investigators called in caitlin, who had insight into the yoder family. a finger at adam similar to the letter, prompting officers to ask if she had written it. >> so i again said, katie, if you wrote the letter, we need to know that. and it was at that point she admitted to writing the anonymous letter. we'd always said, you know, the person that wrote this letter is definitely you got to be considered a suspect in our case. >> caitlin would later denied to investigators writing the letter. >> did you write the letter? >> i can't talk about that. i'm sorry. >> can you say you did not write the letter? >> sorry. >> all right. >> then. >> while speaking with caitlin, investigators believe they were zeroing in on their suspect. >> i just don't hang out at the murder weapon because that's why they get caught, right? >> the guys also don't use poison. what do. >> we do? >> they say it's the baby's mother. >> this is the lady's weapon? >> yeah. >> after that conversation, the sheriff's office would file this warrant to seize caitlin's cell phone. >> katie appr

i want to push back on criticism of wisconsin versus yoder. the supreme court took pains to say compulsory attendance laws are important, so that is the first question. the second one is ic wisconsin versus yoder as a defense of a pluralistic, diverse system of different views in our country. so how would you square criticism of wisconsin versus yoder, again the amish, mennonite old order, after kids were 16 they could stay home, with a diverse, pluralistic, big country? >> there is really nothing in the decision that talks about diversity and pluralism. the decision is really about weighing the interest of the society and democracy and a well-educated educated set of children to age and a religious 18 group that said that it did not want to educate their children past eighth grade. i think they clearly made the wrong balance. what they should've said was that there is a compelling interest in democracy having educated individuals up to the end of whatever the compulsory education requirements are of the state. the way that the opinion is writ

obviously in wisconsin versus yoder it got explicit, they were applying religious liberty doctrines to the right of the parent to educate. it was certainly not far from the surface in pierce versus society of sisters, but it stood along, this is not a religious issue, this is a question whether or not the state could substitute for the parents' judgment, and the court ruled that it could not. that line of cases continues in good health today. again, i'm glad it does, and i'm glad the area is ruled off limits for the government. now, the other struggles happened one by one. and let me get on now to a point that i mentioned, which is that the-- there's a reason why a lot of these things took a long time to litigate and restored to parents not some new rights that they had never had before, but restored them the right that would have never been questioned until modern times. rights on schooling, rights on instruction and the like. and that was because the progressive movement had invested in the government an enormous amount of confidence that it could act in local parental. it was progre