Her story that she didn’t want to give away Sigfredo makes little sense to me. As I recall, said on the stand in Charlie’s trial that it was because he was facing the death penalty, but it is my understanding that even after that was taken off the table and he was convicted, and before her second trial, she still refused to talk. As I recall she was asked about this on the stand, and she said that she didn’t want to hurt Sig’s appeal. None of this makes sense to me, because I have seen correspondence between Sig and his attorneys in which Sig himself is strongly encouraged to take a deal, and told that the state is willing to make a deal with Katie. (I believe his attorney even tells him his chances on appeal are slim, but I am not certain I am remembering that correctly.). In the correspondence that I’ve seen, my impression is that he seems bent on taking his chances at trial and on appeal, despite all legal advice against it.
I was under the impression that Sig loved Katie very much and would do anything for her, but he seems to me in this case to have been reluctant to take a deal that might have helped them both. One would think that if Katie had been told about his refusal to take an opportunity to save her and help himself, she would have changed her mind on being reluctant to tell on him, especially with the death penalty off the table. It’s possible that the offer for him, and his refusal to take it, was not communicated to her. Something is not adding up for me.
