She does say some things like this, but to me she mostly focuses on how the jury was stupid. She tells him she’s going to make sure his son and dog are taken care of, that he can always call them. But meanwhile, we know she is making plans to leave.
I like when she says it’s not fair that the state gets to go first AND last. She doesnt appear to understand that it works that way because the state has the burden of proof, which is the more difficult role, and so they get two chances. They seem to think he just had to show any alternate explanation in order to ”win,“ and they seem to think the alternate explanation should be the last thing the jury hears. They say repeatedly that there was “no evidence,” and then proceed to discuss the actual evidence and say it doesn’t prove anything. I love the apparent fixation on Wendi’s book and how he says that has nothing to do with the case. (After all, HE didnt write the book right?) I also like when Donna asks him if “for the appeal,” he can do it “somewhere else,” like not in Tallahassee. She says “I don’t see why not.” Does she think an appeal is an actual second trial, and he can just move for a change of venue for that one? Or just choose where to do it? News flash, you have to file the appeal in the same jurisdiction where the trial court was. It’s not another trial, you’re literally appealing to a higher court to look at what the lower court did. you can’t just pick any old court to look at it.
The fact that she got a new boyfriend shouldn't sway any jury. Male murderers manage to attract new females all the time. These people either don't know the details, have been lied to, or think that they are different and it won't happen to them. Co-dependent Enablers.
Translation: The jury may have been stupid, but I'm not going to be as stupid as you were Charlie, and risk facing one myself.
So, like, if the jury had been smarter they would’ve voted differently? Is that what he’s saying? The fact that even “dumb” people found him guilty should give him pause, in my opinion.
Starting at about 13:00, DA seems to be saying that she discussed with Rashbaum her plans to head to the airport and flee the country. I don't think DA was breaking any laws by planning to leave the country given that she hadn't been charged at that point, so I don't think Rashbaum can be accused of helping her commit a crime (which obviously lawyers can't do). But still a very bad look for him.
I've not heard all the calls but the first call I heard where CA repeatedly says he should have trusted his gut, I thought this was about believing his lawyer that he had a chance of being exonerated and would be going home. He's disappointed that he bought into the idea when his gut said different. It was false hope-- he gave away his food and commissary, thinking he was going home! JMO
Bad that he didn’t tell his client, IMO. There are so many conflicts with this common defense, it’s ridiculous. And I think if you have a criminal client who is trying to flee, you have an obligation to advise them not to, as it would show consciousness of guilt. Any lawyers here can confirm that? Donna says Rash just told her she might not make it out on time.
Why doesnt he trust that same gut now, and try to make a deal?
I did hear that she has been spending time with Harvey. He doesn’t tend to talk on the phone as much, I think, so she might feel differently about maintaining a relationship with him.
Actually lawyers can, even though they risk their own licenses. That's why Rudy Guiliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Cheseboro, and Sidney Clark are all in legal hot water.
Is this unique to Florida where convicted inmates/felons get to make a deal after the fact? I didn't understand this with KM and her (worthless) proffer and now with CA? Also, when Judge Everett rendered CA's sentences served consecutive and not concurrent, that was the discretion of the Court. As a sitting Justice, I'd be furious if my verdict tampered with outside of an appellate ruling. MOO
Although this may be an unpopular view, I think threatening to Baker Act Donna is the one good thing that Wendi did. Call her bluff on the obvious manipulation tactic. If Donna really were suicidal, it's what you'd want to do to save a person. In California, it has a different name- it's 5150'ing them, which is the number of the statute. My next door neighbor had to do it in the middle of the night when her husband really was feeling suicidal and had a gun. The police came to my door to see if I had a key. (I did) And he got taken to the local psych hospital.
In my opinion she didn’t do it to call her bluff, she did it as a threat to keep her quiet. According to Donna, she has never just come over in the 9 years they’ve lived here and suddenly she does, to talk about Baker Acting her. It suggests to me that it was important. And, according to Donna, she had never actually threatened suicide at the point when Wendi did this, which was during the trial. According to Donna, Wendi seems to have just concluded Donna was suicidal based on something she said during the trial about not wanting to see Charlie convicted.
