Where's the Proof? w/ Former Federal Prosecutor Neama Rahmani

[00:00:16]Ciao Tuti. This is Prof. Joe at Profeo Explains and tonight we are going to be talking again about Wendy. Wendy. Wendy.

[00:00:27]And as you probably know, I did a show the other night asking legal experts when they thought she was going to be prosecuted, why she hasn't been prosecuted yet. Uh, and there were a lot of theories. Uh, and one theory was that maybe there's just not enough evidence.

[00:00:48]And I know that hits hard for those of you who are sure she is guilty, guilty, guilty. Uh so I thought I would bring on tonight Naima Romani who's a former federal prosecutor. Uh he heads the West Coast Trial Lawyers. His law firm does uh is in private practice uh in in California. Uh you've I know have seen him ma maybe on this show but certainly on other shows and on CNN and Fox News and BBC. He's a wellrespected and well soughtafter legal commentator because he is really really smart and he really knows the law. So I'm going to bring him on now to talk about Wendy. Wendy Wendy.

[00:01:38]Hi Naima.

[00:01:39]>> Hey Joe. Thanks for having me. Glad to be on again.

[00:01:43]>> Oh, well, we're we love having you. So, this is your night to be on the spot because as you know, u most everybody who looks at this case thinks Wendy is guilty and thinks there's enough evidence to prosecute her and wonders why the Tallahassee prosecutor hasn't gone forward. And you have been on record as saying you just don't think there's enough. So, >> well, yes, I have gone on record saying that Wendy Adlesen will not be prosecuted. I stuck my neck out. Got a lot of hate for it. Um, >> we don't hate. Let me just interrupt. We don't hate on this channel. Does everybody hear that? These are opinions and people have a right to their opinions and you've got somebody who's a very well experienced uh well-known lawyer and he's going to give you his opinion here. So, go ahead.

[00:02:38]>> Thank you. Thank you. First of all, I don't mind the hate. And what I'll say is this is not what I think should happen. I've gone on record saying I don't think it will happen. And I'm going to explain why as a former prosecutor why I don't think Wendy Adlesen is going to be prosecuted. It's not my decision. And whenever I make these predictions, and I do them all the time, by the way, um it's something that I think I've gotten good at and I've predicted. I I have had some fails, but I have had some smashing successes. And this came up because on Joel's show, I had predicted the Diddy verdict and the Diddy sentence to the tea. So Joel asked me, "What do I think will happen with Wendy Adlesen?" And I gave my prediction and I said, "I don't think she will be prosecuted." I know people are upset. Um I understand why they're upset. I understand why she maybe should be prosecuted, but this is the reason why I don't think she's going to be prosecuted. Typically, prosecutors work up the chain, right? They want to get the most culpable person. And in this particular case, at least if you look at this family, it does appear that Donna is the head of the snake, right? And I'm not saying this is a criminal organization, but normally when you're working with, you know, a criminal enterprise, right? It can be the mobs, street gangs, drug cartels. Once you get your number one target, you close out the case and you're done with it. That's typically what happens. And I said, given the fact that Wendy is not the most culpable person, even though she certainly benefited the most from the murder, I did not think that prosecutors would go after her. And I also didn't think prosecutors would go after her because she cooperated in part and she was a state witness. So typically you don't prosecute one of your own cooperators, although it can happen, Joe. So let let me pursue that a little um and so I can be so we can all be clear.

[00:04:51]Do you think there is enough evidence to prosecute her successfully at least for the conspiracy if not for the murder one itself?

[00:05:01]>> I don't necessarily think so. I think maybe of course we know as lawyers it's not what you know it's what you can prove. Right. Right.

[00:05:09]>> So, >> you know, I think she was intentionally or unintentionally removed from some of the key communications uh especially between, you know, Donna and then Charlie and then Char Charlie and uh Katherine Mcbanow, right? So, she wasn't part of those communications. Uh so, I think it's a much tougher case to prosecute her for. she has um maintained her innocence. And again, I'm not saying that that's true. People lie all the time. They perjure themselves in court. But I don't necessarily think it is a slam dunk case by any stretch. And I think, you know, if you're a prosecutor, you're bringing a potentially tenuous case. We know you got to get 12 out of 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you're not sure you can get across that finish line and you're potentially prosecuting someone that there might be reasonable doubt, I think it's a mistake when this will go down as one of the more successful prosecutions by this prosecutor's office. I mean, it was really remarkable for years and again I I remember covering this case during the pandemic and I was on Court TV and I was talking to Vinnie Paulin and we were saying like, well, this is a murder for hire. Why aren't we prosecuting the people who are the ones that paid the hitman, right? I mean, this is crazy to me, right? Was it um you know, we're saying is this some sort of rich people's privilege? I mean, this was crazy. So, you know, obviously there was a public outcry and it took many, many years to get across the finish line, but we did.

[00:06:55]It was successful. Um and again, a lot of it has to do with Donna's case, right? Donna fleeing I think was certainly one of the big reasons why she was prosecuted when she was. You know, Wendy hasn't tried to flee the jurisdiction. She is still there. So, I think if you believe as a prosecutor, Wendy was part of this conspiracy, this murder for hire, right? And you're leaving someone who ordered a hit out and about and free for all these years.

[00:07:29]I think that that's a mistake and is also a sign to me that she's not going to be prosecuted, right? Why do you leave a murderer or someone who facilitates murder free? That is not what prosecutors and law enforcement do.

[00:07:44]>> Yeah. Let me let me push back a little on the um if I may on the fact that she cooperated. Um they subpoenaed her to testify and automatic with that in Florida is use derivative use immunity.

[00:07:58]So she cooperated but she is not the type witness that I think I mean there are a lot of them like this as I'm saying this I can hear the the counter to this but she cooperated only to the extent she had to and was really pretty resistant on the stand even with the information she provided. Uh, and my take, and I could be totally wrong, but my take is the vibes you get from Georgia Kappelman in particular about her is there is no love lost. She is not the kind of witness that a prosecutor puts on the stand where however horrific the crimes and however, you know, how horrible, they at least feel some gratitude because that witness came forward. Like Lewis Rivera for example. I don't think there's that vibe at all with Wendy here.

[00:08:50]>> No, I agree. Wendy is not a likable person at all. Right. So, and her family is terrible. Um, and again, she's not your cooperator in the sense of someone that comes and provides information and it's very valuable, but she certainly could have invoked or tried to invoke, right? She didn't do that. She also, >> well, she did try. She she you know they gave her the use derivative use immunity and she couldn't. Right.

[00:09:18]>> Sure. You have to testify, right?

[00:09:21]>> If you're given that immunity, right?

[00:09:23]Right.

[00:09:23]>> The other thing is >> again again these are just and again it's just a guess, right? So I want people to >> I don't want people to like >> Right. And I shouldn't be doing this. I mean >> no it's okay. You know look because it could go either way. This is just my guess. The side I came out on.

[00:09:39]>> Right. Right. The other thing is again, even if it's not a cooperator per se, it's not something that prosecutors typically do. If you intend to prosecute someone, you don't call them and have them testify, right, before the grand jury, right? You don't have them testify before a trial jury. It's atypical, right? You have your other witnesses testify against your target. So, this just leads me to believe reading the tea leaves that she is not going to be prosecuted because yeah, you don't have to issue that subpoena, right? If you intend to prosecute her. So, at a minimum, you don't have to have the judge grant her immunity such that she no longer has a fifth amendment privilege against self-inccrimination.

[00:10:23]You don't have to do those things because she's not >> Yeah. that great of a witness where she is going to make or break your case.

[00:10:33]Right? If you think that in the back of your mind that you intend to charge her at some point, you would charge her probably with either Charlie or uh Donna, right? I mean, I think one of the things that made this case unique is it tried to get more information uh over time, right? There was surveillance, there was the bump, there was all those things that happened, you know, at well after the murders, right? I don't necessarily think that same evidence exists against Wendy Ad. Again, I may be wrong. Obviously, I don't know what I don't know, but just covering these trials, I don't think that they intend to prosecute her.

[00:11:14]>> That's, you know, that's a fair point that u that you make here. Uh, and I absolutely agree with you that the evidence is not as strong against her. I don't think any lawyer who's looked at it thinks the evidence is as strong as it was for Charlie or for Donna. uh the the the lawyers that I have heard on this and I think it's my view to some extent also is that the Tallahassee prosecutors whether right or wrong felt they needed Wendy to tie Charlie and to tie Donna to the hitman that they needed somebody who could provide context and sort of an overarching picture uh that Katie remember Katie had was not a cooperating witness in those first two trials and they just felt that and so they used they used uh I think they used Wendy in Katie's trial. Now I'm not sure because I wasn't I didn't watch the the trials closely back then, but that they really thought for right or wrong that they needed her to get the other side of the murder group in. Uh, >> no no I I agree with that. Wendy does sort of tie it all together. She tells the story. Uh, one important thing too I forgot to mention about both Donna and Charlie is the financial transactions directly implicate the two of them.

[00:12:42]Right. Wendy was not involved in the finances at all. So that money trail >> was really damning evidence for the former but not with respect to Wendy. So that's another sort of missing piece I would say with respect to.

[00:12:59]>> So talk to me and if there are questions in the chat uh we will take them. Uh uh Nema has a has a hard exit at the half hour. So just keep that in mind. Uh viewers, uh talk to me a little about the conspiracy. Uh Wendy had been listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in at least those first couple of trials, maybe the first three. Uh if she were prosecuted and the state were able to prevail that she's a conspirator, that does bring in in terms of the conspiracy more evidence that that others said or did during the course of the conspiracy against her. Does that change your your your your view of this at all?

[00:13:52]>> Potentially. Yeah. I mean, obviously, look, conspiracy cases are really about that unlawful agreement. So, sometimes you have direct testimony, you have messages, you have uh intercepted phone calls, wire taps, ruse calls, undercovers, those types of things. But often times we know Joe that conspiracy cases are built on flipping one of the co-conspirators. Right.

[00:14:18]>> Right.

[00:14:18]>> Uh you know what what what was interesting about the Donna case especially and I know his case was still up on appeal but one thing that I thought could happen and frankly should have happened. And I was shocked it didn't was for Charlie not to show up at trial and exonerate his mom and say this was all me. My mom had nothing to do with it. Now I'm not saying that would have carried the day. He's obviously a convicted felon, right? Be showing up in court uh and you know the orange jumpsuit and you know shackles and those types of things. But there was a possible exoneration route and I think Charlie didn't want to do it because he wanted to preserve his appeal and the unlikely chance that his conviction was overturned. Obviously, if he took the fall in his mom's case, he would be convicted immediately um in a retrial, but I thought like that's really like from a defense strategy, if you're defending this case, that is the best defense to have someone come in and take the entire blame and say, "Listen, this was all me. My mom had nothing to do with it. I kept her in the dark. you know, I got the money from her because she was in charge of the money, but this was just my idea entirely. And so when you're talking about conspiracies, you can have it be helpful or harmful, and I was surprised that it wasn't harmful testimony from Charlie in this case.

[00:15:50]>> Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, the the initial picture of that family was that they were a maybe one entity with different appendages shooting out, but they were one. And that u at least to the extent of Donna. I mean Donna to some extent let her lawyers point at Charlie during Donna's trial. Uh but but Charlie has not said anything. Well, he said I'm innocent and he hasn't pointed his finger at anyone else. And I wonder because being the sort of the vengeful person I am that were I to commit a murder for your benefit and you got on the stand and said things that I thought nail the case against me and now I'm sitting in prison looking at the rest of my life in prison and you are out in Austin, Texas doing whatever you please that I would have a strong impulse to come forward and say, "Here's the rest of the story." And I am surprised that he hasn't. On the other hand, I do believe he thinks that his conflict of interest claim will be a winner and he's not going to be able to do that until collateral attack. And I really think he thinks he's going to get a new trial.

[00:17:08]And >> yeah, and maybe that was it, right?

[00:17:11]Obviously, you know, I'm not in the appellet weeds uh with with Charlie Adlesen, and to the extent that whether it was a direct appeal or collateral attack has any chance of success, if you do something like that, then certainly that's terrible uh for, you know, any retrial. Um and you're right, Joe, maybe he was upset because his mom directed him to do this and she's out and about and she's free, right? She's enjoying her life, not just mom, but her dad, too. And people thought that dad should also be prosecuted. The whole family should be put in jail. And you know, I understand that sentiment as well, right? How could how can mom know and be directing all this, but dad not? And how can the primary beneficiary of all this, the daughter, right? This is all about custody. How could she not know? I mean, I understand why people say it defies all logic and credibility. It does not make sense that the entire family did not know. um and play a role in all this. Right. But then goes back to what we can prove. Right.

[00:18:14]>> Right. Right. And you know there are you're absolutely right. It's a much harder case. But there are pieces of evidence were the jury to run the inferences in the right direction that would at least show agreement. And in Florida, you don't need the overt act in furtherance of although obviously in order to show an agreement, you're gonna have to show something something that shows it. Uh and there are things but but you but there's nothing there's I don't know of any direct evidence that does it.

[00:18:48]circumstantial evidence that shows that she did things to help, like uh trying to find out when her boyfriend at the time was going to be in in town or not, which appeared to be an effort to maybe implicate him uh and take the take the focus away from the family. Uh Dan Markell's license plate number showing up in Donna's address book. Donna is in Miami. Dear Markel is in Tallahassee.

[00:19:15]What? And it's the year of the of it's 2016, the year of the murder. You know, what is she doing with the license plate number in the address book? So, there are pieces like that. Uh Halloween uh of 2000, I guess it would be 15, the year be the the uh no 2013, the the several months before the murder. Uh she was about to buy a house in Tallahassee. Uh Charlie, that's the date that Katie Mcbano says Charlie approached her to say, "Do you know somebody could harm somebody?" Charlie then sends a picture to Wendy of Charlie and Katherine Mcbano together. And on the same day, Wendy decides not to buy the house and she lies later and says she didn't have the money, but they had a an accountant, I believe it was an accountant, get on the stand and say she had the money to do it. So there thing there's nothing completely as at least that I know of that's you know nail direct but there are pieces from which you could show it.

[00:20:20]Uh but I hear you that the you know that the issue may be uh that she to some extent cooperated and you see Donna as the main force and there may be people in the chat who know I think Ruth Markell may felt Dan's mother may have felt the same way there are a lot of people feel that it's really Wendy that the way she managed to to be the direct force in that family is not by taking charge and leading you know taking her whatever ever it would be a a sword or whatever and leading into battle by her entire life instigating her mother to do something for her and then their mother, you know, is the face of whatever it is, but she's in the back whispering in her ear the whole time.

[00:21:08]>> I'm sure obviously Wendy was complaining to her family and her mother about this custody issue. There's no doubt. Uh there's a couple questions that came in the chat. So, okay. Julian asked, "Can Wendy be compelled to testify if she's in custody?" The same rules really apply whether you're in custody or out, obviously, if you have a fifth amendment privilege against self-inccrimination.

[00:21:30]Again, if you invoke and you're granted immunity because you can't be prosecuted obviously for those statements, whether it's, you know, full or limited or derivative use, you can be compelled to testify. If you don't testify, you can be held in contempt of court and jailed.

[00:21:46]And then the other question was from Cliff. Uh, am I surprised that people are publicly criticizing the state attorney in Talassie for failing to indict Wendy? I am not surprised. And let me tell you something. Every prosecutor in this country is either elected or appointed by someone who is.

[00:22:04]So public pressure can make a huge difference. I'm not saying lawyers, especially prosecutors, they don't make decisions based on the facts and the law, but the I'm not naive. The political reality is that if you do something that's very unpopular or you fail to act, that's how prosecutors get voted out of office. So, I'm definitely not surprised that uh there is a public outcry. Um Don has a question. Doesn't it make it more difficult to prosecute Wendy when Georgia gave her immunity for her testimony? Yeah, that was one of the reasons I thought she's not going to be prosecuted, right? She does have immunity for that testimony. Obviously, that testimony can't be used against her. But again, it's not typical where you give your witness immunity, you compel them to testify, then you turn around and prosecute them for something other than perjury. So, that's why, again, just a guess, I don't think Wendy's going to be prosecuted.

[00:23:02]And the more time that goes by, the more likely it is that that guess is going to turn out to be true.

[00:23:08]>> Yeah, it's u you know, I think the picture of her, which I think you may share, is that she's really kind of coldhearted. Uh she had the Holocaust ring from Dan's family that she never returned even after the uncle whose ring it was made a direct request and she had said Heathy requested she she'd return it. She's pretty much uh eliminated the Markeel grandparents and the family on that side from seeing the boys over all these years. She immediately changed their names to Adelman. You know, it was kind of an effort to wipe him out of their lives. So, it's hard to look at her without saying if somebody's attitude and behavior should should tip the scale, she's the one.

[00:23:56]>> Yeah. I mean, she's a she's a terrible unlikable person. There's no question if she does get prosecuted. I mean, that's that's something that that matters in cases, you know, the the likability um of the defendant. There's a couple more questions that come in. Can Dan's divorce attorney testify? I mean, potentially yes, if it's relevant, right? I mean, >> he did before.

[00:24:18]>> Yeah.

[00:24:18]>> And then there was another question. Can you speculate on what it would take to have achieved other outcomes? Well, you know, we got convictions um in all the cases. is I think there was one retrial but ultimately uh everyone was convicted. I guess the speculation on what it would have taken to get a defense verdict or a hung jury you know again there was one hung jury.

[00:24:40]I think again the additional evidence that was developed I think that was enough to implicate Donna. I think ultimately she was the final domino. Uh, I think obviously if the evidence were not as strong, then you know we'd be having a different conversation, right? Sorry, we're getting a bunch of questions. Wendy, >> here's the last one.

[00:25:08]>> Sure.

[00:25:10]>> So, >> Wendy, being a lawyer herself who worked locally, does that make a Dair judge more reluctant to sign off on a circumstantial case? Well, the judge doesn't necessarily need to sign off on it. Obviously, has there has to be probable cause to move forward to a jury. there has to be either preliminary hearing or a grand jury indictment. You know, there are some there are some uh restrictions on not restrictions but limitations when it comes to lawyers, but obviously in a murder case, you're going to move forward with the case. But those restrictions are generally limited to executing search warrants where there might be attorney client privilege or other materials that shouldn't be viewed by prosecutors or other lawyers. But other than that, I don't think Wendy being a lawyer has anything to do with the decisions in this case. Um, I think those decisions are made based on the evidence and the evidence just is not as strong with respect to Wendy as it is to some of these other terrible actors.

[00:26:12]Well, I know you have to you have to head off. Thank you so much for coming for me.

[00:26:18]>> Our chat has been has been polite. So, here's here's here's here for the you know, for the chat. And I think it was really interesting to hear you explain from the viewpoint of someone who has prosecuted some of the other things that may be leading to the decision. And I think probably most people in chat have not heard that before, at least not heard it said so well. So, thank you so much. Thank you for having me as always.

[00:26:42]Hope to see you soon.

[00:26:43]>> Bye.

[00:26:43]>> Bye.

[00:26:46]>> Okay. Are there other questions in here?

[00:26:48]While you're while the questions may come up, let me just say that we're going to be pulling the plug for members on the uh book club. So, if you have an idea of a book you'd like us to do as our, you know, launch book, please get it to ask Profo today or tomorrow because on Friday we will have made a decision. Uh, okay. Janet TR wants to know how well we think Wendy did protecting herself. Well, obviously pretty well. Here we are 12 years after the murder and she hasn't been prosecuted. She certainly did a very good job of distancing herself from the rest of the family. She didn't send any text messages that would have implicated herself. Uh she didn't participate or was involved in the aftermath of the bump. Uh she sent no emails. Uh she remained silent, zipped. Uh when when Donna wanted help about, you know, when she was thinking of fleeing the Vietnam, Wendy wouldn't talk to her about it, Wendy said on advice of counsel, I can't talk about the case. So, she's been very careful. That's clearly true. There's no question she she did a good job. Okay.

[00:28:04]Okay. And there's there's the repeats and the book club suggestions to askprof.com times or less than Amber. I X3 times three Amber. I don't know what that means. I hope you in the chat know what that means because I don't. Um, also before I get back to questions, if you have them on Friday, we are going to do our first we we picked a question from my last live on uh Tuesday night. What's today? Thursday? Tuesday night. And we will highlight that question. I will answer it during the during the show on Friday night. We're going to do that going forward because we just can't get to all the questions as they come up during the live. So, we're going to try to find other ways to get to the questions because we certainly want your questions answered. So, I see that there's a new member. Can we pull up our new member? I'm really pleased that there she there. Uh, George Galani. Uh, 3747. I don't know what those numbers mean. There can't be 3,747 other George Galanis out there, but what do I know? Thank you very much. Welcome.

[00:29:19]As you just heard me say, we're we're going to have a book club and we would love if you participated and if you have an idea, please let us know. Uh, and I don't know what that means either. Oh, member for six months, Gen X to the seventh power. Uh, yes, a me. Not only that, she's a mod for us and she's a mod for Vinnie Palaton and she does a great job. And I welcome all members.

[00:29:45]Obviously, the ones who have been with me from the beginning. I have a real fondness for because they started out with me when they didn't know what the show was going to be like. But I really love new members because it shows that we are reaching a larger audience and it's just great. Great. Now, right now I'm at around 17,000.

[00:30:08]I think it's just shy of 800. Is that where we are? Let me check because I'm obsessive about this because as I get more subscribers and members, I'm going to be able to do more things. There's so many things I would like to do that we just can't do right now. Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:30:25]17,900 n 17,093 members. So, we are What would that be?

[00:30:34]That can't be right. 1793. I have I've got to have typed it wrong. Let me look.

[00:30:39]Oh, 17 797. Yeah, we're we're a little short of 800 members. So, we're what?

[00:30:45]203 I mean subscribers. 203 subscribers uh from 18,000. I would love to get to 18,000 by Friday. Is it a is it a you know a mountain too high? A bridge too far? A an ocean too wide to do it? But I would really love to do it. You should see me every day, you know, obsessing over these numbers that just go, they go up, which is nice, but my god, you know, there might be two or three days where nothing happens and I'm just distraught.

[00:31:18]Uh, welcome to my world. Okay, are there other questions about about what Nema said? Uh when I did the show the other night, we had 10 reasons and his is kind of an 11th reason that the prosecutors he thinks went after the, you know, that the the head of the snake and that it is not typical. In fact, I think he would put it more strongly. It's extremely atypical for them to go back down and then get someone who was not the head of the snake in terms of the murder.

[00:31:54]So, um that's where he is on it and that kind of um you know adds to our the picture of what's going on in Tallahassee. Now, I will tell you that Friday night I'm going to have Carl Steinbeck on and I think most of you know Carl and he is adamant on the other side that this should be prosecuted should have been prosecuted before. So by Friday night's show uh we will have explored I think as better than anybody else all the different reasons how strong the reasons are and the arguments on each on either side about going forward or not going forward uh and we you know so we will know more we'll have a better appreciation it right now isn't going to change anything now Nema said and you heard him with regard to the public pressure in the political situation. And remember Jeremy Muntz said the same thing about the politics of this may may be making a difference.

[00:32:58]Uh and at the time of the prosecutions leading up to Charlie or the the case leading up to Charlie's prosecution, there had been that 10 episode over my dead body that created a lot of political pressure. Uh Steven Epstein had written a book about it. a lot of pressure, a lot of public notice, a lot of notoriety. Uh, and things have been quiet now. Uh, I'm going to answer that question if you just leave it up and I will get to it. Quiet now. But as I understand and we heard from I'm trying to remember who now when uh u uh Amber will remember I'm sure that there's a documentary coming out in September and maybe that documentary will will you know light a fire and provide enough public sentiment uh that will push the Tallahassee prosecutor over the line into prosecuting the case if they decide not to prosecute, they'll likely never say. They'll just be quiet about it and quiet about it and quiet about it until the case just goes away. And I hope that doesn't happen. So, okay, here's a question from Jen Ken. How does Wendy Aden get away with keeping her kids from the Markell's? Because they're her kids.

[00:34:18]If you're a parent and you don't want grandparents to see the kids, it is your right not to. There are some states who have statutes that create some level of right in grandparents. But it's very difficult because the situation here we all believe is loving wonderful grandparents who would be a positive president in these boys' lives. They will get them to know their father who loved them dearly. Uh and it's all for the good. But there are situations in which grandparents may be intrusive. They may not be a positive force and they're pushing to have visitation. They may actually be a very bad influence uh on um on grandchildren and the parents or the surviving spouse if there's a death uh does not want the children to be subjected to that sort of environment and the parent says no. So having a statute that gives an outside entity the right to tell a parent we can see these children even if it's a grandparent uh has certainly strong benefits but they're also concerns and risks involved. Uh and that's I think a large part of the reason why uh the statute in Florida, the Markell Act is a narrow statute because parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit and not have you or I or a grandparent or the state say this is a better way to do it and we're going to make you do it. So, okay.

[00:36:05]Uh Sarah Kelly says, "Can I please have Carl Steinbeck on as a guest?" Well, I can't always grant wishes. I'm not a fairy godmother, but watch Friday night at five o'clock. That's my guest, Carl Steinbeck.

[00:36:20]Okay, there are other questions here.

[00:36:22]What do I think of Jeff Lass saying Wendy asked him what age the children have memories? That plus a visit to the crime scene. That's sweetest enough for me. Yeah, that's pretty I think that's pretty damning evidence. But again, notice it's an inference that you have to draw. It is not Wendy saying directly, I murdered my children. What effect is this going to have on them that he's gone? That's direct evidence. That's her testimony. So, with all the evidence against Wendy, it's not that it's um um exonerating. It's incriminating, but it's incriminating because you have to read it in the right way to see that it's incriminating and not simply some simply an innocuous question, an information seeking question. Now, when that happened at Donna's trial, we really didn't hear much about it because Jeff uh Lacass is not an expert on in this area. And the defense said nobody gave us notice that he was going to testify about this, so he's not entitled to do it. So if there's a trial against Wendy, I think you can expect more information not only about what Wendy said, but in fact you might have an expert talk about the impact on on children. If not at the trial, if she's convicted, certainly at a sentencing stage that could come in. So other questions or comments? Um I think uh I think Nema was very gracious to come on knowing that the position he takes is a very unpopular position. Uh and I think he presented it very very well. I hope you agree. So so let me see what else we talked to. Let me just add one thing and I'll see if there are any questions otherwise we will end. We he and I talked a little about co-conspirators and what that means. I want to talk about that a little. In a trial, typically you can't use what I said about the defendant. Thank you, Peachy Keane. Five membership. Peachy Keen is really terrific. I've seen her gift five members memberships on on several occasions. It's really quite lovely of you. Oh, hello Todd Riseman or Reeman. You've just became a member.

[00:38:47]Welcome. You heard me say there's a book club starting up. send us a send us a book idea and join the club or even if you don't have the time to do the book club, send us a book idea and we'll read and let you know what we think. Uh so I was going to say about generally you uh you Kelly Cross agrees with Nema. Uh generally what I say to even to you can't be used as evidence unless I'm called to the stand because the defendant has a right to cross-examine examine me. That's under the sixth amendment. It's called a right of confrontation. The defendant has a right to question me about, you know, how far away was I? What did I see? What was the lighting like? Uh do I wear glasses? Did I have glasses on that day? Were there a lot of other things going on? Do I have a reason for to lie? Do I have a bias against the defendant? Am I being paid to testify? The defendant has a right to go after all of that to undermine the credibility of what someone says, what I say that may tend to incriminate the defendant. And the sixth amendment says the way a defendant does that is the state has to call that witness and then the defendant has a right to ask all those questions in front of the jury.

[00:40:15]If I'm not there, you can't use my statement unless it comes in under an exception. And by and large, you're going to find a hard time finding an exception for what I just described.

[00:40:27]There are some, but it's difficult.

[00:40:31]There's a difference if you're conspirators because Oh, Todd Ryman, isn't that sweet? Thank you. We We'll put a welcome I should have a welcome home sign behind me, but it's getting too cluttered back there, I think. So, I'll just say it.

[00:40:45]Thank you. Um, if you're conspirators, the rule changes because the law says that if you and I conspire, let's say it's murder. You and I conspire to murder Jack.

[00:41:01]Uh, I buy the gun, you get the car that we're going to take to the murder scene, or you're I'm going to go to the murder scene. You get the car. Um, I give you the gun, but I don't go.

[00:41:15]evidence against you if you are tried I don't have to get on the stand will be the evidence that I had bought the gun because in a conspiracy every member every act of one member is the act of all members and to to a large part that goes with statements if I say something as a defendant that can be that's incriminating outside of court that can be introduced at the trial. That's how you know the statements that Donna made on the phone call the you know that the uh the wire taps could be admitted because they were Donna's words.

[00:41:59]If they're co if they're co-conspirators then Donna's words are Charlie's words.

[00:42:05]And so to a large degree, you can use the statements of any conspirator in a trial of any conspirator because the statement is mine, not just the other conspirators. In other words, Donna's statement is also Charlie's statement if they're conspirators in the crime. The statements have to be made during the course of the conspiracy. So, it can't be a later statement after the conspiracy is over. Dan Markell is killed and then Donna a week later writes to Wendy and says, "Gee, I wish we hadn't paid for this hit." That's not a statement in the course of the conspiracy. It can be used against Donna in Donna's prosecution because it's her words, but it wasn't in the course of the conspiracy. So, in that case, they're not also Charlie's words.

[00:42:57]Everybody following this? But statements made during the course of the conspiracy, acts during the course of the conspiracy, can be used even if the other person never gets on the stand.

[00:43:10]So, it's really a great prosecutor tool for being able to move more evidence in.

[00:43:17]The big issue is you have to persuade the judge that there was a conspiracy and that both of us were involved in the conspiracy. It's not enough to just say they're con they're co-conspirators because you know then you're you could say that every day of the week about people who commit a crime or someone who commits a crime and that would open the floodgates. So you're going to have to prosecutor has to make a showing to the judge that you and I were conspirators.

[00:43:46]If that threshold is met, then the co-conspirator exception is triggered.

[00:43:53]So I hope that's clear. Uh any more questions or comments or you all just uh weigh it down by the notion that that that Nema made pretty a pretty compelling case, not necessarily convincing you, but a compelling case here to u that uh with regard to a reason why the Tallahassee prosecutors might not be prosecuting Wendy.

[00:44:24]So, >> if there are no questions, no comments, uh I'm going to say we're going to just finish this live now. Thank you all members, those who were with me six months ago, someone who who joined five minutes ago. Thank you all subscribers.

[00:44:42]Remember, I'm 207 subscribers away from getting to 18,000, which is still, you know, a very small channel, but 18,000 is better than 17,800.

[00:44:53]And I would love to get to 18,000. I could sleep better if I got to 18,000.

[00:44:58]Uh, thank you viewers. Thank you for comments and questions. Uh, I'm grateful for everything. And I think now I am going to sign off. I'll see some of you, hopefully many of you, maybe all of you on Friday night when Carl Steinbeck is on. Ciao