Yes, and for me, that first sentence of yours is the biggest reason the motion should be denied. Thanks for putting it so clearly! I wonder how the state could work something like that into their argumentOf course, the irony is that Rashbaum and Donna are thanking their lucky stars that the Sun Pass and AT&T data is no longer available because it would further sink the defense. While I understand why Rashbaum is making the argument, it’s utter disingenuousness will be plain for the Court to see.
To me, this echoes the similar (shameless) tactic empoyed by Katie's counsel in faulting the prosecution for not obtaining more records from the club where Katie worked as a bottle girl. As if those records would have explained the ridiculous spikes in her bank account at the time of the murder (as opposed to bolstering the State's case because they most certainly would NOT have explained the cash she was clearly getting from the Adelsons).Yes, and for me, that first sentence of yours is the biggest reason the motion should be denied. Thanks for putting it so clearly! I wonder how the state could work something like that into their argument
We have to remember that YouTube is a business. And taking that position, gets people talking about him, and brings more views.
Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.I have watched plenty of LYK videos to know that his legal commentary is a very ‘non-biased’ perspective on any topic he discusses and his opinion on this motion is not purposely controversial to get more views. Although portions of the case made by Donna’s attorneys are factually correct, specifically the SunPass Data is no longer available because of the passage of time. IMO there is NO WAY the state purposely delayed Donna’s arrest knowing that the SunPass data would not be available at a future date and thus delaying her arrest because that data MIGHT or COULD prove Donna did not make a stop at Charles house. If the defense can reasonable prove the state delayed her arrest for that purpose, then the motion WOULD (and SHOULD) be approved by any ‘fair’ judge. I disagree with Peter that the judge should exclude the evidence on the text ‘outside your house’ and the state’s theory on the money drop. I also disagree with his ‘opinion’ that they don’t really need that to win the case. Its a critical piece of evidence in my opinion. I'm not saying they can't win without it, but its VERY important to prove Donnas involvement.
IMO, I have watched MANY YouTubers that cover this case and there is only ONE (in my opinion) that is not trying to capitalize ‘monetarily’ in some way - that is KatieCooLady. That don’t NOT mean the ‘others’ are doing anything wrong and its my personal opinion. I’m sure others will disagree w/ me and cite someone else that they believe isn’t trying to capitalize financially - and I'm only referring to those with 'YouTube' channels feeding 'regular' content on the case and there are several.
Whether or not they've made that argument, my understanding is that is the standard they need to meet in order to be entitled to the requested relief (i.e., prejudice AND an intentional delay for the purpose of causing that prejudice).Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.
Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.
In my opinion it will be difficult to show bad faith. And I think I was wrong about when the state got the evidence of that text, it could have been when they arrested Charlie and seized his phone, or they could have been monitoring his phone earlier, right? Do we know when they got notice of that text and how long they’ve had it? Either way, they had it at Charlie’s trial, and they didn’t make this same argument. And if it’s the case that they were looking at Charlie’s phone records since as far back as the time of the bump, the defense would have known about that, no?No they aren’t arguing it was delayed ‘purposely’ for that reason – perhaps it’s inferred, but not directly stated. My point is that the only reason a ‘fair’ judge would grant that motion is ‘IF’ there was proof that the prosecution delayed the arrest in ‘bad faith’. IF they purposely waited to arrest Donna UNTIL after the SunPass data / records were no longer available it would fit the criteria of in ‘bad faith’. The defense’s argument is the SunPass data WOULD have proven she did not stop at Charlie’s house and the ‘money drop’ is no longer inculpatory evidence. If the judge rules the way Peter suggests he should, that would be a MAJOR win for the defense. I think Peter is grossly underestimating the importance of this evidence. Regardless, it’s a clever argument / motion by the defense - proof being someone as level headed as ‘LYK’ is giving some credence to parts of the motion.
In my opinion it will be difficult to show bad faith. And I think I was wrong about when the state got the evidence of that text, it could have been when they arrested Charlie and seized his phone, or they could have been monitoring his phone earlier, right? Do we know when they got notice of that text and how long they’ve had it? Either way, they had it at Charlie’s trial, and they didn’t make this same argument. And if it’s the case that they were looking at Charlie’s phone records since as far back as the time of the bump, the defense would have known about that, no?
I don’t think they could have gotten it from Donna’s phone, because they didn’t seize it until after her arrest, which was after Charlie’s conviction. But- they were monitoring both phones since the bump, and they did have other texts between them going pretty far back, about Harvey’s birthday, etc. Maybe they got them from Charlie’s phone, since they were between them it’s hard to tell. But maybe that’s why we didn’t see them until Charlie’s trial.My assumption is they got the text exchange ‘outside your house’ from Donna’s phone, but it could have been Charlie’s - not sure. Regardless, the way the motion is written and the examples given in the motion, it does not prove the delay in Donna’s arrest was with any substantial prejudice or in bad faith. That is key to the defense’s argument. While I agree they are factually correct in stating the SunPass data would have been available had they arrested Donna without ‘delay’, there is zero proof the arrest was purposely delayed for a tactical reason like waiting for that SunPass data to expire from highway department’s records. I predict this motion will fall flat on its face.
I don’t think they could have gotten it from Donna’s phone, because they didn’t seize it until after her arrest, which was after Charlie’s conviction. But- they were monitoring both phones since the bump, and they did have other texts between them going pretty far back, about Harvey’s birthday, etc. Maybe they got them from Charlie’s phone, since they were between them it’s hard to tell. But maybe that’s why we didn’t see them until Charlie’s trial.
No they aren’t arguing it was delayed ‘purposely’ for that reason – perhaps it’s inferred, but not directly stated. My point is that the only reason a ‘fair’ judge would grant that motion is ‘IF’ there was proof that the prosecution delayed the arrest in ‘bad faith’. IF they purposely waited to arrest Donna UNTIL after the SunPass data / records were no longer available it would fit the criteria of in ‘bad faith’. The defense’s argument is the SunPass data WOULD have proven she did not stop at Charlie’s house and the ‘money drop’ is no longer inculpatory evidence. If the judge rules the way Peter suggests he should, that would be a MAJOR win for the defense. I think Peter is grossly underestimating the importance of this evidence. Regardless, it’s a clever argument / motion by the defense - proof being someone as level headed as ‘LYK’ is giving some credence to parts of the motion.
I don't remember where I read this. I distinctly remember reading LE had DA's phone data and were able to pinpoint her phone at CA's house at 8.59pm (when text was sent), 10.35pm the phone was still there and 01.29am when the phone was now in Orlando.I don’t think they could have gotten it from Donna’s phone, because they didn’t seize it until after her arrest, which was after Charlie’s conviction. But- they were monitoring both phones since the bump, and they did have other texts between them going pretty far back, about Harvey’s birthday, etc. Maybe they got them from Charlie’s phone, since they were between them it’s hard to tell. But maybe that’s why we didn’t see them until Charlie’s trial.
The state doesn’t need the SunPass data, in my opinion, and I think the defense is arguing that the state did not ask for it. If I recall correctly, the state has a text from Donna that says “outside your house,” and one from Charlie saying “ten minutes.” In my opinion the jury can theoretically decide what those texts mean. They could be shown the time they were sent, and then they could be shown the time Harvey and Donna got to Orlando per cell tower records. That’s what the state did in Charlie’s trial, if I recall correctly. I believe there was a witness who authenticated the cell tower records and the texts. If I recall correctly, the defense asked the witness whether the text from Donna could have meant that she was passing by on the turnpike, and I believe he said something to the effect that he couldn’t rule that out, but maybe I’m not remembering that correctly. The state didn’t need SunPass records to do any of that, and to the best of my knowledge it didn’t ask for them.But obviously this is based on the assumption that she didn't stop at CA's? So really the State DID want the Sunpass data yeah?
But obviously this is based on the assumption that she didn't stop at CA's? So really the State DID want the Sunpass data yeah?
