Cameron Roberts: A Doctor and an Attorney talk Diddy!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Intentionally Disturbing. Today's episode is a little delayed,
My bad, because we talk a lot about Sean Colms
and Diddy. But what's interesting is that me and Cameron Roberts,
this badass attorney, actually guessed how the trial was going
to go and we were spot on. So listen in
for our details, but also some extremely disturbing moments that

(00:24):
Cameron has endured as one of the most badass attorneys.
And trigger warning, it's pretty graphic. I hope you enjoyed
the episode. Welcome to Intentionally Disturbing. I'm doctor Leslie and

(00:50):
today I get to speak with Cameron Simone Roberts, one
of the most badass attorneys I've ever met. And you
should just be writing her name done right now now,
because you will need to hire her when you have
any kind of civil lawsuits with her amazing criminal background.
But Cameron has an amazing educational background and experiential background,

(01:11):
and we are going to go through not just that
Sean Colmes case, but also some irvting insights on other
cases and probably one of the most disturbing cases I've
ever heard of that she shares. And yeah, this isn't
for kids, because we're talking about rape. Thanks for doing this.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Absolutely, thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
I'm so glad to be able to do this and
makes me be able to bring out a white suit.
I never touch them anyways, because I'm like a child.
It's like if I have ketchup three days ago, it
will be on the suit.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Somehow.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
I don't own anything white. I can't I know, even
like my body make up, my makeup. I would get
my makeup on it.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Mm hmmmm mm, like touch your face ones like I
sort of got id even touch face.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
I like it because last time we talked to you
were wearing pink, but now I got the pink. So
we have like the alternative.

Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yeah. I was like, I was like, all right, I'm
not fucking wearing red or blue.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
After this weekend, I got to go like some neutral tones.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yes, So we are recording today on June twenty third.
Is that it? Yeah, June twenty third, after our president
bombed Iran. So we are coming off quite a heightened
emotional weekend.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
We are very charged.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
But what I find I found so interesting was like
we go through such intensities with politics and everything, and
then we're just jumping into like the trial of Sean
Colmes is what's probably going to be largely on the
news today with that fascinating.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
Like you go too like state of warfare, and then
we're right back to the celebrity.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
Yes, which is kind of like my life. But all right,
I'm really pumped to talk. I want to talk to
you about the Sean Colmes case and just about your
career in general. But let's introduce you to everyone. So
my introduction of you is that you are a completely
badass personal injury attorney. Is that you think that's a

(03:09):
little fond.

Speaker 3 (03:11):
I mean, I appreciate that. I'll take it for sure. No,
I am a personal injury attorney for sure.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
But I think the power with you is that women
are starting to take over law more and more, and
we are bringing me not as an attorney, as an expert.
I think we bring something so powerful that the old
school male presentation can't add to our clients and to

(03:41):
the jury, to explaining emotions, everything that has been so
nuanced in the Shaan Colmbs trial.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
Absolutely absolutely.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
And I started off as a district attorney, so I
did criminal prosecution and that was one of the best
things that I did do because I got into the
trials right away, and I was down in Middle Georgia
and South Georgia area, so I got to hop into
a lot of heavier hitting trials very early on, opposed
to Atlanta from where I'm from in the city.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
And it definitely is.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
It's totally evolving, and I believe it started evolving. I
mean before I became a lawyer, but when I got
jumped into it doing the trials. You can tell women
replaced on certain trials that we otherwise men previously were
placed on just because it would have they thought a
woman could present better an emotional component to it or
something that would add a little bit of reality and

(04:36):
clarity to it that a man might not otherwise be
able to present.

Speaker 1 (04:41):
I think it's so true. And then you've got to
think about and of course you're always thinking about this,
but the jury, Oh.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yes, well everything we do is with the jury. And
you know, I'll tell you.

Speaker 3 (04:51):
I know there was one case in particular that comes
to mind, and I had just moved to South Georgia.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
Now keep in mind, I'm going to lant a girl. Okay,
but but you know, my father's from Kentucky.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
We have a farm up there, so I kind of
have a little bit of background in both worlds. But
the first case, and I won't save the town for
protection regions, but I went to South Georgia town and
there was a trial and there was a woman that
was older and her husband and her had divorced. She

(05:22):
had money, you know, she was well off, and she
had just gotten married to a younger man. Not crazy younger,
but you know, younger definitely people would see and say
he's younger. And tragically, she had a horrible stroke just
shortly thereafter, and it paralyzed her and the only thing

(05:42):
she could move was her eyes, like she would have
to communicate like you know, blink one for us, two
for no kind of thing and.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yes. And then her husband, her new.

Speaker 3 (05:52):
Husband, I mean it wasn't maybe a month after they
got married this happened and he started raping her, and
we did, we found out by her home health nurse
because she was noticing like irritations, rashes, discharge that was
not normal down there, uh, basically indicative of irritations, and

(06:14):
she wasn't really able to.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
Communicate it, you know, like we would.

Speaker 3 (06:17):
Be able to communicate what we're doing right now, but
she was able to communicate with the eyes, and the
at home healthcare nurse was able to work with her
and able to you know, under they had a language
they could understand, you know, with using the blinking of
the eyes to communicate.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
And you know, at the end.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
Of the trial, I think, honestly, the most that's disturbing
in it of itself, but.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
The most extremely disturbing.

Speaker 2 (06:41):
That's extremely disturbing, and I can't wait to end here.

Speaker 3 (06:45):
Yes, the most and you're talking about this comes back
to the jurors. The most disturbing part of it was,
you know, they tell you in law school you need
to talk to the jurors afterwards, ask them, you know,
like after the trial's over, what do you think?

Speaker 2 (06:57):
You know, how did you feel about this?

Speaker 3 (06:58):
And it just helps you learn how people, how you
present to people, what people want to hear, what interests them,
and you know, it helps you be a better lawyer.
And one of the jurors asked me, can you rape
your wife?

Speaker 2 (07:11):
I was like hmm.

Speaker 3 (07:14):
I was like, you can rape anything that says no
or can't say no, dogs whatever, you know all that.

Speaker 1 (07:20):
This question can't after yeah, after so they had Dart.

Speaker 3 (07:26):
Say he did not convict him, and I just wonder if.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
That was why.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
Oh, my word.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
It was. This guy is one of the most Yeah,
it was eye opening.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
I was like, what, Oh, it's crazy that your average
doesn't understand what rape is.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
Or that you know, wife isn't property, or that you know,
if she just because she maybe can't say no in
the usual way that we communicate, doesn't mean he was
very well aware of the eye blinking and trying to
create this kind of language, you know. And obviously that
home health nurse you know, was talking about irritations and

(08:12):
discharge and things like that that were indicative of issues.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
So he should have seen that too, you.

Speaker 3 (08:18):
Know, and thought, maybe this hurts her? Do I need
to talk to somebody about this? Maybe I should talk
to her home health nurses. This is something that even
should be occurring, you know. I mean, who's to say
what's going on?

Speaker 1 (08:29):
But she's paralyzed, so you know, oh my gosh, So
what Yeah, when you approached that case, what what was
your philosophy? What laws came to play? How did you
go back?

Speaker 3 (08:42):
So it basically we had to talk about communication, and
you know, how you bring in an expert that being
the nurse. A lot of times just like personal injury,
bring in someone in the medical field that can attest
to the injuries, and you know, the big question was
can she say no? And it's the home health nurse
testified that, you know, there was They kind of created

(09:04):
a form of communication through the eye blinking her mouth
wasn't you know was cause paralyzed by the stroke as well.
It's pretty much like hear down but she was able
to hear and communicate with her eyes by the form
of asking yes no questions essentially. And also, you know,
it was also the approach of when someone is in
this position, wouldn't you ask and look further and go

(09:27):
to meetings with the doctors and say, hey, what is
appropriate behavior?

Speaker 2 (09:32):
Is this gonna hurt this person?

Speaker 3 (09:34):
You know, is there a way to, you know, do
something else, or is there a way is this just.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
Off the table now? I mean questions should have.

Speaker 3 (09:43):
Been asked, you know, precautions should have been taken before
just going about it.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
And I think he knew that. I think that's common sense.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
Oh my word, what a disgusting sexual offender.

Speaker 3 (09:56):
I know, but that But going back to what you
were saying about the jurors, that was the most disturbing
part about it is.

Speaker 2 (10:02):
I was like completely shocked by that question.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
I just had never really thought about that question before
because it was so obvious to me. But I guess
it goes back to people maybe not so obvious. So
the jurors are one hundred percent, you know who you're
relying upon. They do make the case in a lot
of ways essentially.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
Which is wild to me because and I'm curious about
how you're trained in law school, but in psychology. With
being a forensic expert, I am told to explain everything
at the third grade reading level because your average juror
will often lie with a third grade reading level, and
to me, that is incredibly disheartening. But you have to write,

(10:46):
you have to talk to them at the lowest common
denominator or everything's going to go over their heads.

Speaker 3 (10:54):
Well, definitely, and you want to definitely, because you never
know their backgrounds, and they do send out affidavits and
things like that beforehand that they're supposed to tell about.
You know where they came from, if they're married, things,
you know what grade level they graduated or what degree
they may have, if any things like that, and you
everybody's going to be across the board. You know, you're
going to have people that are doctors, and you're going

(11:15):
to have people that graduate high school and our mechanics
and make more money than doctors. You know, it's just
you go a little bit of everything. And I think
one of the hardest parts is we have to describe
the law, but then we have to describe it to
them how you think through it and how it applies.

Speaker 2 (11:31):
So it's almost like you have.

Speaker 3 (11:33):
To take your law school education and somehow in a clear, concise,
very quick way, explain it to them in a way
you think they'll understand. I like to use examples, just
kind of hypotheticals and things like that, and that's why
it's good to do the closings. It's really where you
kind of explain the law to them, and the opening

(11:53):
you kind of give them the story, Hey, this is
what we expect you to see today, this is what
we expect to be presented today, and kind of just
give them like a summary preview, so they kind of
as the evidence and as the testimony proceeds, they know
kind of what to look for, what to pick up on,
and they have, you know, their their journals, so they
can write notes on hey about this and things like that,

(12:16):
and at the end in your closing is when you
explain the law and then you explain how it applies.
So then you can take the example of, oh, hey,
his testimony was this, this is the law for this,
and this is how we think it should be applied,
you know, So it's easier at the end once you
give them a summary of what the case is about,
they see the evidence in testimony, and at the end

(12:37):
you can explain the law and the closing and explain,
like using the example they just saw of how they
should interpret it and how, you know, how we are
presenting the case.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
How do you feel about in the Sean COULMBS trial
that the jury is not sequestered, that they're going home
and they're probably on social media. I mean, we're human beings, right,
we're gonna cheat. What do you think about that?

Speaker 3 (13:03):
I don't know how it's possibly. I don't know how
it could be done. I just don't know how it
could be done. I mean, we sequestered jurors in a
very small towns where half of the older people probably
don't even have internet or Wi Fi at their house,
and you know, but they may go to the local
social hall and chit chat and things like that.

Speaker 2 (13:20):
But you know, it's human nature to talk.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
And I just think it's difficult in general to be
a celebrity and have a true pure criminal proceeding, you know,
in positive way and in the negative way, however you
look at it. Because when you're a celebrity, for example,
you know, if you get a duy and maybe it's
completely unrelated to what matter is at hand. And if
you are a normal criminal that everybody doesn't know about you,

(13:46):
or say criminal, but a normal person that committed a
crime allegedly that nobody allegedly.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
That nobody know.

Speaker 3 (13:53):
You know, nobody's heard about your past, and nobody's been
following you with the camera for twenty years.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
You know, they may not know about the and so
your lawyers would.

Speaker 3 (14:02):
Get it suppressed in a in a pre trial motion
because it may not be related to the crime at hand,
whereas a celebrity, it's all over the news and you
know it's you can't suppress that everybody knows about it anyways.
But the sequestering the jury is really the only way
that we have to try to protect them from talking,

(14:22):
protect them from.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
Social media and the way that we are these days.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
And the day of social media and the day of
technology and this it boom, like we're in like the
it boom, as if the Industrial revolution, you know, that's
our boom, and it's everywhere and now with AI. I mean,
I was just looking from stuff over the weekend and
it's like, you know, fake planes here. You have to
research everything and be like where did this come from?

(14:47):
And and you know, who knows that the juror is
going to do that. Who knows that they're just going
to look at something and take it for gospel as
it stands and not do any you know, research.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
They're not supposed to doing that at all.

Speaker 3 (14:57):
But you know, it's it's I don't understand how you
can have a fair trial without sequesting jury. Now, even
if you sequester them, there's still chances, there's still issues.
They still come up all the time, but at least
there's some layer of protection without sequestering them at all.
I mean, I just don't understand how this could be
a fair trial at all.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
It's it's pretty wild. I mean, you know, as we
followed along, basically the jury, the jury has had to
watch violent pornography for twenty eight days. I don't know
what day we're on. That's like pretty much been the
majority of what they have been succumbed to or what
they've succumbed to. I feel really bad for them. I mean,

(15:40):
I do hear that they are gasping. Some people look
physically sick watching these videos. And then these videos are
probably you know, cut and edited in a way that
it's really just those hard hitting moments for them to see.

Speaker 2 (15:54):
I'm sure because they have to limit it.

Speaker 3 (15:56):
I mean, think of how many years there that's they're
talking about here, and how many people. I mean, this
is you're talking like years and years of camera footage
and recordings and things they could use. So it's definitely
probably limited to the most, you know, the most, the
highest concentrated something that the that the state fills they
would prove, you know, what they're allegations they've set forth.

(16:19):
I'll tell you one example that I think it's difficult
to watch over and over and over again these things is,
you know, we had a case and.

Speaker 2 (16:27):
The facts of it really aren't that interesting.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
I mean, it's horrible the guy beat his wife and
she died, beat her to death essentially, But as a DA,
if you present a case, you have to go see
the autopsy. And the reason being is is that you're
supposed to when you have the the doctor that does
the autopsy on the stand, you know you've actually seen
it yourself, so you can explain it better. You've seen

(16:51):
the process and it's just not so foreign to you.
You want to be able to get out the information
that's needed from this person to prove the elements that
is required of that.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
You know that allegation.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
And so this lady died by blunt force trauma and
to the head and and.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
In an autopsy on if you're familiar. But when you
they like will literally peel your skin.

Speaker 3 (17:12):
I'm doing I'm doing emotion here for those listening and
not seeing, but you love, they do like a.

Speaker 2 (17:16):
Slit and below the upper neck, yes, and they literally.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
Roll your face off your face. It's it's horrible to watch,
and your face is still like a face, but like skinless.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
It's it's just trying. It's horrible to watch.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
But the family wanted of the deceased woman wanted to
stay and I get it. They feel like, oh, we're
supporting mom and everything. But you know, from the DA's office,
our victim advocates advised them not to and they were like, listen,
you know, you can come right back in after this part.
But this part is not something you want to see.
You know, this is something you you don't need to see.
And they wanted to stay. And the girl, you know,

(17:53):
one of the daughters, like ran out and threw up,
you know, And I don't blame you.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
I can't.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
I can't even imagine. And I get why they wanted
to stay. But that's going back to the p ditty.
It's like, you know, when you're watching things over and
over and over and over again, it's just the fire
who can even think clearly because you're just so you
feel like you feel like you need therapy after it.

Speaker 1 (18:18):
You know, Yeah, you're like, and I think they don't
want to.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
Help me process this.

Speaker 1 (18:23):
I think they should be given therapy, Like, yes, the
government should pay for it because it's I mean, I
imagine what you're seeing is you're an eating in her mouth,
You're seeing gangbanging, You're seeing these women vomit and then
being forced back into sex in these seventy five degree
rooms with eighteen hundred bottles of baby oil. You're seeing
probably blood. I would imagine, how do you not bleed

(18:45):
after so much rape, and then you're seeing Sean Combs
what dressed as a Muslim in the corner jacking off.

Speaker 3 (18:52):
I know, I know, I and you don't know where
these people's backgrounds are. So I mean, you know, if
if let's say someone was a cop, which I'm sure
he would have been taken out of it, he would
have been struck from the jury one hundred percent, I'm sure.
But you know, someone like per se a cop, they
would otherwise have probably seen that before, so it wouldn't
be so disturbing to them. I mean, of course it's disturbing,

(19:15):
but what wouldn't be shocking? I guess is a better
word for that. And in this situation, I mean, you know,
I'm imagining like a teacher or you know, somebody that
maybe hasn't otherwise been exposed to this in their life.
And I know, you coming from your background and me
coming from the DA background, and having seen these autopsies,
you know, it's not as it's still horrific, but it's

(19:37):
not as surprising. So I just can't imagine the level
of shock that these these jurors are experiencing right now.

Speaker 1 (19:44):
But from your legal perspective, how how does how do
you think the case is going? How do you think
this this very I mean this is a very, very
highly sexual case. But these are very governmental accusations. I
guess you could say, right, how do you think they're
linking you know this this chronic masturbator to Errico to

(20:08):
the sexual trafficator.

Speaker 2 (20:10):
Yes, that's a good label.

Speaker 1 (20:12):
Because they haven't any label boyfriends. That way, it falls
under paraphilias. It is a fetish. Well, actually, I guess
if you're on a lot of ecstasy, you're going to
be a chronic masturbator.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
I mean, everybody's been in college.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Right, We're going to take a quick break and we'll
be right back. But like, how do you think it's going?
I mean, it feels like we're on the last week.
The government said, I'm sorry, the defense said they may
only need a couple more days. They're not going to
call any witnesses. Shawn Colmes is not going to take

(20:48):
the stand, So they're just going to close up shop,
lose and appeal.

Speaker 3 (20:54):
Exactly. I feel like they're rushing it. I mean, think
about it. We just came for the y s L
and look how long that take? Like, I mean that
took forever, and it was just like I felt like
we all were just relentlessly pulled into it, especially in Atlanta.
It took over all of the court system, and if
you had to hearing somewhere else, you had to go
through like this building to go to that building, to
go to this building, because there are people outside for this.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
And it was crazy for like a year plus, and.

Speaker 3 (21:20):
So that was so drawn out, and the amount of
details and duration that all of these details and all
of these incidents and victims and alleged.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Crimes have been occurring.

Speaker 3 (21:34):
I just don't understand how you can put that into
a true trial, so honestly, at this point without sequestering them,
without and pushing all the evidence quickly, I just don't
understand how that they would actually prove the case unless
they're just going for a straight appeal.

Speaker 2 (21:47):
They're like, let's just get it over with.

Speaker 3 (21:49):
You know, we feel like we've already tripped up on
a couple of things.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
Let's just you know, get.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
This part over with, apply for a mistrial or go
ahead for an appeal, and try to hit it a
different light. And sometimes that happens, you know, sometimes it's like,
let's not waste the time because you know, just like
we were mentioning the ys L after you know, nine months,
everyone even you know, the jurors aside, but everyone else
was like, right, we're sick of hearing about this.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
Try like just get to the end already, you know,
you get give us a while.

Speaker 1 (22:16):
Can you give us a synopsis of YSL for listeners?

Speaker 2 (22:22):
You made like just like a summary of the case.

Speaker 3 (22:23):
Well, I mean yeah, I mean, well, I mean it's
just based I don't want to go to too much
detail with because I know there is an appeal going
and all these things like that, But I mean basically,
you know, there was there was he was it was
game racketeering and uh there's violence that occurred with the
gang alleged gang associated with him. There was some evidence

(22:46):
you know that was brought forth of course, but there
were incriminated evidence against him. But then there was you know,
some witnesses that kind of changed their testimony and just
to kind of explain why I we were bringing this
up as describing how went. So it was like every
you know, a couple of weeks there was an alleged
mistrial or alleged this, and you know, they would put

(23:06):
forth emotion and out blame them that there was a
lot of things that went down in that case that
they should have you know, brought up that and had
an actual conversation. Emotion hearing is what we call it
is when you it's not in front of the jury
and it's before the judge and it's just where you've
been pretty much argue legal theory and case law and

(23:26):
things like that in order to you know, proceed with
whether something should be brought up or not.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
What we would say is if it's more.

Speaker 3 (23:34):
Prejudicial than probative, meaning that if the evidence is more
likely to incriminate the defendant rather than the evidence is
used to you know, maybe show innocence or something else
that they're trying to prove as part of their legal
theory or legal strategy.

Speaker 2 (23:52):
And with that one, you know, they had a lot
of motions brought up.

Speaker 3 (23:55):
They were talking about X party, meaning like the you know,
conversations that it supposed to be had with the judge alone,
with just one of the lawyers or one of the parties.
Everybody's supposed to be you know, have in the same
room so that everybody has the opportunity to defend themselves
or bring up you know, their side of the argument,
et cetera. And so you know, it just went on

(24:19):
for forever. And and that case, how that case proceeded.
It's like every time there was something like, for example,
you brought up a sequestering there was some type of
little you know, bump in the road or something that
they thought would otherwise hurt the case, they brought it
up by emotion, hearing with the judge or.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
You know, they had they would pause the trial.

Speaker 3 (24:39):
Jurors go home and they would have this conversation to
try to decide what was better, you know, what was
more in tune with our laws here and the laws
that applied to the case, so that they didn't you know,
unduly prejudice the jury to the information and that the
you know, the information was not meant to just make

(25:00):
him look bad, but it was had some sort of
legal value, I guess. And so that's very different than
how this trial is going. This trial is like speed
you know, full speed ahead. So you know, one has
to wonder if there's a plan. I'm sure there is
a game plan, as you know, to appeal it from
either end. You know, whatever ends up happening, you know

(25:21):
that may be what they're trying to do is just
get over with this portion of it so they can
then move to the next step. Maybe they feel like
it's too far gone in this way and just get
it over with so then it opens up the door
to appeal it.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Or maybe they think.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
There's you know, enough evidence on one side that it's
they don't really care about what we would call the
hiccups or something that might otherwise unduly prejudice you know,
the defendant. But it is rather quick considering the evidence.
So it is interesting to see what the plan is here.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
It is quick, and it is very split. It's very
split if you look at social media, and so we've
got a group of social media people who don't know
what the fuck they're talking about, and then we have
a group that actually does. Right, So the professionals, the lawyers,
the experts that are speaking about this, who actually understand
the nuances of Rico, even Tony Busby who has been

(26:13):
doing posts about this, there is still very split in
if if this has really been a good enough display
of the evidence, if they've really done this well enough.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
And that's another thing is you know, you know, it
could be that's the problem is if the state has
not presented it in a fair way, you know, and
let's say that they feel like that, you know, the
evidence hasn't been presented on behalf of the state as
well as it could be. And let's say they find,
you know, that he is they want they don't want
to convict him. Then you're kind of there's not much

(26:47):
really you can do after that. Now, if he is
convicted and they feel like the state, you know, and
they appeal it, then you know, the state has an
opportunity to present additional evidence, depend upon if it's a
mistrial and the re start as if it's a new trial,
or if it's just an appeal or you know, whatever
ends up turning up. But it's it's it's hard if
they don't present If a state doesn't present enough evidence,

(27:10):
then you know, there's not it's kind of hard to
go back on.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
That, you know.

Speaker 1 (27:16):
Yeah, and ever, you know, everyone you hear everyone say
the Feds never lose, but they could quite possibly lose
because of the rest nature of it.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
Oh definitely, And that may be that may be a strategy.

Speaker 3 (27:31):
You know, they may be trying to rush it because
maybe they feel like some things were decided earlier on
on how the trial was to proceed. Maybe there was
motions heard that suppressed certain evidence that they didn't agree with,
and they thought, well, you know, if we can't do
this and we can't do that, let's just get to
the end of it and then or you know, try
to apply for a mistrial if we see something you know,
appear that would otherwise arise for a mistrial to be alleged,

(27:55):
or way do we get to an appeal and handled
that way. You know, sometimes they don't want to jade
the jury and the general public too much if they
feel like it's already been you know, harmed so much
from the beginning that it's not going to go how
they want it to.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
Go, right. I mean, but you bring up such a
good point that that there are so many secret legal
strategies that have played out before playing out now and
years into the future that people do not know and
they could not possibly know or comprehend unless they are

(28:28):
a lawyer or on the legal team.

Speaker 2 (28:31):
That's true, That's very true.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
So I mean, I think we'll find out, of course,
we find out at the end, but I mean, depending
by the rush state of this, I just can't imagine
there's not a plan like Part two plan, because with
the amount of evidence that's gone into this and in
the amount of time and victims and I mean this,
this has been going on.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
For years allegedly, so you know, I mean this is
this has been going on for years.

Speaker 3 (28:59):
So of evidence that they have is exponential with the
amount of time that's been put into this. So I
just can't imagine that there's not like a Part two
that's already in the thoughts and minds of the lawyers
that's going to happen. You know, there's got to be
something that they haven't moved you know, announced they moved
into yet, right.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
I think that's such an important part for the world
to hear, you know, like, just don't hang your hat
on what this little I don't know, seven weeks will be.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
Yeah, And that might be another reason with the sequestring.
Maybe they think, hey, before the trial started, there was
so much you know, dirty laundry it aired, and so
many allegations and things said that they don't think that
it could be any worse, you know, so maybe they think, hey,
maybe there's a chance that could be you know, things
are said to better him or maybe he said I

(29:50):
don't care if they're sequestered. You know, everything I have
is already out there for the world to hear, so
forget about it.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
Let's just move forward.

Speaker 3 (29:58):
There could be so many thoughts to that, But there
is so many ways that you can do a mis
trial and appeal, and there's so you know, if a judge,
it could even happen before the trial even started, Like
if there was a motion that the judge granted where
there was evidence suppressed that they felt like it was
not lawfully supposed to be suppressed, then the whole trial

(30:18):
they would have to go forward with the whole trial,
and then at the end appeal it based on that
pre trial motion. So it could be something small as that. Literally,
it's insane. You do not have to know that whole
step and you have to reset. So it's kind of
wild how that is.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
But I cannot hear about him jacking off anymore, Like
it's my god, I know, it's too much. I've never
seen somebody like you know, we see these cases of
extreme sexual behavior, right, I mean, I've worked cannibalism, you know, necrophilia, Yeah,

(30:55):
but never has it been on such a public platform.
I think people are saying to themselves. Wow, I didn't
know somebody could be that that's sexually disturbed, and to be.

Speaker 3 (31:08):
Around for so long and have such a powerful influence
for so long over so many people, you know, involved
in so many other very very famous and very successful
other celebrities and musicians, especially their careers. Everything he's had
to do with politicians, I mean everything.

Speaker 2 (31:29):
He has been around for so long and involved in.

Speaker 3 (31:33):
So much that it just seems like this web, intertwined
web that keeps growing and growing without end, I mean,
where is the end?

Speaker 1 (31:42):
Well, and it does feel like they have capped, they
have capta in this trial. They have had the opportunity
to bring in very powerful, well known people and they've
chosen not to. Now now again they've they've fucked up
because names have gotten out there. Everybody's seems to think
that trial is this perfect almost like spaceship scene, when really,

(32:08):
like if you can explain, like like I've had to
go home, I couldn't testify until the next day because
a lawyer dropped their binder and they needed the whole
day to reorganize their binder of papers.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, but it's.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
Not the government trial. All of these big things they're
not beautifully put together, you know, they they are I
don't know how you describe it, like, they are difficult
to organize, and they are simple at times too.

Speaker 3 (32:42):
Oh definitely, And I would just I mean, I think
because especially with most people's knowledge of trials is from
the big trials.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
I mean, you know, I'm a nineties kid, so we're
all like O. J.

Speaker 3 (32:53):
Simpson, I mean, the whole world, you know, every day
of it, and you know all these different celebrity trials.
So those ones are broadcasted, and I feel like that's
most people's experience of trials is watching them broadcasted and
seeing you know, it's a celebrity version. You know, that's
some able to be on some major network that everyone

(33:16):
can follow it all the way.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
Through, and so it almost is brought.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
It brings this image that it's a movie, I guess
in a way, you know, because it's that's how they vision,
that's how they see it. They're not sitting in the courtroom,
they're watching it from their TV, so you feel like
it's coming in as if a movie. And then you
of course watch movies about it and things like that.
But you know, I would urge people because the most
courtrooms are open, you know, most most of the trials

(33:45):
unless it's sealed for some particular reason, is otherwise open.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
And if people are truly interested.

Speaker 3 (33:50):
I would highly suggest going and just sitting in a
courtroom during a normal you know, run at the mill
trial that's happening in their county and just see how
it actually goes, because once you're there, you can truly
feel what it's like and see what it's like because
you know, they might, oh, we're going to commercial, but
that's when they show the transition, and that's when the

(34:11):
lawyer's flipping into the papers and trying to organize exhibits
and things like that, and that's when the real you know,
trial is happening and it's not. You know, it could
be very simple and it can be very complex, but
you know, at the end of the day, these are
people that went to the same you know, undergrad law
school path or just you know undergrad to take it

(34:32):
the power Sampat in California.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
And you know, the normal path.

Speaker 3 (34:37):
That everybody else that does this kind of work has
been on. And you know, they might other they might
have just picked up a popular defendant or popular client
that got them this attentions media attention, but that doesn't
necessarily change the way they practice or you know, gives
them this all of a sudden celebrity glow and they

(34:58):
just you know, morph into this different person. I mean,
there's still a lawyer and they still have to abide
by everything.

Speaker 2 (35:04):
And it's it's very.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
The evidence code and how we can present evidence and
testimony is laid out very specific. And then of course
where there's room for interpretation, that's when you get into
case law and you find things that have judges have
already ordered and that and granted that things are able
to be brought out in that area, and then you
know that gives you the precedent to be able to

(35:28):
then follow suit and bring that out. And then sometimes
you just try some completely new evidence and see how
it happens.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
And you're creating the case.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
Law so and you know it may not work for you,
but people behind you and may work for them. But
it's kind of crazy how it all comes about. But
they with the trial thing, it's very it's honestly, it's
a lot more simple and a lot more normal than
a lot of people think it is. And you know,
it's particular how you have to present it and put
it together.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
But lawyers are just people, you know.

Speaker 3 (35:56):
I mean, we describe, we prepare for our legal theory,
and trials are very live, you know what I mean.
So like unlike a movie where you can say, cut,
let's go back and do it again, you know, or oops,
I said this this way and I didn't mean to
say that. You know, if they bring out in pre
trial motions that certain evidence can't come out, and then

(36:17):
maybe a witness, you talk to your witness and you know,
we're not going to go into this, and then they
bring it.

Speaker 2 (36:22):
Up, which happens, they don't always listen to you. Then oh, misstrial,
you know.

Speaker 3 (36:28):
And so it's very particular going through all the testimony
and evidence, and it has to be in accordance with
the evidence code and all of the pre trial motions
that everybody agreed on. Hey, this is what can be presented,
this is what can't. And you don't never know what
witnesses sometimes are going to say. I mean, you know,
I've I've gotten had witnesses on the stand that you know,

(36:49):
they just literally they're just normal and da da da
da da dada. A normal conversation meet with a whole
legal team. Fine, they get on the stand and they
just freeze. No, I mean, and you're like, and then
you know, you're like, should we do we need to
break care? Yeah, So you never know what's going to happen.
And then a lawyer with a cross examination, I mean,

(37:10):
you know that's not your witness. You don't really know
what they're going to say, so they might fire back
and say something and you just have to fly by
the seat of your pants. So it's it's a very like,
very normal John Smith, Jane Doe, very you know, girl
next door kind of situation. And I would urge people
if they are interested in that or if they do ever,
you know, if they ever picked for a jury, to
go see a trial in a court room first so

(37:32):
they can see how it actually goes down in real life.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
And do you mean it would be easy to go
to like mental health court, it would be easy to
go to superior court. It would be really cool. It's
really cool to go to federal buildings, right, just because
you have that higher level. It's a higher bar. It's one,
it's it's prettier. The cafeterias are better, sir, but there's

(37:58):
a higher level of respect for the building and the
environment that you're in.

Speaker 3 (38:02):
Oh, definitely, I mean, you know, And that's the thing
is like some of the state court courtrooms, you know,
they might be especially in Georgia, you know, in some
of the smaller towns, they're just like, you know, smaller
and almost look like at the church field.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
To it and the pews, and it's not as scary.

Speaker 3 (38:18):
But sometimes you walk into a federal building and it's
very you know, formal, and everything is just so and
it makes you nervous. You know, it makes you kind
of like, Okay, well I have to sit this way
and do this, and you're thinking about that maybe and
not thinking so much about what's happening in the trial.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
That's another thing is you know, being able.

Speaker 3 (38:37):
To keep their interest and focus on what you're presenting
so that they don't We're humans, We get distracted, you know.
I mean, we can't sit there and absorb everything for
twelve hours straight.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
We have to have a mental you know reset.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
When I testified in federal court in Los Angeles, I
was like, Wow, this is kind of the respectable, fancy
side of it, you know, coming out of like dependency
and family court, I was like, Wow, yeah, this is
really nice. Everyone's wearing like Todd's loafers. This is a
nice to this.

Speaker 3 (39:09):
Yeah, I know, there's definitely a different vibe depending on
where it's at, for sure.

Speaker 1 (39:17):
Or my blazer. I mean, I was like, Okay, we're
not going to be wearing Zara, We're wearing Smice today,
Like I really yeah.

Speaker 3 (39:25):
And we'll see people come in, you know, and they're
in those suit and blazer, and so people come in
and they're just you know, like they went to Sunday school.

Speaker 2 (39:32):
So it's you know, it's a totally it's a totally
different vibe.

Speaker 3 (39:35):
Depending on where you're at, and I think that affects
the trial too, you know, if they feel.

Speaker 2 (39:39):
Comfortable, if the jurors feel comfortable.

Speaker 3 (39:41):
Where they're at so that they can properly focus, you know,
or do they feel like they're sitting here in this
rigid atmosphere and everybody's looking at them and they're more
nervous about the perception of them than understanding and focused
on what is actually happening, you know, what's being presented
in front of them. You mentioned divorce earlier family Court,

(40:02):
speaking of disturbing I think, you know, honestly that might
be like, I've had divorces that are more disturbing than
some criminal cases, so it.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
Doesn't bounder like your most law. Is that your most
disturbing experience in divorce court rather than linking and rape.

Speaker 2 (40:18):
I would say now that I mean that I doesn't.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
Laugh at it, but it's just the insanity.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
It is, That's what it is.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
It's not funny, but it's like almost like, oh my gosh,
you feel like you're in the twilight zone or you know,
just went through the looking glass. You're like huh, but
you know it takes you back a minute. You're like,
wait a minute, wait a minute.

Speaker 1 (40:36):
What?

Speaker 2 (40:37):
But I don't know.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
I think as a whole, divorces are probably more disturbing
than criminal I swear to god they are, because most
divorces are criminal. I will say there is a for
sure a criminal component if you get down to the
nitty gritty of it. But no, I think if it's
going to be like the most disturbing, I still stick
with criminal, you know, because those those just keep going

(41:02):
and going and going, and.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
There's probably a divorce attached to some of those criminal too.
Goes both oh definitely.

Speaker 1 (41:09):
Hoops commercial time, Okay, the ethical question. I'm really curious
about your answer. Yes, and the ethical question, and yes,
the smearing of you know, clients, but lawyer's talking about
clients openly or the other.

Speaker 2 (41:29):
Side, and that really shouldn't happen.

Speaker 3 (41:34):
I mean, you know, it depends when you have some
a celebrity though there is information about them that's already
public knowledge. So if it's public knowledge, then it can
be brought out. You know, that's essentially kind of like
the rule to it. But if it's something that is
otherwise protected, that you know, hasn't been released or otherwise

(41:55):
you know, you got from a witness information or evidence
that maybe your client had that would not otherwise have
been out in the public, then you can certainly protect
that and you don't have to talk about certain things
about that. But if it's that's the problem with celebrities
trials is you know, all their dirty laundry, like we
were talking about earlier, is aired.

Speaker 2 (42:13):
So you know, if it's public knowledge, it's public knowledge.
You know.

Speaker 3 (42:18):
Now I don't think it's right to really talk about it,
you know what I mean, I as just I'm but
I'm extra cautious. You know, we do personal injury U
and I kind of apply or I definitely apply. I
guess my ways of when I was doing criminal law
to personal injury, and I do that across the board

(42:38):
because I want to protect the client and the trial
as much as possible, because I don't like doing trials again.
I want to be one and done with them. So
I try to make sure that I am, you know,
abiding by everything. Is if something is said to somebody
and you know, something transpires from it, maybe it wasn't
that bad of an act itself, but you know, kind.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
Of domino effected turned into something else.

Speaker 3 (43:02):
Then they could come back and say, oh, a mistrial, appeal, this,
that and the other.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
So I want to do the best for my client.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
I want to be straight new or across the board
and you know, protect the case and as much as
I can, because I don't want to put them through
that again, mainly or myself really, neither one of us
want to go through it again. So you know, we
try to protect the evidence as best as possible so
that it's not you know, the jury hears it, there's

(43:28):
no allegations of you know, a conflict here or mistrial here,
and you can just present the evidence and be done
with it that protects it for your client as well too,
you know, like with personal injury. Right now, we've just
gone through tort reform in Georgia, and you know, they
some of the things I talked about is bifurcation of trial, allowing.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
Trials to be split.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
Where pretty much the planiff is which would be, you know,
the part of the victim in a criminal case would
be on the stand for two parts of the trial,
talk about the same facts.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
Essentially, but with different parts of it.

Speaker 3 (44:04):
And there's you know, people are mad about that because
it's like, why put.

Speaker 2 (44:07):
Them through it again? Just ask what needs to be
asked and be done with it.

Speaker 3 (44:10):
You know, we don't want to further victimize this person
from what they've already been through. So it's kind of
one of those situations. I like to keep it as
protected as possible because I like to protect the client
and I don't want them to have to go through
this again, so I try not to deal with I mean,
some people like to use this smear campaign tactic too.
Maybe they especially a celebrity, they can influence the public opinion,

(44:35):
and you know, then the public works its magic and
kind of tends to influence the jury especially if they're
notut the Western so but for me, I like to
go with a straight and arrow. I like to do
it the right way. I like to protect the information.
I want to present it to the jury in the
most fair way so that a fair trial is heard
and that my client doesn't have to do this again.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
Which is so and I wish, I so wish more
lawyers would be like that. As a psychologist, you know,
it just it pains me, like as I've been covering
the Sean Colmes case, I mean, there was one pretty
brutal day where they really I think it was Cassie.
They really ripped her up in cross and I made

(45:20):
a video that night and I said a few things, like,
you know, Cassie should be offered breaks, you know, her
her legal team or at least the government, because I
know they don't really have legal teams with them per
se in this case. But somebody should be giving her breaks.
She should have support in the room. You know, she
should feel the confidence to ask for a break. You're

(45:41):
not in prison. You can get down by stand right.
And so I made this video and then the next
day I thought it was quite funny they did all
of what I suggested.

Speaker 3 (45:52):
Ah, nice, good, I'm glad. I wish I wish they
had psychologists that talked to you know, everybody as a
pre trial, you know, exercise like, hey, everybody needs to
know this.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
You know, as a witness, these are your rights.

Speaker 3 (46:06):
You can do this, you can do this. And likewise,
I prep my client for depositions. We do a lot
of depositions with personal injury law, and as I prep
them for that, I tell my client all the time,
if you need a break, you know, if they just
went through back surgery and they're hurting, I said, it's okay.
You know, you can say I need to stand up,
I need to walk around for a minute, I need
to use the restroom. I need to just breathe because

(46:28):
I got hounded with questions and now I can't even
think clearly. And that also protects the testimony and keeps
it authentic and real. And it's not just an emotional
reaction to you know, being waterboarded for four hours and then.

Speaker 2 (46:42):
They're like, whatever you want me to say. I'll say
whatever you want.

Speaker 3 (46:45):
Get me out of this room, you know, because that happens,
the pressure builds up and builds up, and people are
people and if they're not used to being in this
kind of environment.

Speaker 2 (46:54):
They need to have the breaks they have to have.

Speaker 3 (46:57):
They have to know that they can you know, take
a breathe, that they can walk around, they can use
the restroom, things like that. I think it protects a testimony,
It keeps a trial authentic because they're responding, you know,
not from being harassed and being you know, feeling like
they've just been absolutely interrogated for you know, four hours.

(47:19):
They're answering truthfully and not just out of emotional response
to that situation.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
Those are cases where I love to come on as
a consultant and just just help support the individuals as
they go through it, you know.

Speaker 3 (47:36):
Or I supposed to have victim advocates, you know, VICTIMAVIC
was supposed to kind of serve in that role.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
Right, and they do, right that it's some firms to
but they have to pay them. This is true.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
This is true now. The state definitely does.

Speaker 3 (47:51):
But you know, how much attention they're getting depends on
the victim advocates definitely. Like I know, when I was
a Dare Victim Avicate office was great, so you know,
they worked with us regularly on things, and you know,
they have their own standards they're held to that they
have to, you know, make the victim aware of their

(48:12):
rights in certain ways, and you know, things like we
just talked about, But a lot of times they don't.
I mean, I can't even tell you how many cases
I've had where the victim adipocate didn't even hasn't even
communicated with them.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
You know, it's wild. It's wild to me. And with
the Sean Coms case, it's it's just next level torture
on a public platform. And I don't feel like a
lot of these women have been protected.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
And they're probably scared.

Speaker 3 (48:39):
You know, that's one of the biggest things you have
with with witnesses and with victims is they're scared to
say anything because you know what's going to happen afterwards.
You know, what's you know, what's going to happen to them.
Are they going to be you know, publicly shamed and
trolled for the rest of their life. You know, we
live in the era of social media and internet and AI,

(49:00):
and you know they can take a phrase or a
miss you know, misspeaking of words and change it into
god knows what. So you know, I don't blame them
they're terrified, and especially when it's you know, broadcasted.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
And I say women, but men too. I mean a
lot of these escorts. You know, we're given immunity, but
what does that really mean when it comes to just
your day to day life.

Speaker 3 (49:22):
Yeah, you might have immunity from using something against you
or whatever, but immunity from what you mean? You know,
am I gonna have like secret service protection follow you around?
Or you obviously me? Are you offering me you know,
witness protection program? Like what is define that? Because exactly
is basically like we're not going to use it against
you to go after this or you know, otherwise you know, implicate.

Speaker 2 (49:42):
You in a crime.

Speaker 3 (49:43):
Okay, thanks, I'm a victim, you know, but like, how
are you going to protect me? And I think that
goes through a lot of people's minds where they withhold
maybe all of the testimony or all the stories because
they think, Okay, if I say this, what's gonna happen next?
And and someone is you know, unless they've been provided
and explained to what all protections are there for them?

Speaker 2 (50:06):
You know, we're all human, you know, there's we're all human.

Speaker 1 (50:10):
Sure to think that people are actually testifying to the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth is flabbergasting to me.

Speaker 3 (50:22):
And you're at the end of the day, you know,
a law everything is subjective because what is your truth?

Speaker 2 (50:28):
Your truth may be different than my truth.

Speaker 3 (50:30):
And you know, what I perceive is wrong maybe different
than what you perceive is wrong.

Speaker 2 (50:33):
So you know, it really is up.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
To the lawyer in that situation to ask the right
questions and take the last response heard, and you know,
find a way to try to connect with them so
that they're you know, answering things and getting the story
out there. You know, if they don't necessarily know how
to say it or what to say or what's looking

(50:56):
you know, what they're looking for. I'm sure they've been
prepped and everything, but what is the truth? You know,
everybody is all perspective. It's subjective in a lot of ways.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Right, and then it's just handed to a jury. It's
just such a wild a wild field you're.

Speaker 2 (51:11):
In, I know.

Speaker 3 (51:13):
And it's the most it is literally the most like
most original, antiquated, like back to our founding fathers, you
know what I mean, Like it has been the like
tried and true jury of your peers, you know, But
I mean what else is there.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
We're all open for ideas. You know, you can do
you can do a bench hearing.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
Then you have this one judge, you know, and that's
essentially one juror, you know, So it's it's trying to
find another alternative that would be otherwise fair to try
to get you know, try to try to get the
story out and protect the victim and you know he
protect the defendant until he's you know, proven guilty if
he is, and on from there. But we're all open

(51:51):
for ideas. Jury the peers has been around for a while.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
Okay, I got some questions for you. Our intention disturbing
a lightning round. If you could commit a crime and
get away with it, what would you do?

Speaker 2 (52:08):
Mm depends on the day, for sure.

Speaker 3 (52:13):
I mean, honestly, I'm gonna be like boried on this
one because i just got back from my honeymoon with
my husband and he's Colombian and we just got back
from Europe and we ate and drank, you know, all
the good food, the ham on that this that that
I'm like, I just want to bring food home.

Speaker 2 (52:26):
I just want to bring this home.

Speaker 3 (52:28):
I want to bring ham on, I want to bring
the Caspajo and I'm like, why is this a crime?
I get it, I mean I truly get it that
they're protecting you, you know, exposure to diseases and viruses
and things like that, because God knows what's in it.
But I'm like, can I just have my very very
salted ham on that probably is so salted there's nothing
in it.

Speaker 2 (52:47):
It's boring.

Speaker 3 (52:48):
But I swear it's like every time. I never forget
my parents. My dad's a pilot and we used to
go to the Bahamas when we were little and they
threw out my hermit crabs in customs.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
I was so mad.

Speaker 3 (52:59):
I'd already bought them shell look like little princesses and stuff.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
It was a whole thing.

Speaker 1 (53:04):
I mean, I can understand, like when I go through.
I go to Mexico a lot monthly. When I go
through and they take things away that I need for
my kids on a plane, like they take her slime,
And I'm like, you know how important slime is to
a child on a flight?

Speaker 2 (53:21):
Yes, yes, You're like, I need things that keep her busy.
Are you going to keep her busy? I guess you
just took away my busy thing.

Speaker 1 (53:28):
Unless you're going to put a Target or a Walmart
in the airport with reasonable prices. I think we need
to change these laws.

Speaker 3 (53:34):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I mean I get the whole
purpose of going through the protection in TSA's purposes, but like,
give us something on the other side.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
I don't need a Pandora. Okay, there's something else that
could be there.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
Yeah. I mean you can test her slime for uranium.
That is fine, BUTTS just bring it through.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
Yeah, yes, all the way, all the way.

Speaker 1 (53:54):
Okay. Next question, if you had to die by death penalty,
how would you want to go? Hmmm.

Speaker 3 (54:02):
You know it's crazy because Georgia still does it well,
Georgia still has it des loinalty, and you you know,
there are options to pick. And I honestly I had
heard this recently because the attorney general in Georgia has
to be present for it. And it's not like they
happen here every day. Everyone's like, oh Georgia, but you
know they do happen, yes, whatever your opinion of that is.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
But when you know, the attorney general has to be present.

Speaker 3 (54:23):
And this guy did it recently and it was his choice,
and I was like, you know what, that's that's kind
of baller. I kind of I kind of would do
that too, and it was death by Firing Squad.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
I was like, if you're gonna go down, go down.

Speaker 3 (54:38):
You know what I'm saying, I want to go down
with my boots on Doc Holliday style.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
How okay can you to to somebody who's never witnessed
death by firing squad? Like, what's the setup? Is it
like Hannahballecter going down the hallway and everybody's Handmaid's Tale length?
Like what does it look like? No?

Speaker 3 (54:56):
It is literally like officers that are like several of
them out there, and it's like you know, three two
one go and.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
The guys over here and just bam by bad by band.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
I'm just like you would think, just like it's been
for years, decades, thousands of hundreds of years.

Speaker 1 (55:10):
Is it like where did the shots primarily land? Are
they core shots? Are they in the head? Are they
is there like one distinct kill shot?

Speaker 2 (55:19):
Well, I mean there are it's usually here here. I
mean any target.

Speaker 3 (55:22):
I say here here, I'm in the radio too, so
I chest, you know, chest and head definitely are kill shots.
And I think that's probably primarily where they're aiming, you know.

Speaker 2 (55:33):
Hitting major organs.

Speaker 3 (55:34):
Makeing it happen quick, not so that it's like a painful,
suffering thing. I'm sure that they've been advised to try
to hit you know, the major organs, the major things,
that would be as quick and painless as possible.

Speaker 2 (55:46):
But I thought, you know what, that is antiquated.

Speaker 3 (55:48):
But at the same time, I mean, you hear all
these horror stories of like not getting enough medicine if
they you know, do it intravenously and you know, maybe
giving too much and their body react in a certain
way and it's like a slower, more painful dead.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
I'm like, just just shoot me. I guess, just put
it over with. I love it.

Speaker 1 (56:10):
I wish we could add one, like like a slow
heroin drip or something.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
Yeah, yeah, I know.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
I'm like, what about like some wine and you know,
like's let's make this like a full experience here.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
Yeah, okay, but I guess they don't deserve it, right, Okay,
they get their last meal.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
Now, they get their last meal.

Speaker 1 (56:32):
That's so lovely for these mass murderers and serial killers.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
It's true, that's true. That's true. Like I don't know,
I was beating you know, stew for the past ten years.

Speaker 1 (56:40):
So oh, I used to eat in the inmate cafe
at the Los Angeles County Jail.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
Oh, how's that?

Speaker 1 (56:50):
I definitely well because a lot of inmates are chefs,
right and cooks, and you know they all come from
different trades. But I definitely would stay away from the
foods that I couldn't tell if they were a bott
fluids in them. Like I would definitely go for like
a salad without dressing.

Speaker 3 (57:05):
Yeah, oh yes, like avoid the liquid so like if
it's meat load zero gravy, gravy is not happening.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
And just never be on anyone's bad side when you're
on the inside.

Speaker 2 (57:20):
No, Okay.

Speaker 1 (57:22):
One one question I have to ask, if you could
change a law, what would it be and why?

Speaker 2 (57:31):
So many? Honestly, I'm gonna.

Speaker 3 (57:34):
Have to go to tour reform. We just in Georgia
went through that, and I do personal injury. So that's
something that's you know, been hot in the topic and
on our local government and what that basically means it
There's there's just several components and layers to it, but
one part particular, without going into this excruciating lengthy detail
about it, would be something called we called the collateral

(57:56):
source rule. And basically that means it protects the injured party,
the one that you know was the victim to the
wreck that wasn't their fault if they have health insurance
from presenting that health insurance to the jury. Because now
that we've gone through tort reform and the governor's ruled
the way he has and it's gone through the House
in it and you know he's signed it into effect,

(58:19):
that basically, if you have health insurance and you've been
in a wreck and it's.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
Not your fault, then you can present to the.

Speaker 3 (58:26):
Jury what the health insurance covered on the bills.

Speaker 2 (58:30):
And as a personal injury.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
Lawyer, we use the medical bills as a way of
evaluating the putting a number on an injury, you know.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
So there's different ways to evaluate it.

Speaker 3 (58:41):
And the foundational component is the medical bills is what
we call like the special damages. So you know, your
medical bills is a way that the doctors can quantify
your injuries to put a number on it, and then
you add in pain and suffering and lost wages and
other things on it. But now as a a few
like as like a few months ago, if you have

(59:04):
health insurance, then you can present that then the defense
can require you to then present that to the jury.
And it's almost an effect penalizing you for having health insurance,
because if you don't have health insurance, then you'll get
the full value. You know, you're more likely to get
the full value of your injuries. It sucks for the
little man, you know, it really does. We try to

(59:24):
bring out everything we can to protect them and make
sure that however they were affected by the case, or
however they're affected by the incident that you know, gave
cause for the injury, that they are compensated to the
best of our ability.

Speaker 2 (59:38):
But that is definitely one law I would change. It's
not fair.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
Yeah, I would change it too. I mean, whenever I
do my evaluations and assessments for the mental health needs
going forward, I never use health insurance because it's completely unstable.
You like Kaiser limits you. They're constantly switching therapists, They're
bringing in new bees who aren't good enough to take
care of very, very so your conditions. There is no

(01:00:02):
consistency in the longevity of mental health insurance for mental
health care. And I will there's so many articles. I
will promote cash pay for lawsuits because we need to
cover someone no matter what happens with this climate and insurance.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
Absolutely, and I'm glad you mentioned that about the mental health.

Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
I mean that's a huge thing that is also considered
an injury.

Speaker 2 (01:00:26):
I mean, you have the physical injury, but there is
mental health.

Speaker 3 (01:00:28):
And I have several cases that require that, and like
you know, especially with children cases with children, they are
a lot more traumatized by certain things that happen to
them than an adult.

Speaker 2 (01:00:40):
Maybe in a lot of ways.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
And you know, maybe children recover a lot easier from
injuries because there's like rubber, you know, they're they have
the good you know, metabolism and the good energy, and
they're stronger in everything, and they're you know, in a
lot of ways.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
But the mental health is affected.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
And so you know, I always, as a child or
even you know, anybody that's gone through an injury and
they have a mental health component to it, I always
get try to get that out with them and try
to understand that from the beginning, because you know, like
you said, it's mental health injury can be stronger than
a physical injury, and it can last a lifetime.

Speaker 1 (01:01:19):
Oops commercial time, right, you know, I have a case
right now of an individual who was severely abused by
a religious institution by a leader. And what happened was
he dropped out of school because of the abuse. While
he has a very very severe learning disorders in dyslexia,

(01:01:40):
So he went fifty sixty years of his life without
knowing his actual condition and that was caused because of
that abuse he endured when he was a small child.
So in my mind, yes, they are accountable for ruining
this guy's life and any potential gain he could have
head from it because no one ever diagnosed him properly.

(01:02:00):
This case I'm on right now. It just makes me
live it. But you know, Catholic priests, can you just
not fuck your altar? Boys? Just keep it in your pants? Okay?

Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
That's It's like, how long is this happening.

Speaker 1 (01:02:15):
Forever?

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
I know? I know, well, I mean a lot.

Speaker 3 (01:02:18):
And it's sad because a lot of loads of religious institutions.
You know, it's like they use it as it means
to control the masses, and it's and it's like they
use exactly what it's. It's like they take advantage of
people coming in a very vulnerable state and you know not,
I mean, I appreciate and tolerate and respect every religion,
but you know, when you come in, they're in a
vulnerable state. It's the people that are, you know, in

(01:02:40):
these certain organizations that are taking advantage. They're they're taking
their humanism and whatever is going on in their head
and issues they have, and you know, they're projecting on
this more vulnerable person. And when people come, you know,
to their church or their synagogue or whatever, you know, religion,
they actice if they practice one at all. Then they're

(01:03:02):
coming in a vulnerable state. They're looking for help, and
it's just like easy target.

Speaker 1 (01:03:07):
Yes, one hundred percent. And then you think about the
opposite of you know, people, pedophiles, people who are disordered
seek out positions of authority in order to have access
to victims.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
Oh they do, they do that, yeah, and they're very
good at it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
I mean, when you have somebody that is like a
true sociopath or a true like a true narcissist, not
in the sense that we throw the word around now. Now, yes,
we all have had narcissistic boyfriends. I think we all
can heill married to that. But you know, but I
mean a true like a true sociopath, you know, or
someone like that, they can they're good at at tricking

(01:03:45):
their own selves and becoming this way and that, and
being able to rise to certain thresholds where they have
a certain power. And they're so good at it they
don't even know half the time, you know. And that's scary,
you know, because with other people as a humans, when
you're communicating with them or having in some kind of
engagement with them, you know, if.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
Someone lies to you, a lot of people can kind
of tell.

Speaker 3 (01:04:08):
They can pick up on just like a feeling, an intuition,
you know, even if they don't. You know, some people
maybe blink twice or whatever. You know, they might have
little tics, but you can kind of pick up on it.
But a true sociopath you have no idea because they
don't know, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
It's like they believe their own creation.

Speaker 1 (01:04:25):
Yes, Oh I wish I could diagnose public figures.

Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
I know you should, girl.

Speaker 1 (01:04:31):
I'll come on to that one. Okay, one more question.
Can you tell me a secret that nobody else knows? Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
Lord, I'll see. I feel like I'm a pretty open book,
you know what I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:04:46):
It's like, I don't you know, I feel like with
secrets with me, I mean, I don't talk about as
a lawyer, I don't talk about a lot of stuff
because it's like, you know, but.

Speaker 2 (01:04:55):
I'm trying to think of a specialle or like something. Okay,
I tell you this.

Speaker 3 (01:05:00):
It's not necessarily a secret, but it's something. It's kind
of like a fun fact and I'm going to go
into it. So my dad is not a lot of
people know this because you know, then we start going
and everything. My dad is ninety six or will be
ninety six in August. I'm the last of seven that
we know of. We're pretty sure seven seven legitimate for sure,
and children, different wives now and he is like a

(01:05:23):
wall of wives down his staircase and is like all
the different wives that you know. When you go down,
you're like, oh my god, it's like the ghost of
wife passed. So but uh, anyway, we had a farm,
we you know, growing up. We still have one, but
it's least out now. We gotter my grandparents past, and
I had a whore. And if people, if you've anybody's

(01:05:44):
had horses, you'll know, you know, if you don't breed
the horses.

Speaker 2 (01:05:47):
A lot of times you.

Speaker 3 (01:05:47):
Buy them, the breeder will name them, and a lot
of people keep the breeder name. So I had a
horse named Cocaine and she was fast.

Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
That was what was told with me. She was fast.

Speaker 3 (01:05:56):
Of course at that age, I know, I doe what
that meant, but and uh, I was. I went to
private school and they interview you at private schools, you know,
when you're like in kindergarten, and of course you know
you're in kindergarten. So they're talking to you about what
do you did you do this weekend? You know, would
you do this summer? Do you have any pets? Things
like that, And I was like, oh, yeah, I hope
I have Cocaine. They were like hm. So naturally that

(01:06:19):
brought another interview with.

Speaker 2 (01:06:20):
My parents there and they're like no, no, no, no, no,
this is a horse.

Speaker 3 (01:06:23):
And they were kind of like wait what They're like, well,
you know, they'd explain the thing, like, you know, if
you buy them for breeders, a lot of times they're
often named, sometimes you keep them whatever. And anyway, so
I will say this that my parents decided after that
they wanted to start breeding horses and name them themselves.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
So this, I tell you what. This is the secret
that comes out of the story.

Speaker 3 (01:06:42):
So my sister and I when they were breeding horses
at the bar. My mom was like, oh, you need
to stay in the house. And so we did what
any child would do, did not stay in the house,
and we went snuck into the bunk house and we
were present to the horse breeding situation.

Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
And I will tell you I will never speak to
the bunk house again. That was disturbing.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
My gosh. Enough, Oh you have seen.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
It, yes, secret, only my sister knows. I don't think
my parents know that. Of course they probably will now.

Speaker 3 (01:07:18):
But so to all those gars out there, if your
parents tell you not to go to the bunk house
and watch for a horse breeding, listen.

Speaker 1 (01:07:28):
Please listen. That is the thing that you can only
find on the dark web or like four chen or something.

Speaker 3 (01:07:35):
Oh my gosh, and like pdd, please don't get horses.
We're just gonna lay it out there.

Speaker 2 (01:07:39):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 1 (01:07:41):
I mean I was waiting for bestiality to just jump
into this.

Speaker 2 (01:07:44):
I'm just saying, I know. I was like and three
two I know true.

Speaker 1 (01:07:59):
Because of the complaints named him as the size of
a role that will never leave, that will never he
will never let down.

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Oh no, no, I was.

Speaker 1 (01:08:11):
Hoping we were going to actually see evidence of anatomy,
but not, I guess not.

Speaker 2 (01:08:17):
I know that they must have suppressed that earlier on.
I imagine he's like, this is cause for defamation. This needs
to stay under wraps.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
The poor, the poor jorer who's like an elderly woman.
It's like coming to my god.

Speaker 3 (01:08:34):
Can't you imagine like your grandma on the stand and
she's just like.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
Yeah, at least they're probably like stronger people because they're
New Yorkers, you know, like, well we got some.

Speaker 2 (01:08:45):
Connecticut that that's that. Now, that is true. New Yorkers
are strong. I love New Yorkers. I love New Yorkers.

Speaker 3 (01:08:53):
We have a lot of translants here in Atlanta from
New York and a lot of my good friends growing
up for New Yorkers, and they are from birth. When
you see these kids like five and six years old
right in the subway and you're like.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
Yes, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:09:05):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:09:06):
Meanwhile, we're like our like fifteen year old, We're like,
don't go, don't leave the driveway.

Speaker 1 (01:09:10):
Yeah, oh, I mean you're talking to someone in California.
We are like scared of the air and everything.

Speaker 3 (01:09:16):
That's true, Like don't breathe outside today, stay inside.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
For sure.

Speaker 1 (01:09:21):
It's gonna be I have seventy degrees, please stand doors, definitely.

Speaker 3 (01:09:27):
Meanwhile, we're like, the air is so thick, we have
no idea what's happening on those zone because we're just
breathing humidity.

Speaker 2 (01:09:33):
We're not sure what it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:34):
Is, and you're just getting eaten a life. I'm massive,
mosquitoes massive, like.

Speaker 3 (01:09:39):
I mean, and I they come after me, They'll buy
through my leggings like I mean. There was a time
when I tried to do the natural, and I've tried
every oil under the sun, but oh no, I'm one
hundred percent deep.

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
Now I'm like, I'll have the deep, the deep wood deep,
that's what. Oh my gosh, over my clothes.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
Oh can I tell you a funny story please? When
I started dating my husband, he's from Illinois, like backwoods Illinois,
and he was like, how fun let's go on a
little date. You know, let's take this canoe out down
this backwoods river. And I was like, yeah, you know
this southern California girl. Ye oh my got horse flies?

Speaker 2 (01:10:18):
Oh yes, yes.

Speaker 3 (01:10:21):
And when I'm closed, their eyes are crazy, Oh my god,
what is that thing?

Speaker 1 (01:10:27):
I So basically what I did was I took all
of the bug spray and I had it just on
constant flow until he could get me home. So I'm
just like breathing in the bug spray. He doesn't get
any I let him stay behind me, so I was like, no,
I'm just going to surround myself in the bug spray.
We get back and we like pull up like one

(01:10:47):
hundred percent. I hit one hundred percent. I have cancer,
but I have no nail polish on my nails. They
are stripped. And then we look at the canoe and
it is like, Matt, there is no shine. And I
was like, honey, I don't really know who you who
you think you're dating, but things.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
Have to change.

Speaker 1 (01:11:10):
And then we moved to California.

Speaker 2 (01:11:13):
Oh my god. Well I'll tell you this girl.

Speaker 3 (01:11:15):
If you going to South Georgia, if you go below
the nutline, which we have here, Lena is above the outline.
And I think everybody has a different opinion of what
the netline is. I personally think it's below Perry, just
just below Perry, which is like a little bit blow
making kind of the middle of the state.

Speaker 2 (01:11:31):
But when I prove to South South Georgia, they.

Speaker 3 (01:11:33):
Were like, oh, you know, because I'm sitting here going
like this, you know, twenty four to seven. They're like, oh, honey,
you go you like blow up like for those of
you not seen me, you kind of like blow with
your like upper lip up. And I was like okay,
And I blew the at like straight into my eyeball.
So there is there is there is a way to
do it, a mechanics surround it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
I am not good at it. I blew it into
my eyeball, like straight into my nose into.

Speaker 1 (01:11:56):
Yeah, everyone to experience that.

Speaker 2 (01:11:58):
No, I don't think I want to like a beehive suit.

Speaker 3 (01:12:01):
And I was like, I'm real sorry, but bugs tend
to like me no matter what.

Speaker 2 (01:12:04):
So I'm prepared.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
No, thank you, I will never no never go. Well,
I want to thank you so much for coming on.
And I mean, I you said so many insightful things.
And I know Shawn Comes, I know your jury and
your lawyers are listening, and I hope you take the start.

Speaker 3 (01:12:25):
I know, plus we will only time will tell. This
is death is really an interesting one.

Speaker 1 (01:12:31):
But where can people find you? I mean, if you
are needing an attorney, this is the one you should have,
because you know the ones the who's the old white
guy who did the commercials Larry H. Parker no more.

Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
It is a new era for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:12:50):
And you know and we yes, we are based in
Georgia of our nationwide and it's Bridger Law Group. So
you can actually go on Instagram and it's you know
at Bridger b R I D G E R Law Group,
or you know, you can DM me personally and it's
Cameron Underscore Simone c A M E R O in

(01:13:11):
Underscore Simone as I am O N E.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
And you know, we're happy to get to you.

Speaker 3 (01:13:16):
We do personal injury and my blog partner does immigration
as well, so I sold you personal injury and uh,
you know, we take a whole different you know component
uh and attack when it comes to our personal injury cases,
which I think really sets us apart. You know, we
have we have criminal backgrounds and so when we get
a case, we invet. You know, you get a police report.

(01:13:37):
Most personal injury lawyers will have the police report and
send it demand out and it's maybe one or two
sentences on what happened, and you know there's no other
evidence obtained anything like that. We take it a step further.
I investigate my cases. I treat it like a DA
case file. You know, I'm going into it. I'm taking pictures,
I'm interviewing witnesses, I'm pulling cameras. I'm building a case

(01:13:57):
as strong as I can so that my client has
the best representation they know how.

Speaker 2 (01:14:02):
And we really are a family firm. You know.

Speaker 3 (01:14:05):
I have several clients that had really bad things happened
to them. You know, one of my one of my
she was a child when the case initially started, but
was about eighteen or nineteen when she finished and unfortunately
lost her mother.

Speaker 2 (01:14:17):
You know, I go down and see her all the time.

Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
I you know, she'd actually on the anniversary of her
mother's death. She was in college is the first year,
and the teacher wouldn't give her like a continuance day
to take her final exam. And I was like, oh, hey, no,
So I drove down there four hours, four and a
half and had a conversation with that teacher and needless

(01:14:39):
to say, she was allowed to retake it, and so
we And that was probably six months after we settled
the case. So you know, we're definitely a very different
approach law firm. We have a great legal team, great staff,
great employees. Everybody is in at one hundred percent. And
you know, I'm we're nationwide. I'm so happy to represent
you and talk to you about your case and see

(01:15:00):
if there's something we can do for you. But any
of those two places you could definitely get in touch
with me or the firm through me. And I'm Cameron Roberts,
so you can ask for me if you go through
the Instagram Bridge or law group page.

Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
Yeah, oh, I love it. And as somebody who comes
from criminal too and I'm now in civil and personal injury,
it's a unique combination to have. And you want to
vet your lawyer. You want that on your side.

Speaker 2 (01:15:27):
You definitely do.

Speaker 3 (01:15:27):
And if I could say advice to anyone out there,
you know, ask your lawyer what strategy plan they have
to attack? You know, ask them what when you first
take them on, you know, what do they plan on
doing with your case? How do they plan on investigating
it more if there's not enough evidence you think, or
something like that, Because you have every right to ask them.
You know that the lawyer does get to govern typically

(01:15:50):
the strategy of the case. But you can pick and
choose your lawyer, and you know, up to a certain point,
you can pretty much fire them at any time, but
you know, communicate with them, talk to them about what
their plan is. You know, if you don't communicate with
your clients and you're not finding out the real story,
and and so I just urge you, guys, all your
listeners out there, to ask your lawyer questions and you know,

(01:16:12):
find out what their plan is, because you may have
some very insightful knowledge about something that could be very
very very helpful that they otherwise may not see and
the evidence presented to them.

Speaker 1 (01:16:23):
Yeah, exactly. Oh, I'm so excited. Well, thank you for
being on Intentionally Disturbing. And I'll put all your links
in the show notes so everybody can click away and
contact you.

Speaker 3 (01:16:36):
Absolutely well, thank you for having me. I enjoyed it,
and I will wait.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
To see what happens with the Paddy trial. It's going
to be very interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:16:44):
Yes, I'm looking forward to it.

Speaker 3 (01:16:48):
Yes, So I'm sure it'll happen real soon considering the
rapidity of how it's occurring right now.

Speaker 1 (01:16:53):
So all right, thank you for listening to another episode
of Intentionally Disturbing. I'll catch you next time. Intentionally Disturbing
is a podcast from me Doctor Leslie. It's distributed by
IHEARTMDIA Liam Billingham is the senior producer and he also

(01:17:20):
edits the show and puts up with my shit. Katie
Cobbs does the social media and she attempts to keep
me in my lane, not always successful. The executive producers
are Paul Anderson and Scott McCarthy for Workhouse Media, who
have told me not to text them twenty four to seven.

(01:17:41):
But you know what, I'm still the boss. Thanks again
for listening. We'll see you next week from

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Dr. Leslie Dobson

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Cameron Roberts: A Doctor and an Attorney talk Diddy!