I thought Jansen's commentary on the trial was generally pretty good. I watched the whole thing on his stream. But a couple of things raised my eyebrows.
First, Jansen has been repeating the fact that WA has derivative use immunity over and over again, on STS, CourtTV, and in the Tallahassee Democrat. He argues that her derivative use immunity is a barrier to prosecution and that it's "really hard to get around." Jansen is the only lawyer I've seen arguing that this is an important reason why WA might not be charged. According to a bunch of other experts, that is wrong, and Jansen has yet to name a single piece of evidence resulting from WA"s testimony that wasn't available independently. I was surprised to see him double-down on this point and rant about it again last night. He was very aggressive. It was really weird, especially when he previously publicly announced that WA was consulting with an immunity expert- where would he get this info, if not from the defense team?
Second, having watched his entire stream, an interesting pattern emerged. Jansen certainly said that WA was unlikable and not credible. But I never heard him say a thing about any of the evidence in the trial implicating WA- even when this was the natural inference from the evidence and testimony presented- and even when he said he found the testimony credible- so it was confusing.
Jansen was present for most of the trial and commented freely on all kinds of other stuff. I couldn't help but notice that he was absent for WA's direct, had no comment on Stephen Webster (who testified that WA could've been sanctioned), and had no comment on Sgt. Hale (who confirmed the celebration dinner). Interestingly, he was also absent when Sgt. Corbett went into WA's texts regarding Markel's schedule, and WA's trip to the liquor store. At one point, Jansen is madly texting, gives the screen a "thumbs-up" gesture, and subsequently makes a comment about how crazy it would be to think that WA may have communicated with the other conspirators right after the shooting.
I'm not alleging anything, just giving my subjective observations from watching the stream.
I thought the jailhouse interview excerpt reporting a previous hit attempts was very interesting. I do recall that there was a legal reason why that witness couldn't be called- pretty sure the mansplaining by the two male lawyers was not fair or accurate.
My own impression is that Tim Jansen is a career lawyer but not a true crime hobbyist and has not spent the 500 or so hours watching and re-watching all the previous trials or dissecting Wendi's interviews, the wiretaps and the podcasts. His knowledge comes, not from his own deep dive analysis and conviction about each player's actions, the evidence against them and their guilt and innocence but rather from the periphery - being a local and a member of the Tally legal community with very real contacts inside TPD, the SAO and FBI. He is friends with Pat Sanford, Craig Isom, Judge Wheeler and probably 20 or 30 other LE people working the case.
He's providing free color commentary and relies on his own experience and provides some insider information. He was the first to say that Katie's proffer was an absolute gong show and provided zero evidence or corroboration. I was so shocked when he said that, that I was SURE he was on the take. How could that even be possible? She was quarterbacking both murder trips, renting cars, paying the killers, managing SG and CA during the murder and the bump. Impossible! But lo and behold, her proffers may go down as the worst and least believable interviews ever conducted by LE. Its mind-boggling how bad they were and Jansen obviously knew that.
The State ended up using Katie at trial, which is now being used as proof that Jansen was "wrong" all along. But Jansen himself - after he heard the Defense opening statement said that she may have to testify given their insane strategy - and Jansen said that a couple days before she testified.
Tim does get tripped up on some details, for sure. And like most people reporting a news story when they have sources and "news" like Donna's arrest - he definitely wants to be "first" to report it. His coverage on this case has him appearing regularly on Court TV and now Good Morning America. This is a big deal for him (which is probably a good argument for why Tim absolutely should go back and do a deep dive and make a complete assessement of all the evidence and each person's invovlement/credibility/legal exposure. Thats my biggest issue with Tim).
I suspect his deference to Wendi's use and derivative-use immunity is because it was such a big deal in the Brian Winchester case. Winchester's derivative use immunity was the reason he could never be prosecuted. Obviously, this case is completely different but he believes that every bit of her testimony is immunized and the defense could raise Kastigar issues on anything she was asked about.
I don't agree with Tim at all on the derivative-use immunity. He has backed off this a bit. I think the biggest challenges to prosecuting Wendi are:
1. Her 6 hour police interview, where she is rambling off her own family. I know she is a pathological liar and a sociopath and that the entire thing is a performance, but have to admit she is a good actress and could very easily come across as believable to 1 or 2 or even 12 jurors the first time they watch it.
2. She is not involved in the bump. No on wires, not meeting in secret. This is the most damaging evidence against Charlie and Donna and she is not involved.
The prosecution is going to need to be able to completely demolish both of these issues for a jury to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.
