] Carl Steinbeck: aimers looking in the windows yeah see that's the demeanor you're hearing of a friend and yet this guy's daughter in the womb is uh maybe not going to make it here because the mom's not going to make it and you know he's trying to do what interfere with them is he is he upset is he crying uh we don't hear any that none of that stands out to this uh emergency personnel here [00:12:13] Speaker 2: and was this much different than the males demeanor yes okay also she was crying she kept asking us [00:12:22] Marisol Baldwin: if is she gonna be okay is she gonna be okay what's going on yeah okay so contrast that with we're not [00:12:29] Carl Steinbeck: hearing anything about blaze taylor asking about hey she gonna make it is a baby gonna make it is he not saying hey you got to save the baby too come on come on hurry hurry you gotta you gotta save these [00:12:42] Speaker 2: folks of mine at any point did you see mr taylor crying not not that i saw at any point did mr taylor ask you if she was going to be okay not that i can remember and once you got miss bending into the ambulance what happened over that um so she was put on the [00:13:09] Marisol Baldwin: cardiac monitor she had pads put on her she had no pulls we were doing compressions we were um doing a procedure where we stick an airway and breathe for her um starting ivs giving epi uh lots of um lots of things simultaneously happening and at what point did you transform the spinning um [00:13:36] Carl Steinbeck: once uh my now the prosecutor should be asking about was there anything mentioned about a baby so she doesn't bring that up here and i think that's a critical point that they they omitted but i think [00:13:45] Marisol Baldwin: otherwise the jury still gets the gist of it my partner she she said she was ready and we took fire fighters with us and then um i think it was after 10 minutes of being there total time [00:14:01] Speaker 2: and did mr taylor ever attempt to get in the ambulance with miss benning not that i recall and where did you take the spinning vanderbelle adult er and did you transport miss benning with lights and sirens yes okay why so she was critical [00:14:22] Marisol Baldwin: what do you mean by that cardiac arrest is deemed critical [00:14:27] Speaker 2: and at any point um did miss spinning ever have a pulse [00:14:35] Marisol Baldwin: not that i can remember with us [00:14:45] Carl Steinbeck: can you imagine no pulse no pulse your eyes are making it when the emt crew shows up you have no pulse it's uh highly unlikely you're going to survive that now they do get a pulse later but it's um very much a dire situation here and once you [00:15:06] Speaker 2: got to vanderbilt with miss benning is that when you released care and that's when vanderbelle took [00:15:10] Marisol Baldwin: over it um it's rose now i believe it was arwin at the time i'm sorry agrall at the time yes what other emt was there [00:15:40] Speaker 2: you know at this time we would like to admit both photos as an exhibit 1a and 1b please and i'll ask [00:16:01] Speaker 5: if at any time you don't understand please let me know [00:16:05] Carl Steinbeck: okay this is ed jointer he is a partner at the law firm there quionis and associates out of the houston area so she hired he hired out of state counsel uh most likely because of uh connections through his dad who is a football coach at the uh texas a and m university which is probably like uh 90 minutes away from houston so they're paying they're paying a lot of money they're probably i guess estimate probably anywhere from 700 to a million dollars for this defense i'm trying to rephrase [00:16:44] Speaker 5: i want to just make sure i understood your role on that day you were acting in what capacity i was an emt at the time and one of the duties you described for uh emt basic was just basic life saving measures you said correct and to be clear you were the driver that day correct and so when you arrived there you said you [00:17:15] Marisol Baldwin: were led into the apartment yes who was you led by um male that was on scene mr taylor yes so he assisted he helped you all find the apartment um i believe when we saw the hallway he like popped out of the apartment but i can't exactly recall if he led us or but he was there and said this is the apartment is [00:17:44] Speaker 5: is there a reason why you said he led us if you didn't feel he let you he showed us the apartment [00:17:50] Marisol Baldwin: and that's a system correct telling us yes it's telling us where the apartment is okay [00:18:00] Speaker 5: and once you got into the apartment one second i'm actually stating one and two [00:18:07] Carl Steinbeck: one and two all right i mean he's not dumb enough to obstruct them coming into the place and him trying to get them there and call nine one i mean you don't know where this apartment is it'd be on your phone if you didn't know by heart you could easily look it up electronically on your phone so was this to buy time we get into that later you'll hear the 901 call i think i'll jump ahead this is he doesn't really score any points here he's just trying to bring up the fact that he's somewhat helpful and uh his demeanor and whatnot it's just nothing to highlight that he was really frantic and trying to make sure that they're doing anything they can do to save the mother and uh expecting child so let's go ahead to the next witness this is andrea browning she's uh jade's stepmom since 2009 she went to ob-gyn clinic with her and she talked about how jade was looking forward to being a mom and whatnot let's just watch a few minutes here she was with her when the phonogram showed she was uh having a girl good morning mr browning could you [00:20:03] Speaker 6: please state your name for the record adria browning and could you spell your first name and your last [00:20:09] Carl Steinbeck: name for the corporate a-n-d-r-e-a-v-r she also knows the girlfriend the jaya and she says that she would have no from her experience knowing her uh she's friends with jade since uh since they were six years old or sixth grade i forget which which it is but uh she has no suspicions of uh of uh any involvement of [00:20:32] Speaker 6: any wrongdoing by uh miss jackson w-n-i-n-g and this browning what was your relationship with jade i was her stepmother's mom when um did you become jade's stepmom when i married her father in um 2009 and how old would jade have been at that time 11. um and you met her before you actually married her father yes and it's her father dennis brown correct um where were you living at the time that you met jade and you let her father grab me we were living in fort wallton beach florida [00:21:16] Speaker 7: and did you continue to live there at some point did you move we moved um in 2016 or 15 some of that [00:21:26] Carl Steinbeck: so i'm going to go ahead you get you get a sense of that witness there let's go ahead and jump to allison mulele she's the ob-gyn that jade benning was seeing and that is this person right there she helped establish one the um around the time frame that she was expecting to have the delivery uh there was some question about what what she asked jade about whether uh she's on any medications jade said she was on any medications um and using uh they didn't do any tests for drugs um so let's go let's go to some of the cross-samination here because i think this is really uh telling here and very strange [00:22:43] Speaker 8: what's your response yes there's just been a backup we should do all the right things that's sound of max [00:23:13] Carl Steinbeck: here's attorney she's sort of scrambling where she gets up there it's like she wasn't ready bringing her phone and a laptop in the notebook that's a lot to bring up [00:23:33] Speaker 9: dr maloli how are you good how are you looking pretty good thank you i am leticia can you know miss howard um can i ask you a few questions at any time you don't understand let me know i do my best for grace okay uh just a few questions for you uh mr malali will you tell me am i saying the right malali malali malali uh dr malali can you tell me have you been able to determine when miss benning would have become pregnant based on your examination [00:24:06] Speaker 10: well by her dates she would have conceived roughly two weeks after her [00:24:10] Speaker 9: first day or last period okay and the first day of her last period was what [00:24:16] Speaker 10: i don't remember that i have to look will you trust me if i tell you that i just looked in the [00:24:21] Speaker ?: records that you just reviewed evidence if that date was patient's last menstrual period was [00:24:29] Speaker 9: september 12 2022 yes do you see that there on page one of eight yes and so then you will tell me then that her date of conception would have been two weeks after that yes and that would put uh september has 30 days in it does it not yes and if we put 14 days past that that puts us at september 26 is that right yes so then we would be safe to say that by september 26 of 22 miss benning would have been broken roughly yes and what day was she in your office november 16th and that is the day that she was diagnosed if that's the proper term of being [00:25:23] Speaker 10: pregnant well it was confirmed to be an intrauterial pregnancy okay confirmed to be fair enough so [00:25:31] Speaker 9: would it then be safe to say that september was the last time she had a period she did not have a period then in october correct now you stated um on direct examination that the patient did not or was not involved in any drugs to your knowledge is that right correct now to be fair you did not test her for drugs did you no okay so you're only going on what she shared with you is that right yes it's somewhat by her vital signs and her demeanor okay but you'll agree with me that certainly someone's vital signs and demeanor it's not indicative as to whether they're not going to need some drugs not always correct would it be surprising to know that miss benning had sent a message to miss nigeia jackson that she was doing so much adderall yes there's just been an allegation that miss benning has not done any drugs that you said to her knowledge now you're they're objected to hearsay it's a in regards to impeachment [00:26:52] Speaker 4: do you want to ask if she had any information about that [00:26:57] Speaker 9: dr mclood did you know that or would you have known that miss benning had felt that she was doing so much alcohol and adderall that it was not an objection can i give you a hypothetical yes okay so [00:27:19] Carl Steinbeck: defense attorney is trying to establish that the victim jade was using drugs illicit drugs prescription or otherwise abusing drugs and so therefore the defense theory is she the most likely cause of her death is her using these uh these drugs of cocaine and uh she overdosed on it as a cocaine overdose that's basically their their defense and so any other drug usage she has makes it more likely that she would have used cocaine right because if you're using a bunch of other recreational drugs you're more likely to use cocaine as well either accidentally or or intentionally as opposed to somebody else slipping you a mickey as uh they used to say where somebody's spiking your drink or your food so here i think there's a constitutional right to present a defense which is that jade has had other past history of bad drugs and therefore that's something they want to argue that this is a intentional or accidental overdose and it has nothing to do with the defendant so defendant has no history of drug usage but she does and that's something they should be highlighting so what we have here though is uh is uh it's a questioning of some message some text message that the defense attorney is saying that jade sent to her friend miss jackson uh nijayla jackson so let's see what let's see what happens here [00:28:55] Speaker 9: about what about a patient doing drugs or alcohol you want to ask this doctor if they want their [00:29:07] Speaker 4: patient using alcohol or adderol on their drink no what i would like to do what's your question what i [00:29:14] Speaker 9: would like to do what's your question my question is whether or not based on this doctor's statement then miss benny was not doing drugs and dark alcohol and that she would be able to tell by her bible [00:29:28] Speaker 4: signs is that your question you're wanting to ask this lady the question i would like to ask her is [00:29:33] Speaker 9: whether or not someone feeling as though they're doing so much adderol and alcohol their body should she don't have any knowledge about that and i've sustained the hearsay objection [00:29:45] Speaker 4: so am i not allowed to ask to sustain the hearsay objection about your question [00:29:51] Speaker 9: let me ask you in another way if i may did miss benning ever share with you that she was doing heroin no did she ever share with you that in november she was doing mushrooms no did she ever share with you that she was doing alcohol no did she ever share with you as her medical professional that she felt like she was doing so much adderall and alcohol that her body was shutting [00:30:21] Carl Steinbeck: down no okay so using so much alcohol and adderall which is a stimulant that her body was shutting down okay that's that's like the most damaging information that the defense is trying to bring out to make it look like she's she's she's whacked out on drugs even though she's pregnant i mean that's that's pretty damning exculpatory type information i would say if if you're a prosecutor you don't want to hear that of your uh victim and so [00:30:56] Speaker 9: let's see where this goes it gets pretty crazy if she would have shared that with you would that change your previous statement in regards to that she was not doing any drugs [00:31:11] Speaker 4: if you told you she was using drugs that would change your opinion about whether she was using drugs [00:31:16] Speaker 9: for what she's asking yes okay thank you but what you've just represented to this jury is it not dr mclolly was that based on your knowledge and representations to you by miss benix she was not doing any drugs or alcohol or alcohol is that correct correct thank you [00:31:37] Speaker 4: okay [00:31:44] Carl Steinbeck: so think about this context again to ask a question on cross-samination of a witness the attorney any attorney in court you have to have good faith basis to ask a question so any drug usage questions she's posing to this doctor she has to have a good faith basis in other words there's something in either in the prosecution file or something she knows from her it could be just from one person your client blaze taylor something that that blaze could tell you that nobody else knows on the government side but something that blaze tells you so those kind of questions are relevant to try to establish your theory that it wasn't blake that gave her the drugs she took the drugs on her own and was intentional or accidental overdose it's it has nothing to do with uh the defendant so but here's the thing you have to have a good faith basis for doing that and so you just can't make stuff up you can't for example you can't have a defense attorney saying well are you aware she used cocaine the night before are you aware that she used heroin the day before that are you where she was uh you know on lsd the third day before she died you know you can't just make up stuff you have to have a good faith base for doing that so keep that in mind here when when these next uh minutes play out [00:33:00] Speaker 8: andy read your breath okay i think i'll cover some of that later [00:33:20] Speaker 4: here in reed case civil case all right ladies we're going to break through lunch just remember what i said about not discussing the case forming any opinion about it the other admonitions i gave you yesterday we'll get back here in one hour step down [00:33:40] Carl Steinbeck: okay so lo and behold everybody's going on a one hour lunch break he's looking worried he's got a worried look on his face he should be worried from the evidence i've seen so far i haven't seen all of it i haven't seen most of it yet okay so right now country's thinking she's okay she got away with them witnesses uh departing the courthouse dr malalay and they're able to bring out this information that jade was basically on so much alcohol and adderall that she basically fallen down didn't even function is that the truth okay now let's jump ahead let's jump ahead an hour and see what starts up after lunch here the prosecution should you'll see here in a minute should have addressed this right away okay here we go i'm going to turn the sound on [00:35:29] Speaker 6: i would like to address something that came up um during miss holland's cross-examination of dr malali she specifically asked her about a text message that jade might have sent to nigeria jackson about doing about doing adderall and alcohol um the text message that she's referring to is not a text message that jade benning sent it is a text message that nigeria jackson sent jake benning in november of 2022 the state's position is it is not in any way relevant to miss jackson's credibility as a witness or her ability to remember the events of november 25th of 2023 yes but the state is asking that the defense not be allowed to ask witnesses about messages unless they have shown them to the state she misstated the message and who the symbol was and that was inappropriate and wrong and we would ask if she provide us with a copy of anything she's asking [00:36:40] Speaker 4: who may i respond do you think the message that you quoted the doctor is from miss bitty i am looking at it is just a yes or no yes i am yes oh she's holding up papers like a defense oh okay i'm looking at based on she doesn't think she thinks it's from miss bitty [00:37:01] Speaker 6: and that is why i'm asking the court that she be required to provide us with a copy of it so that we can determine that you already have i i don't i have a copy of the message let me see [00:37:13] Carl Steinbeck: i mean the prosecutor should right away be able to establish she's she's misstating the record we gave i mean the information that the defense counsel is holding up came from the prosecution office so they should have the exact same page so her saying you should have to show us what you're going to ask them about a cross-examination i mean you're the one that gave them that information prosecutor so why aren't you calling it out by page number and line number exactly what uh was misquoted miss sourced [00:37:44] Speaker 9: let me make sure i give you the right one and what i was trying to tell the court was that this is the dump of miss ben's phone so i am 100 percent of the job that we were provided so let me find it and then i will turn it to the court because what i saw on there was it was from [00:38:03] Carl Steinbeck: what i saw was so right now she's already like backpedaling it's like from what i saw okay you should be this should be rock solid this is a like a huge point for the defense to make and you got three attorneys here that have helped prep this and this is like a like a very exculpatory very much a dagger in the prosecution's case that she's like so out of it she's almost like um collapsing she's on so much abuse of alcohol and uh prescription meds [00:38:34] Speaker 9: so if i'm wrong it's based on the records that we received from the state so i'll find it and i'll [00:38:41] Speaker 4: get it too okay let me see okay so [00:38:52] Speaker 8: county jones [00:38:55] Carl Steinbeck: so you're using a quote that you extract off a document but you can't pull the document very very uh readily there in quick fashion okay look at none of her co-council look like they're trying to help rescue her he's on his phone joiner's on his phone i want it being on your laptop or a hard copy [00:39:26] Speaker 4: does the state have their available text that you're saying came from this jackson to miss spinning about her body shaking that's what you're referencing miss holland no it was not about that issue but that's what you asked no what i asked was look at that message and see if that's what you're speaking about [00:39:55] Speaker 9: yes that is that's it it's on my computer so let me pull it up on my computer [00:40:00] Speaker 4: so that's the state's copy just let me see [00:40:03] Speaker 9: the fact that's the same is not what i was looking at but that's the text is your reference i don't know that that's detection but you said it just was the text context wise it doesn't mean that the sender and the recipient that i was looking at was [00:40:18] Carl Steinbeck: because i verified that before that i was looking at so she's already looking like she knows she messed up that she's getting getting called out on it [00:40:32] Speaker 9: so if i can pull it up on my computer because that's i just remembered i was looking at it from my computer [00:40:37] Speaker 4: well it says a phone number in in 0608 [00:40:42] Carl Steinbeck: uh how do you pronounce it okay dreamscape you're saying that prosecution could not give the defense state in time with defense hey because it's not it didn't exist leticia read it wrong no the document did exist it did exist and they should be able to know exactly what was said and when when you're talking about falling down you're you're having to do with alcohol and um and the adderall because they know this is impeachment evidence that can be used against ms jackson so they should write it go wait a minute they're mixing that up they're mixing this you should be that on top of stuff as an attorney okay both the prosecution and the defense it's just it's just very much uh flat-footed advocacy here and what is what is the defense attorney doing she's trying to like she's already trying to uh she's she's like wiping out on the ice here with her skates she's she's doing the the back pedal and [00:41:39] Speaker 4: well well you know so nigeia nigeia my body is starting to feel like it's shutting down yeah it's not shaking you said shaking you said it was for misdeeding that's what i'm trying to determine i'm [00:41:55] Speaker 9: trying to pull it up for you so that i can get it to you so they both happen to say the same thing really [00:42:00] Carl Steinbeck: i don't think so the judge is like [00:42:09] Speaker ?: i don't think so [00:42:18] Carl Steinbeck: yeah there is not a document that shows that this is a conversation from jade but there's a text history between the two of them and that's what they're going by in the document right there that the judge has shows that it came from maticia to jade not the other way around so it's the same document they're just misquoting the author of it that's what i believe i believe it's the same document because think about whether you have a printout of all of jade's text messages or a printout of all of the legetations it's all going to show who is [00:43:17] Speaker 4: 11 29 48 seconds yep [00:43:25] Carl Steinbeck: i'm sure he's not present they came back from lunch and this was raised by i'm not sure this is a defense attorney it's it's right is this some kind of trickery or something i mean the jury can be looking at this um once the truth comes out and they're going okay at a minimum defense counsel are not well prepped on this case why is that uh and here he's just sort of like you know what you're doing there looks like a salt pack here [00:44:40] Speaker 9: if you look at the bottom of page 169 it has the sender's number and then it has the message next to uh the message is the next one [00:44:49] Carl Steinbeck: hundred look at the bottom of the process it's honoring for that okay i'm just trying to i don't [00:44:55] Speaker 4: show that to this thing [00:45:00] Speaker 9: if you look at the bottom of that page the sender number is five i don't know but the recipient is not saying the very next message is that message that we [00:45:14] Speaker 6: her copy is the metadata yeah now i can read all of this on page 1959 a record 4388 it says one and this following page 1970 is the message if you also see the center goes with this message [00:45:56] Speaker 9: let me ask you a question the center says 501-541-500 is there a police officer here [00:46:03] Speaker 4: that can tell us who's the center and who's the receiver of that i absolutely can get one here [00:46:09] Carl Steinbeck: okay why don't you do that it'd be so evident even if the name wasn't in front of each message that text message just sent it's obvious who's who in the messaging history so very very shoddy lawyering here so you're miss holland you're still thinking that [00:46:33] Speaker 9: what i'm sharing is when i looked at the sender's number it said 501 and then when it said recipient it did not say it did not say jay benny so when i saw sender 501 let me ask you are you acknowledging you now mistaken i don't know that i can say that she's right because it does say sender's name nigeria but the number was 501-5410608 so you're going by a number that you think you can [00:47:05] Carl Steinbeck: remember that is traced to jade versus the name of najasha on the on the actual document as being the one sending the text this is what do you need to figure out whether you were mistaken let me just speak [00:47:21] Speaker 9: with my staff who sent it to okay so your staff is going to know something that you're cross-samining [00:47:29] Carl Steinbeck: this doctor on not you you you're in command as the lead attorney thanks granny debbie look at all this time you have to have a good faith basis to ask a question as i said earlier and now there's this hubbub going on about what so what she shared with me that it [00:47:51] Speaker 9: wasn't that from my jail however we have several other messages where she doesn't that do the same [00:47:58] Carl Steinbeck: drugs so we can okay so they talk about drugs not conversation but she's not talking about this really scathing point about she's fallen down she's so overwhelmed with this alcohol combo with adderall [00:48:13] Speaker 4: how bad you're jumping way ahead of the question you asked the doctor she's trying to like make an [00:48:19] Carl Steinbeck: excuse and well there's other information so this one is incorrect she's conceding she was incorrect [00:48:29] Speaker 9: let me say this i should say yes or no well no it's not your honor if i can go [00:48:34] Carl Steinbeck: oh man you're sassing the judge right now that's not a good look as an attorney talking back to a judge [00:48:40] Speaker 9: like that and please allow me to say what i need to share for the record thank you [00:48:48] Carl Steinbeck: it just sounds it just doesn't sound good her her her demeanor towards the judge does not show respect the due respect i think that is owed to the court we were mistaken in regards to that okay okay now he cut her off at this point but the judge judges can do that yeah but if they know that [00:49:08] Speaker 9: then i need to be able to go into other messages that suggest the same drugs because i can go a day [00:49:14] Speaker 4: later because one of the questions i've asked the doctor's gone i'm just saying the message you try to convey to the jury is you want to listen to me okay okay right there i'm listening to you okay right there uh [00:49:29] Carl Steinbeck: some of you are saying this is her husband uh ed joiner so when the judge is talking to an attorney you don't have another attorney gone and whispering in the attorney's ear who's supposed to be listening to the court so right there is another bad move by the defense team um unbelievable [00:49:46] Speaker 9: what did i just say you said do i need to let the jury know i said the doctor's gone i heard that part too but if you would remember what i said was if she told you she did mushrooms would that make a difference [00:50:00] Speaker 4: right that's not what i'm dealing with i'm dealing with the question that you used this text message from what you said was miss bing and now that's not true you you sustained their objection to this you wouldn't ask the question a different way in the second time and the question [00:50:20] Speaker 9: they didn't the question i asked was she's putting a spin on a lot of stuff here she told you she did and the final question even if we can replay it we can't and i it's a final question that [00:50:33] Carl Steinbeck: the prosecution was flat-footed and they didn't address is not having a valid basis [00:50:39] Speaker 4: the final question you asked was this same thing it was but the the drugs she said no i didn't know [00:50:47] Speaker 9: that yeah we can clear it up and i can talk about the others the same drugs i'm dealing with the others [00:50:52] Speaker 4: and whatever witnesses i'm dealing with were you wrong on who generated this text i was but that text [00:50:59] Speaker 9: did not come into evidence the question was your question included the text okay listen to this let me back this up she said about that i didn't know that yeah we can clear it up and i can talk about the others the same drugs i'm dealing with the others and what are the witnesses i'm dealing with you just [00:51:21] Carl Steinbeck: want to gloss over the fact you asked a question that didn't have a uh valid basis to ask a good faith basis to ask by just bringing up all this other drug stuff right no that's that's you can't [00:51:34] Speaker 4: get us out slick the jury like that were you wrong on who generated this text i was but that text did [00:51:43] Speaker 9: not come into evidence the question was your question included the text no it did not not not what was in front of the question this witness was able to answer did not deal with the question they [00:51:57] Speaker 4: objected to and actually was sustained did not come in then your final question after the mushrooms and everything else was if you knew that she was taking adderall to the point of shutting down her body would that been contrary to her history she answered yes they didn't object they didn't object there you go [00:52:19] Carl Steinbeck: prosecution you need to up your game you're flat-footed here and you should know exactly what reference that is not be look at none of them are looking anything up on their computers uh of the middle attorney look at his screen is black the one on the far end just has a screen saver on there um maybe the attorney on the right i think her name's jan maybe she's looking something up but they should have a hard copy of this be able to show the judge and she did earlier um but they're just they're just not adequately prepared as trial attorneys i can tell you that so the jury heard of that and they can bring the doctor back [00:52:59] Speaker 9: and say something different she's gone well she can come back if she wants to impeach that she can't [00:53:07] Carl Steinbeck: so if you the prosecution has to impeach something that wasn't in good faith basis asked by the defense that's not how it works that's not how it works why would she say impeach because you're saying [00:53:17] Speaker 4: it needed and i'm not going to get it i'm going to bring the jury down tell them that questions are not evidence which i've told them at the get-go that's right but that the question you asked generated from a text from miss binning was not from this mini the question i asked had to do [00:53:36] Speaker 9: with the drugs the city was doing i mean you have to have a valid good faith base to ask a question you [00:53:51] Carl Steinbeck: just can't have a plethora of drug usage information and then start attributing stuff that somebody else said to the person that was murdered okay you cannot do that a question now who you know is missing miss [00:54:09] Speaker 4: jackson did we have a jury out do you think it's relevant that this text comes in to impeach miss jackson about her reliability no i don't oh you can let the jury step in [00:54:23] Carl Steinbeck: all right judge is letting her off easy actually i mean i'm just telling you a lot of judges they would like rip your head off he tried pulling a stunt like that even if it was an innocent mistake you don't know your case well you you should get chewed out you should get chewed out he's tricked off but he's not doing much about it he's going to correct the record but he's not he's not putting this attorney in her place i'll tell you [00:54:54] Speaker 4: that in my opinion let's do the jury let me give you this piece of information one and this deals with dr malayla's testimony look at that you just blurt out an objection to the judge you know he's going [00:55:23] Carl Steinbeck: to start talking to the jury so you just openly up stand up and just blurt out and start talking to the judge excuse me you know there's not even excuse me your honor let's let's go back is there an [00:55:33] Speaker 9: excuse me your honor and this deals with dr malayla's i'm gonna object to this on the record i didn't [00:55:42] Carl Steinbeck: hear that if there wasn't i didn't hear it in regards to part let the attorney step up i mean she's she's she's basically in this judge's face and he's not doing much about it um just i can tell you the uh when i was because these attorneys are from out of state when i was like went to a different county up in north texas and i was on a case that was not my case i was trying to fix something else that and some other attorneys had messed up and the opposing counsel interrupted me on something and when i was trying to uh clarify something i unknowingly interrupted them for a second a split second the judge is like he started yelling at me really loud and saying i've had it people interrupting each other all day long and she's like looking at me and just screaming at me and i'm like whoa whoa what's going on here i've never seen a judge act that way so for something like this not having a good faith basis on a murder case you're asking a question and taking all this time and all this fracas and you know no well just people make mistakes so unbelievable [00:57:32] Speaker 4: yeah so just so quarter quarter understand what we're talking about the pinch conference you miss hans are now saying that you didn't say it was okay for the court to instruct the jury that that question coming from miss benning's text from miss benning was wrong [00:57:50] Speaker 9: this is unbelievable folks that an attorney will do this and get away with it look at this [00:58:07] Carl Steinbeck: he's talking to the court reporter and she just interrupts him again but i thought the court did you say that it calls for yes or no answer and she's again trying to go off on tangents now you can tell he's addressing the court reporter every time that i'm trying to [00:58:31] Speaker 4: protect i said i'm gonna bring the jury in and instruct them that questions aren't evidence and [00:58:37] Carl Steinbeck: that's your question about to the doctor she's still over talking the judge interrupting the judge and he's just trying to talk through it but he's not calling her out on it anybody that wants to be attorney or is a in law school or wants to be a trial lawyer this is exactly how you not do not conduct yourself okay interrupting a judge screwing up the case and then you're going to go in and act this way and even do this in front of a jury i can tell you most judges would never let this happen and just continually just have this kind of patience and let her get away with it [00:59:16] Speaker 4: layla about miss benning generating a text that she was starting to feel like her body was shutting down did not come from miss benny you now agree to that right you agree the text did come from miss benny [00:59:31] Speaker 9: i do agree that protected but you're now saying you didn't say that that was okay no what i thought the court was saying was that you were going to instruct you if i'm the judge [00:59:42] Carl Steinbeck: i'm saying you know what that's what i'm doing i don't you can note your objection put it on the record but that's what i'm telling the jury okay i run this courtroom okay you didn't have a good faith basis that's what i should be telling the jury that there was not a good faith basis for the defense to ask that question it was actually a different person and so therefore to disregard the last answer and question posed by the fence which happened to be and then restate it have the court reporter restated back for the record so the jury completely uh gets it because think think about it they had an hour over an hour break now they're just brought back in and now this she's just blurting out objections again so i mean this this looks like a hot mess courtroom jury that what the lawyers say [01:00:24] Speaker 9: is not evidence i don't have a problem with that but if you want to comment on exact evidence the court can't comment comment on evidence the proper way for the da's so she's now telling the judge what he can and cannot do really to impeach me is to bring that witness back in and peach you is that what she said he's not commenting on evidence per se he's commenting commenting on it's actually a ethical requirement for [01:01:00] Carl Steinbeck: the attorneys to have a good faith basis it's an ethical requirement so it's just not a evidentiary requirement a court requirement uh of rules of procedure you actually have to have a good faith basis so um that's what the judge wants to do is preserve the integrity of the process [01:01:16] Speaker 9: da's to impeach me is to bring that witness back in and then ask that particular question in regards to this exhibit that is the proper way then at that time i have a right to come back and ask about those very same drugs so that the jury doesn't believe that i'm misleading them the way that the court wants to do it it makes the jury believe i'm misleading them about the drugs because you misunderstood the ten but the court sustained the state's objection not the third time the third time if my question is wrong the proper thing for them to do is to bring that message got to the jury so how [01:01:54] Speaker 4: i want to explain to the jury what question or what information we're talking about i don't know why [01:02:00] Carl Steinbeck: the judge needs to ask this question it's really easy how to fix it so i i don't know this judge seems tough on one hand on the other hand he's just like letting stuff slide yeah oh yeah here lee are you in tennessee cannot imagine being a member of the tennessee bar and lecturing a veteran tennessee judge on what's allowed what's not yeah i mean she's pushing him around the courtroom and he's letting it happen [01:02:27] Speaker 4: for you to do is for the state to do how would i you're saying it's okay for me to bring the jury in and instruct them that what the attorneys say is not heavy that's correct about what that's for the [01:02:40] Speaker 9: jury for them to come back and decide if the court comment you had didn't have a good faith basis to [01:02:46] Carl Steinbeck: ask the question whether it was intentional a slick move or was innocent let's just say it was an instant move you're just your t you and your teamers or uh it was an oversight uh inadvertent oversight the judge needs to clarify the record on that and let the jury not be tricked into believing that that was a statement from um from an email from jade so this needs to be cleaned up on direct evidence it is so she's basically saying the judge you're trying to do something you know is [01:03:25] Speaker 9: unbecoming unethical or unjudicious the jury for them to come back and decide if the court comments on direct evidence it is in fraud and the court knows there was no evidence and the court knows that so [01:03:39] Carl Steinbeck: you're basically insulting the court right there i just can't believe it that somebody can get away [01:03:43] Speaker 9: with your question then why are they talking to the jury if there's no because you brought it up and misunderstood what your staff gave so that means that the state has a right to bring that witness back up that is the way that that is handled it's not the report to their impeachment so that witness doesn't [01:04:02] Carl Steinbeck: know anything about the text messages that you brought into question so how is that fixing it by recalling that witness huh that witness doesn't know the truth of whether that's a good faith basis or not so that's that's like a ridiculous comment to make that's not the way courts in america handle it period okay so that's not the way so she's trying to basically intimidate the judge and making it sound like judge don't you know don't you have a clue to the way that really works in courtrooms in america [01:04:38] Speaker 6: impeaching her she's supposed to be ethical follow the rules and not lie to the witnesses there you go [01:04:47] Carl Steinbeck: gosh she finally stood up and made a comment she said you you have a duty to ask questions legitimate questions of witnesses otherwise it's unethical that's what i said earlier so she finally said it but look [01:05:05] Speaker 4: but look what does the judge do okay so she she was not ethical she was wrong about who sent the text [01:05:15] Carl Steinbeck: okay she was wrong so okay judge did she have a good faith basis why don't you why don't you address the sloppiness at a minimum if not outright deception by the by the defense team it's one or the other and call them out on it and hold their feet to the fire but you know what if you're automatically saying it was an accident okay if it's an accident then they didn't intend to at least fix it with the jury then maybe that's the last time that'll happen [01:05:48] Speaker 4: thanks california dreamin appreciate that [01:06:00] Carl Steinbeck: thanks california dreamin appreciate that yeah i the other defense lawyers on the pence team know they're looking like you know they're looking like fools i think keep this up okay let's see how this is handled because is that questions asked by the attorneys [01:06:54] Speaker 4: as i told you yesterday questions arguments are not [01:07:03] Carl Steinbeck: okay that's questions asked are not evidence but they have to have a good faith basis to ask the question and he's not even addressing that that's universal in all courts of america any court america you have a good faith base for asking like i said you just can't sit there and say well dr malay are you aware she was uh smoking crack and uh getting drunk every night and in a coma from uh taking cocaine two nights earlier and heroin the two nights before that i mean you just can't make up smear bomb uh type of cross-samination questions so the judge does not even i think handling this the right way at all [01:07:44] Speaker 4: unless it's adopted by the witness as i said yesterday there were questions during dr layla's testimony about a text generated from this benny [01:07:58] Speaker ?: that's now acknowledged that text was not from this so just disregard that information [01:08:09] Carl Steinbeck: okay okay you should say what the text is you know clarify it was from a different witness uh and if you want to say the name of the name of the name of the name of it fine so [01:08:31] Speaker 11: do you describe the testimony about to give to the tributes [01:08:42] Carl Steinbeck: okay okay here we have the next witness being keante jones sir could you please tell us your name and spell your first this guy is uh now in his last year of dental school there in the tennessee nashville area and uh let's go right to the part where that's really damning for the defense here we go [01:09:24] Speaker 8: i'm gonna start out mr jackson has panicked you use that word their voices the tenor of their voices [01:09:38] Speaker 12: was there a difference between the two types of panicking um there was there was a difference um miss jackson's like as i stated uh was more so like a frantic worry panic and um i don't i don't know what language i'm allowed to use in here but mr mr taylor's was more so like a no i just effed up type of panic that's a type of panic so this guy's saying it was like [01:10:13] Carl Steinbeck: oh crap i effed up so you know what that means it means exactly what i thought was probably the case which is he didn't tend to kill jade he just intended to have the baby aborted all right so [01:10:32] Speaker 8: that was my question [01:10:37] Carl Steinbeck: any other questions sure mr okay this job yes sir um okay goddess you seem to be very uh very talkative here on this channel and uh you're thinking all this is just nothing but a hearsay case really well guess what one of the things i can tell is hearsay is admissible admission of a party opponent so anything the defense says is admissible in the trial so if you want to say everybody's lying you want to stick with the defense that's fine i'm here to get to the bottom of things so um obviously you're on a campaign for the defense so that's fine that's fine that description that you [01:11:17] Speaker 5: just gave while the state was on redirect oh have you never stated that before at any time to anyone [01:11:30] Speaker 12: yes did you state that to the investigator when he spoke to you on april 30. i don't know if that question was even asked in that investigator okay well goddess you don't know how to follow evidence [01:11:42] Carl Steinbeck: you don't have any law background you've never tried a case prosecuted case or offended case so uh if you think there's no proper evidence then uh i guess you'll you'll be very surprised then when this guy is uh convicted that's my prediction what i've seen so far and i've not even seen all the case yet all the case but there's enough indicators of guilt that i'm making a early prediction right now [01:12:05] Speaker 12: conversation do you not remember as i already stated that was about two and a half years ago so no i don't [01:12:11] Speaker 5: recall and would if given the opportunity to review a transcript of that conversation would that refresh your memory and age or testimony here today i think it would [01:12:32] Carl Steinbeck: this is a weird part here where he never said it before so he tries to make can i say where would you like me to be reading or should i read the whole thing like this guy's lying and making it up but the thing is if you don't ask a certain right question of a witness they may not volunteer that information they don't know how important and critical it might be so he's just like 10 minutes reading over this whole thing let's jump ahead [01:13:34] Speaker 12: i mean we would be here a while if i read all of it [01:13:47] Carl Steinbeck: i'm jumping ahead here i've never seen this before we're witnessed a lot of read through an entire statement that they previously gave for like 10 minutes the description you gave that mr taylor was [01:14:11] Speaker 5: oh i up penny have you ever given that statement to anyone at any time yes when when i met with the [01:14:22] Speaker 12: va when was that uh last first time i probably gave that testimony was back in february of this year [01:14:32] Speaker 5: yes okay and did you talk to detective reese on february 28 of 2023 by phone i don't know who detective reese is so if he said he spoke to you you don't recall it is that who this person is no sir [01:14:49] Speaker 12: i don't know who detective reese is thank you no further questions [01:15:01] Carl Steinbeck: mr john hey jumping ahead here that's my take on that is that's really damning so anything you see about the defendant acting nervous or frantic or scared whatever it is i think it is that he's panicking because this thing is blown out of control he just wanted to give some cocaine to to cause a miscarriage not not cause the death of the mother so i think that's the takeaway but you're you're criminally responsible for both for both being a uh a murder and that's what the evidence is looking like that's why i predict the jury's going to come back with here this is the other paramedic and let's see i'm going to go to the cross elimination let's go to the cross elimination here at 16. that's the only thing [01:15:57] Speaker 13: he told us okay and and you don't know whether he was just doesn't know a lot do you i don't know he couldn't answer anything sure okay but he did tell me that you're right right okay um if i could see it's a good vibe i think that the the most recently introduced a report the report yes you offered to see it no i'd like to see it i think unfortunately i caught it i don't have a very fancy presentation but little face snipped out so we'll [01:16:31] Speaker 11: kind of have to do this a little fashion way um try to hit a button here [01:16:46] Speaker 13: this here i want to talk for a second about the timeline of this call so we'll get to this page okay okay this portion of the report right here do you recognize that i do is it accurate to say this provides information about when various things occurred during the call yes so the very first entry what does psap stand [01:17:50] Speaker 7: uh i honestly have no idea maybe what time the call came in i'm not sure we don't do anything and [01:17:55] Speaker 13: but the times until uh unit dispatched so it's the very first entry in this report right and 21 38 i'm so terrible military time but what's 21 38 9 38 yeah 9 30 so potentially that's when the call was right correct the next entry is dispatched notified 21 40 that's two minutes later right correct and is that the time between the call was made and they're finally dispatching you guys tell them dispatch we need somebody to get out on the road [01:18:33] Speaker 7: uh unit dispatched is what time they contact us okay it's the same time between dispatch notified and [01:18:40] Speaker 13: unit dispatch 21 40 and 57 seconds correct so almost i didn't that's that's you guys getting up telling being told you to get out on the road correct and we don't know why there's a two minute delay all right so i'm going to up at the very top no [01:19:01] Carl Steinbeck: uh you are on route 941 correct we're going to go ahead and jump to sergeant pfeiffer metro police department there i want to show the video [01:19:13] Speaker 4: from his body cam you find from you're listening to the audio seeing on the visual that there's something different between what you hear and what's related in the transcript you have to rely on what you [01:19:28] Speaker 11: think we'll say okay okay okay okay okay what's happening today uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh this episode we're going to uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh what electronic means did you use to get there so not off the top of your head yeah i have it right [01:20:47] Carl Steinbeck: here so he's just trying to play dumb it looks like [01:20:58] Speaker 11: but it's a new bill there's still nothing we're finished with all of it sorry guys i gotta take it off but yeah she's she's apartment one of our condo apartment so what's her name so we went over there she's she's like hey got this date planned for us date night um seven o'clock so seven o'clock she cooked dinner she had this canvas he sounds like he's nervous about something he did that's [01:21:43] Carl Steinbeck: that's the vibe i'm getting what do you all think so does he sound like he's more concerned about what he's telling cops are more concerned about them getting jade and the baby saved huh which is it it doesn't sound doesn't sound like he's as concerned with them surviving it as he is what [01:22:07] Speaker 11: what do i got to say what do i got to say here because i'm i'm i'm looking guilty [01:22:26] Carl Steinbeck: well i will say um the mass thing i it was required it would have been required there at vanderbilt hospital so uh if you want to go in and out of the hospital he's standing outside right there but uh you're required to have that on but yeah you could he couldn't take it off right now being outside the hospital is what i recall [01:22:50] Speaker 11: and all that she started out to feel well uh not feeling very good um and uh she was like throwing up shaking so then i called my band and i was like hey i don't know what to do and he was like i'm doing calling out the ones um immediately i don't know what to do um they kind of want to do what to do like uh you know turn on the side um were you guys arguing or anything now you know what he's how he's acting like he's acting like [01:24:05] Carl Steinbeck: oh crap this is out of control i may have been i may have killed both of them now [01:24:12] Speaker 11: that's what it looks like to me that's that's the vibe [01:24:29] Carl Steinbeck: he doesn't say you know the thing is how does she how does she get something put in her drink you're telling me she's gonna put in some cocaine a massive load of cocaine in her drink and not offer to share it with him or he and he's not going to know about it that this makes no sense no sense at all and then she's going to do with while she's having a baby she's never had cocaine from what we've seen in her history and now she's going to take a massive mega dose of [01:24:57] Speaker 11: cocaine or any amount of cocaine for that matter it makes no sense whatsoever um um [01:25:34] Carl Steinbeck: okay so that's that's i think when you look at demeanor like i said it's very critical especially on a murder case and he got this video footage of the defendant so he knows he's got to cooperate he's he's not uh he's not going to be stupid enough to say no i invoke i invoke i'm not going to talk to y'all so he's got to put the facts out there that hey she had something to eat some kind of allergic reaction and uh where they actually said it was poisoning you know um that's that's not uh that's not something he's volunteering and uh you know if he if he's gonna give her spike her drink and then he realized it's gone south well he's not is he gonna do the right thing and say look i gave her some cocaine i thought it was gonna give her miscarriage but i didn't know it was that much right and the thing is what the defense said is that this guy is not using legal drugs so if he's not using legal drug somebody like him would not know how much to put in there and how much is too much so if you're a normal user of cocaine and you have familiarity with with it i certainly don't have that experience you would know how much it takes to get somebody to have some kind of bad side effects short of killing them i would imagine so um anyway i'm uh i'm gonna go ahead this is uh pretty much the wrap up from day one so i'm gonna take a break and then jump back on and i'll do another announcement so be within uh within the next hour i'll jump on and we'll do another follow-up for some of the other trial coverage so so stay tuned uh i'll be back here in a little bit thank you [01:27:48] Speaker ?: you you