9 Chilling New Details in Tortured 10-Year-Old’s Murder Case

How long has it been since she's been. responsive? >> We don't know. She She ran away and they. found her in the the dirt. >> An Arizona dad and the woman his kids. called their stepmom are accused of. treating their three children. horrifically in what medical. professionals say amounted to torture. When Richard Baptiste and Ania Woods. emerged from their rural campsite with. an unresponsive 10-year-old, authorities. were immediately suspicious. And now, newly filed court documents are giving. us more insight into what may have been. happening within this family directly.

from the couple's other alleged victims. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. >> How long has it been since she's been. responsive? >> We don't know. She She ran away and they. found her in the the dirt. We only know. for as long as that he got her on the. quad and gave her. >> not getting any signs. >> Where were you guys at? east of Petrified Forest and we're like. 20 20 minutes in. So, >> you're in Apache County? >> Yeah. Yeah, boys. I I we just moved here.

at the start of the month, so I'm still. kind of getting the She was involved in. an accident. >> No, she ran away. She's on medications. >> And she hasn't been she hasn't been on. these medications in about a month. because we've been moving. >> Okay. >> And Hold on a second. That chilling body. cam video has been released as part of. an ongoing investigation by Arizona. officials into 32-year-old Richard. Baptiste and his 29-year-old longtime. girlfriend, Ania Woods. On July 27th,

first responders found 10-year-old. Rebecca Baptiste unresponsive on the. ground on the side of a highway. Her two. brothers were inside the car, her. biological father, stepmother, they were. frantic nearby. And according to a. police report, Baptiste and Woods. claimed that Rebecca had run away, had. been found by an unknown neighbor in a. ditch. So they rushed her to what they. thought was the closest emergency. facility at least 30 minutes from their. remote home. But here's the thing. On. the way, Woods called 911, kind of. seemed hesitant to pull over to meet.

emergency responders or even to do CPR. >> I need you to pull over so that I can. page him out to you and we can start. CPR. >> Would it be easier? We just got to keep. going cuz we don't know what's. >> I understand that. I need you to pull. over so I can have EMS meet you. >> We have been on top of this story for a. while now. This is one that we need to. keep on talking about and I just want to. take a quick minute to thank our sponsor. Upside because it's their support that. helps us to keep on doing this. Now, if.

you don't know what it is, Upside is. great. It is a free app that gets you. cash back when you buy daily essentials. So, I pump my gas, I can use Upside. I. go out to lunch, I can use Upside. Maybe. I get something at a convenience store. I can use Upside. And why not get cash. back when I do all these things, right? This is actual real cash back. It's. money that appears in your Upside app. that you transfer right into your bank. account. So, once you have the free. Upside app, you claim an offer for. whatever you're buying on Upside. You. pay as usual using a debit or credit. card. You follow the steps on the app, you get paid. So, to find out how much. you can earn, click the link in the. description to download Upside or scan.

the QR code on screen. But make sure to. use our promo code Sidebar because. you'll get an extra 25 cents back on. every gallon on your first tank of gas. So, the family, which also included two. young boys, ages six and eight, had. recently moved from Phoenix to Koncho, Arizona, and said that they didn't know. enough about the area to know where to. take Rebecca. Medical personnel. They. were shocked at this little girl's. condition as they tried to revive her. And they tried to get straight answers. out of Baptist Woods. >> And she's been running away for the last.

like three or four weeks since we've. been here. >> She ran away this morning. We went out. and tried to find her and our neighbor. found her. What time this morning? >> We got up about 9:30. So, it would have. been close to 10:30. >> So, you guys saw her the night before? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We were all We. all asleep in the same same building. >> Okay. And then So, you said she ran around. that morning and you guys were trying to. find her. >> This one? >> Yeah. This morning? Yeah. Yeah. This. morning? Yeah. >> And you guys went out trying to find her. and then your neighbors found her.

>> Neighbors found her. Yeah. >> Okay. What were they doing down there? How'd they find her? >> They were on quads. >> They were on their quads. Okay. And then. they brought her to you. >> Yeah. >> At your house. >> Yeah. Well, it's technically was my. great uncle's. He died recently, so we. moved in there. >> Okay. >> So, that's kind of how people know us up. there. >> Did she have any signs of life when she. brought when she got brought to you? >> She was almost basically like this. She. was slightly responsive. She was still. breathing on her own. >> What do you explain to me what you mean. responsive? >> Like she was just breathing on her own. >> Breathing on her own. >> That was about it. And then as we were.

driving this way, started seeing color. change in her lips and we were just. fucking hauling it. >> Okay. You said she. >> Yeah, she got that when she was in. Phoenix. >> Okay. >> She um she ran away. >> Do you guys take her to get treated for. it? >> Yes, she has a primary care and then she. also did a 7-day stay down in Phoenix. >> Okay. >> Not for not for that, but just for a. prior incident. >> Okay. And explain to me what you're. going through. You said she's diagnosed. with what? Can you explain that to me?

>> Um, >> K. >> Um, she's on three, she was on three. different medications before we left. I can't remember the third one right. now. Um, but it's it's been a little bit. since she's been on her medication since. we moved up here. Now, Rebecca was. transported from facility to facility as. doctors and nurses tried to treat the. traumatic wounds to her body, but. unfortunately and sadly, she died 3 days.

later. Baptiste and Woods, they were. arrested. They were charged with. firstdegree murder, kidnapping, and. child abuse. And now, according to newly. filed court paperwork, we're learning. more details, but prosecutors, they are. seeking to join the defendants's murder. cases together and prosecute them as. part of one trial. So to talk about. that, to talk about the legal. implications and just the gruesome new. details that are revealed in these. documents, I want to bring in attorney. and legal analyst Safa Robinson Ferrer.

Safa, thank you so much for coming on. I'm I'm sorry this is the case that we. are talking about. Um, but it is. incredibly important to shed a light on. I first want to talk about the law with. you. So you have prosecutors in Apache. County. They're asking a judge to. consolidate Baptiste and Woods cases. together. It's what we call a joiner. And the document states the evidence in. both cases was developed during a single. investigation. The conduct led to the. charges are all of the same or similar.

conduct and are connected together in. their commission and are all part of a. common scheme or plan. So Sappa, what is. the benefit of time of trying them. together? Why would prosecutors want. this? >> There's a significant benefit in trying. both of these defendants together. And. primarily what it's going to be is once. that the trial commences, the. prosecution is going to be able to call. the same witnesses. They don't have to. do two separate trials calling all of. the same witnesses. The witnesses that.

will testify will testify to evidence. that was obtained throughout the. investigation. That really applies to. both defendants here as suspects. And. they're notably charged with the same. crimes. the evidence used against one. can be used against the other and both. And it really just streamlines the. prosecution and the trial so they don't. have to recall witnesses later. And. primarily if at some point they're going. to call these two young boys to testify, they don't have to continue to. revictimize these young men or these.

young boys as they testify at a trial. And also, it's really significant to. have a juror look at both individuals. that are charged or alleged to have. committed a crime as opposed to just. one. And it really sits heavier with the. jury in their minds as they continue to. listen to the evidence and deliberate, especially when you have one of those. individuals that's a parent to the child. that was deceased and their partner. >> That all makes sense, particularly. having young witnesses having to testify. multiple times. Totally get it. Are.

there challenges though if these cases. are joined together either for the. prosecution or the defense? I mean, one. of the things that I'm thinking about is. if you had two separate cases and let's. say there was an example where there was. a hung jury in the first case or there. was a not-uilty verdict in the first. case. The prosecution can learn what. maybe didn't work the first time around. and change it for the second trial. But. what are the potential challenges if the. cases are joined together for the.

prosecution or the defense? >> So, primarily for the defense here, they're not going to want the cases. joined together. They're going to want. their defendants or their clients. charged separately. And they're going to. argue against that joined motion and. essentially say that it would be too. prejuditial that one case, you know, may. have a different set of facts or. circumstances than the other and also. the possibility that these two. individuals will have to testify against. one another. So that's what the defense. is going to argue. Of course, they don't. want a joiner here. As far as the.

prosecution goes with them essenti, if. there was not to be a joiner, then. again, there's the implication or the. issue of having to recall witnesses. Some witnesses may be available in the. first trial, but may not be available. for the second trial. Stories may change. between the testimony of witnesses. And. again, primarily thinking of these young. boys because there's a high likelihood. that they will be called to testify. You. have to put them on the stand. You have. to prepare them as witnesses and get.

them to tell the same story for the. first trial and the second trial. So, it. just makes it easier for the prosecution. to join those cases and it can be a. burden if they are not joined on the. prosecution's end. >> If one decides to testify against the. other, first of all, very awkward, right? I mean, in that courtroom, they're going to be there. But is that. how does that complicate this? That was. interesting you mentioned that because. I'm wondering, you know, there are a lot. of times when you have separate cases. and somebody will testify and the.

defense will will put the blame on. somebody else who's not in that. courtroom, right? Is not being tried at. that time. I always wonder what the. effect is on the jury. They don't see. that person. They don't hear that. person. Does it make the defendant. currently on trial that they're deciding. the fate of more credible versus they're. looking at the other person? They're. seeing the other person. So you have. maybe each blaming each other in one. trial. How do you think that would shake. up? >> That's going to be the complicated. thing. It's going to turn to a who's. done it. And I expect that if this case.

goes to trial and they are joined, one. of the possible defenses at least for. one of the defendants will probably be. some sort of domestic violence or. domestic abuse defense and saying this. person forced me to commit these alleged. acts against this child. And so pointing. the finger at one another and that who. done it theory, it could really sit with. the jury and and it can go one of two. ways. Either they're going to believe. the testimony of one of these defendants. that yes, they were victimized and under. the control of the second and acting in.

that manner at that person's direction, or they're going to believe that they. both acted on their own valition and. committed these acts towards this child. And I think particularly with a case of. this nature, when you have a child. victim and allegations that are as. gruesome as this, juries like to find. somebody responsible and they're more. likely to hold both individuals. responsible, even if they are pointing. the finger at one another. >> I mentioned before that the this filing. not only talks about the joiner issue, but it lays out new details. and these.

new details that were uncovered in. forensic interviews with Rebecca's. brothers and I want to talk about this. with Sappa. But it also, by the way, lays out important biographical. information about the family and how. long the children have been under. Baptist care. He's the biological father. again of 10-year-old Rebecca, as well as. an 8-year-old boy, a six-year-old boy. They're referred to as KB1 and two in. the court paperwork. And Baptiste and. Woods, they had been in this. relationship for around four years. and. Baptiste had regained custody of his.

kids from the Arizona Department of. Child Safety over the last one or two. years. So, reading from the jointer. request, it says both defendants said RB. ran away multiple times. According to. defendants, this behavior started in. Phoenix, including October 2024 when RB. ran to a QT and exclaimed that her. stepmother was abusing her, hitting her. hands and legs. They said there was. another time in the last week of June. when RB jumped out of a second story. window at their apartment in Phoenix. According to both defendants, RB chose. to run away to get away from them and.

find another adult or family to take her. in. She was running away from us. That's. what she said. Baptist further stated. she just said that she was going to run. to the well because she would at least. be able to get water and maybe find. somebody there. Now, Safa later on in. the document, prosecutors note that when. medical personnel examined Rebecca, who. wasn't wearing any shoes, the soles of. her feet were apparently clean. So, the. argument would be, was she really. running out through the wilderness? I. mean, does that blow a hole in the. defendant's story here?

>> It does. And I think that some of the. injuries that were observed on Rebecca. were were significant here. Significant. to the point where I think there's going. to be an argument to be made that she. never had the ability to run at all. that her back injuries and things of. that nature essentially wouldn't put her. in a position to run or to be mobile at. any point in time which again would also. be a blow or negate the theory there the. defense theory that she ran away the. soles of her feet the significance of. the injuries doesn't really is not.

really consistent with someone that. would have the ability to run away. Let's talk about that because it also. says, quote, in their statements, both. defendants admit to use of exercise as. punishment as well as spanking and. hitting the children with a belt on. multiple occasions. Baptist described. hitting RB with the belt approximately. 10 times with a pain level between 1 to. 10 at a seven and said he used quote. excessive force. Safa, are you surprised. that they're admitting this? >> Very surprised that they're admitting. this. But what we also know in this.

case, because generally people will. always try to protect themselves, especially in cases like this, they know. that they're suspects. They're. ultimately charged. They're going to. want to protect themselves by saying. something that is more beneficial to. them. In other words, I never beat my. child. I never did this. I never did. that. Now if there are certain injuries. that are consistent with abuse then we. might see a situation where somebody. will somewhat admit to having. disciplinary towards that child or just. pointing the finger towards the other. person. So it's a little surprising here.

but I think what's also really notable. is that the allegations are these. children have been abused for a. significant period of time and there. have been instances where they've been. in school and they've been in other. places where they've disclosed this. abuse. They have been investigated by. the department of children and family. services and there were no findings. against Mr. Baptiste or anybody else. which which is pretty significant here. and I think you know personally speaking. there the ball was dropped with respect. to the investigations and things like.

that and this ultimately could have been. prevented if there were significant eyes. on what was going on with this family. But I also wonder if it complicates it. because we see this a lot in child abuse. and torture cases where parents I don't. know if the argument that they try to. mount is oh we have a right to. discipline our our children and there's. a line there. How do officials determine. whether it's gone too far in and of. itself? Right. Spanking you could. potentially arrest somebody and. prosecute them for that. But I don't. know if you would have that. I don't.

know if prosecutors would say that we. could have a winning case and that's a. scary reality. But I guess what is that. line? Because I mean, how many times. have we talked about before where why. didn't Department of Child Services get. involved sooner rather than later? Well, there's the law would state that there. is a goal for reunification. There's a. goal to keep the family together. There's a goal to give parents a right. to bring their children up how they want. to bring them up. The state is only. going to get involved if they absolutely. have to. These are complicating factors. and I wonder if that's what you might be.

seeing here. Yeah. We're going to admit. to certain things, but it makes us more. credible, right? It shows us, yeah, we. maybe we took things a little too far, but we're not, you know, killers. I. don't know if I'm thinking about this. the right way. >> No, no. And you're right, Jesse. And not. only that, but, you know, we have. situations here where these children. ultimately are being parent parented by. these individuals. And there is an. aspect of discipline that is necessary. as you're bringing up children. And what. is the point? What is the fine line? The.

fine line is you can't break any bones, you can't break any skin, you can't. leave any bruising or anything like. that. People spank their children. whether it be with a hand or with a belt. and things of that nature, but you can't. leave any bruising on your children and. that is one of the things that. Department of Children and Family. Services and these agencies will look at. and their primary purpose is to protect. the children ultimately. Now, one of the. things that's also going to be pretty. interesting here is if the prosecution. in this case, and I expect that they.

will, they're going to obtain those. documents from those organizations in an. attempt to use them at trial and bring. in these other acts that possibly. occurred to show that there's a pattern. of behavior and an absence of mistake. with respect to the allegations here, specifically the murder allegation, that. there could not have been anybody else. that had done this and that this was. purposefully done. So, on the day that Rebecca was found, while some officers had spoken uh with. Baptist and Woods, you had others who.

checked on the brothers. They were. inside the family car. Take a look. >> Hi, guys. >> Hey. >> You guys doing okay? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, what happened today? >> Um, today she ran away. >> She ran away. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then what happened? >> And then she came back home. And. >> when she came back home, how did that. >> Did mom and dad bring her home?

>> No. Well, one of our neighbors in their. um they they saw them laying they they. saw her laying down on the ground and. then and then they brought her back. >> So they brought they brought her home. >> Okay. Now, the joiner document provides. context for Baptist and Wood's alleged. crimes, and it does it through. information that was gathered from DCS, the schools that the children recently. attended, the boy's own interviews.

According to the document, quote, "Between November 2023 and May 2025, the. three children appeared at school with. marks, scratches, or bruises, complained. about the physical discipline of laps. and planks, and not being fed at home.". A common theme in the children reporting. abuse to trusted school professionals. was changing their stories to protect. their parents. For instance, KB1 said he. got scratched on the neck because he did. not clean up. And the following day, the. six-year-old changed his story. completely, stating his mom didn't. scratch him because he wasn't cleaning.

It was because he was playing outside. and he was falling and mom tried. catching him. And KB1 had a similar. change in stories in September 2024 when. he had marks on his neck again. First, he said, "My mom was mad at me and. accidentally scratched me." Later, KB1. said, "Never mind. She didn't do that. I. just fell." In November 2024, when. 5-year-old KB2 complained to a teacher. that there was no food at home, and he. does planks for punishment, they also. described, "He had a hurt toe. Whole. nail came off." And said, "My dad says, "I can't talk about it." KB2 added, "I.

hate having to go home." The teacher. noted KB2 will disclose something and. then say, "Never mind. I can't talk. about that." Safa, this is tricky. This. is tricky because the argument would be. these kids maybe are telling the truth, but through. maybe they don't want to get their. parents in trouble, maybe they're. getting, you know, uh, threatened or um, you know, influenced by the parents to. not say what's going on. This comes up. time and time again, but it does become.

a question, how reliable are these. accounts from these children? What do. investigators, what do prosecutors do? They're going to take into account. everything that these children have. said. And not only are they going to. take into account what these children. have said to their teachers who are. mandated reporters and other individuals. that they may have come across in the. community and other case workers during. investigations that have occurred. previously. But they're also going to. take a look at any documented injury. from maybe a doctor's office or any.

photos that may exist or the testimony. of the other children or not testimony. so to speak, but the statements of the. other children. And what they do is they. put these children in what we call a. forensic interview where they're. recorded. There are a number of. individuals that are observing this and. a psychologist or psychiatrist is. sitting and having a conversation with. these children oneon-one to ask what. happened, how things made them feel to. get them to open up about the abuse. And. those interviews are very, very.

significant. Those interviews ultimately. are going to be the crux of the. prosecution skates when it comes to the. child endangerment or child neglect and. the homicide as it relates to Rebecca. Now, before the family moved away uh. from Phoenix, Rebecca had been attending. Empower College Prep, which says it. reported multiple instances of apparent. abuse to DCS. In fact, in an interview. with 12 News, Empower administrations. presented documentation showing 12.

different reports were made to DCS about. Rebecca and her brothers. But that. number kind of conflicts with DCS's. acknowledgement of five school initiated. contacts with only one rising to the. level of an actual investigation. DCS. says when the family moved away from. Phoenix, the department lost track of. them. There were also reportedly five. police reports about the way Woods and. Baptist were treating the kids and the. conditions they were living in, but. those investigations were closed. There. were no arrests. In a statement, DCS. said, "We acknowledge that over the.

years, members of the community have. contacted the DCS hotline in regards to. the Baptist family and have expressed. frustration that some of their calls did. not meet the legal criteria for an. investigation or for removal of the. children from the home. While we. understand their frustrations, the. department is a statutory agency that is. bound by Arizona law and codes. That. means DCS cannot investigate any calls. to our hotline that do not meet the. strict legal criteria and calls such as. those reporting truency or crimes. committed against children by anyone. other than a parent, guardian or. custodian. Similar strict legal.

standards apply to when DCS can remove a. child from their parents. Safa, is this. a legitimate explanation or is this a. case of an agency passing the buck? It's. legitimate only to the point that it is. governed by statutory law and the law. requires the agency to act in a certain. way to investigate and to follow up and. things of that nature. But to be quite. frank, I mean, where there's smoke, there's fire. You have not only one, you.

have numerous reports from different. individuals that are alleging that abuse. is taking place. How significant was the. follow through and your point of there. was only one that actually rose to the a. full on investigation? Why was that? particularly when we have other. allegations. We have allegations from. teachers and other individuals. Why. aren't those individuals at the very. least interviewed with respect to what. was occurring or what they observed with. these children? So, I personally think. and again there there's a drop of the.

ball. Then you lose track of these. children. There's a number of reports. through the Department of Children and. Family Services. There's five reports or. police reports that were unfounded. At. what point do we say there's a problem. here and how do we better protect. children? >> No, that's a great point. That's a great. point. And by the way, that's not all I. have. So, according to these newest. court documents, listen to this. In. January 2025, after RB missed school for. 7 days, and Power Prep reported to DCS.

that 10-year-old RB spoke with a school. representative and said she quote gets. treated mean at home. Discipline. includes excessive running with little. to no water. RB was asked who did it. RB. replied, "Stepmom and dad." RB said she. was having to run laps around the. apartment as punishment. RB said she had. extremely dry lips returning from break. RB said she was not given food or water. the whole exercise. Now, prosecutors say. that KB1 and KB2 were forensically. interviewed on July 28th, 2025, one day.

after Rebecca was found unresponsive, but before she was declared dead. Quote, KB2 disclosed that both of his parents. hit him. Regarding his dad, KB2 said, "He usually hits me a lot, but when. asked for more details, he said, "I'm. not allowed to tell people about that.". When asked about his worst time, that's. when he talked about his mom. Usually, my mom hits me with the belt. When asked. about RB, KB1 said, "I didn't see what. happened. I just know that my mom and. dad told me she ran away." KB1 said that. the last time he saw his sister, she was.

in timeout still. KB1 told the. interviewer that RB had to face the wall. and time out until bedtime. KB2 said the. last time he saw RB, she was doing. running, then she was doing laps. When. asked if RB got hit, KB2 said she got. hit. She always she always got hit a. lot. When asked who hit RB, KB2 said, "Mom." When asked to talk more about. that, KB2 said, "I don't know if I'm. allowed to talk about that because my. mom said I'm not allowed to talk about. that to you." More specifically, KB2.

said, she said, "Don't talk to anyone. that asks you that question except I'm. already talking to you." Sappa, aside. from this being absolutely. heartbreaking, you also get a glimpse. of, I guess, what their testimony would. be like, right, at this potential trial. of both these individuals. >> Most definitely. You have an eye into. what the testimony is going to be. And. if the prosecution wants to, they can. play those forensic interviews at the. trial for the jury to see, which is. going to be so substantial with regard.

to the proof. So they can put these. young men on the stand to testify or. these children on the stand to testify, give them their own testimony through. director or cross-examination and then. also play the video, which I think the. video because it's so near in time after. the incident with Rebecca occurred is. really going to sit in the minds of the. jury. Oftentimes witnesses, they may. forget certain things. They may, you. know, disappear or not be cooperative. And so there will be ways that the. prosecution can at least use this. forensic interview at a trial if.

necessary in order to help the jury. determine whether or not these. individuals are guilty or not. And I. think also importantly here we can see. that these children have been coached on. what to say. And again, these are all. allegations at this point, but there's a. pattern of behavior that when these. children disclose, they share. information. They don't share too much. And then the next day or so, we hear. something to the effect of, "My mom said. we can't talk about that or they're. changing their stories." And this is a. pattern of behavior that the prosecution. is going to try to elicit at trial as.

well. >> Incredibly impactful evidence. I mean, that's what we've been talking about, admissions, statements from the. children. Let me end with this. There is. another portion of this document where. prosecutors address the unbelievable. injuries to Rebecca's body. So, in the. first part of this section, the writer. actually erroneously refers to KB when. they mean RB, but they detail what the. information they received from the. doctors. Quote, RB was bruised nearly. from head to toe, sustained a head. injury with a significant brain bleed,

and was told that RB was so severely. dehydrated that they did not believe she. was physically capable of running away. Much of the bruising, abrasions, and. burns described had various stages of. healing or scabbing. Based on the. physical exam, medical professionals. diagnose child physical abuse, child. sexual abuse, and torture. Now, Sappa, we talk about, well, are these children. credible? That is the backup right. there, right? I mean, you can't escape.

I don't know what a defense attorney is. going to do to try to explain that away. Do they hire their own medical examiner. to do their own review of the injuries? Do they try to suggest that the. conclusions are wrong? They try to. suggest a lot of these injuries are from. running around, you know, a small child, bumping and bruising. I don't know cuz. that it doesn't seem to add up with what. this medical professional is finding. >> It doesn't add up at all. And of course, the defense, they can call their own. expert witnesses to negate what the. prosecution is arguing. But I think the.

issue is going to be this. Not only do. we have the testimony of these children, not only do we have prior reports that. are consistent with Rebecca running as. punishment and being dehydrated and. things of that nature, now we have. medical staff or medical experts. essentially that say when we found her, when we examined the body, she was. severely dehydrated to the point where. we didn't think she can run. Not only. that, but she had a TBI, traumatic brain. injury. So based on that traumatic brain. injury, what would have been her ability. to actually act or run or do certain.

things because once somebody has a. traumatic brain injury, there is some. part of their mental faculty that can be. impacted. What portion of the brain did. that impact to even know if she could. even run or do anything like that. And. we also have one of the other children's. testimony that the last time that he saw. his sister was she was in timeout. So. that would show that there was something. going on during Rebecca's last moments. or what would be presumed to be her last. moments prior to her being discovered in. the roadway that showed that she was.

under some sort of what people might. call discipline or punishment at the. hands of the defendants in this case. >> Oral arguments on that motion for. joiner. They're scheduled to happen this. week. We've been following this for. quite some time. We will continue to. follow it. Safa Robinson Ferrer, thank. you so much for taking the time. I mean, I know again this is a very difficult. case. It's a legally complex case, but. an important case to cover nonetheless. Thank you so much. >> Thank you for having me. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so.

much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll. speak to you next time. [Music].