Going Rogue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 525
I've snipped a lot of the posts but that's just to jump off of one theme and to address a couple of points you made @Going Rogue
- We found out that Rashbaum has been representing her since 2016. (DR yesterday)
- We already knew they were so close she'd that she'd speak to his wife during prep for Charlie's case (DA on jail calls)
- Yesterday, a couple of US defense lawyers providing commentary on the hearing remarked on their closeness ( They pointed out DR & DA's exchanges during the hearing) .
-Donna's own diary-planners suggest she was closely involved in prep for Charlie's losing case ( New discovery FoIAs)
- Does Rashbaum give an honest appraisal to his clients? ( Jail calls are a trove on info on that subject. Not going to list all the CA & DA comments about DR in those recordings, would take up another half of a WS page. Anyway, CA doesn't name the person/persons who advised him to stick it out instead of leaving the country)
- Originally David Markus was meant to be repping Charlie at trial but later, Donna's lawyer Rashbaum took over Charlie's case. (Charlie raises that point again during one of the recent jail call recordings. Any claim that this withdrawal by Markus was down to trial scheduling doesn't really stack-up because no trial date was set at the point DM withdrew.)
When you look at that brief list, imo it raises questions. OFC I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
Regardless of us being unable to get to the bottom of it, going forward, it's not difficult to imagine that Charlie might have time to ruminate on it, especially if Donna is convicted.
Plenty of lawyers commenting on Court TV, L&Crime & on podcasts have mentioned similar points over the last 12months. That's not a court, they're not on a jury and are entitled to raise them. I don't think them being critical of Rashbaum means they must hate his clients as you said.( OTOH I do agree that there are some non-lawyers who've just hated DR from day one & couldn't compliment him on any aspect of his lawyering. Reminds me of the Steven Epstein 'thing' again.)
Anyways...
There's plenty of questionable behaviour re lawyers in this case which are IMO legit discussion topics and are topical right now. Some of them could be raised at DA's trial ( See new witnesses, exhibits, depos)
Whether that's the Jim Lewis/XX Adelson Lawyer ' no one's talking' call (October 2016, wiretap) or
the recent Morgan Honeycutt text to Donna ( Donna's phone search warrant Nov 2023) or
the issue of whether an Adelson lawyer reached out to Francis Magbanua re paying KM's fees ( Georgia, 2023) or
why DaCoste showed up at Sandford's interview with Francis Magbanua even though Samantha had her own lawyer or
the broader issue of conflict of interest & whether that ultimately serves the best interests of the clients( DA & CA same lawyer.)
there's more but this post is already long enough.
Worth repeating: Rashbaum yesterday said that he was Donna's lawyer from August 2016
My point is we have zero insight to what Raahbaum says to Donna or what he said to Charlie regarding the strength of the case against them. Unless you want to attempt to decipher the conversations between Charlie and Donna on the jail calls. Two people who are delusional and have a serious inability to come to terms with reality. IMO, it seems most believe he is / was pumping them up with false hopes. Simply put, there is no ‘real’ data to support the belief that Raahbaum is / was deliberately stringing them along and giving them false hopes because that’s what suits him financially. I believe Rashbaum has better legal ethics than what’s being irresponsibility (strong word but true) broadcasted on multiple forums covering this case.