Kepner, Adelson, Birchmore: Who Does The Law Let Walk?

Añadido: 2026-05-30

[00:00:01]This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brussi and Robin Dink.

[00:00:08]Anna Kempner's accused killer walked into a federal courthouse this week and walked right back out. Timothy Hudson uh charged as an adult in theory and we'll get into that with firstdegree murder and aggravated s abuse in the death of his 18-year-old stepsister aboard the Carnival Horizon appeared before Judge Edwin Torres in Miami as prosecutors pushed to lock him up before his September trial. The government argued Hudson is a danger to others, that his alleged crimes are among the most serious ones a person can inflict on another. And that despite release conditions, saying he can't be alone with anyone under 18, SURPRISE.

[00:00:54]TWO MINORS are apparently living in his uncle's home where he's been placed for safekeeping since his mother has abandoned him completely and is sticking with Anna's dad. Uh, so somehow the solution is let's go put him with the uncle and two kids. The judge heard all of it. He acknowledged that if Hudson were 20 years old, he would have detained him. But because he's 16, he called this case a different animal. And then he let Hudson walk out of the courthouse anyway, saying he wanted to explore options for detaining him closer to his family before making a final call. to break down this big [ __ ] show uh and all of the insanity that's going on here. Eric Fattis is with us, defense attorney, former prosecutor. Eric, let's start with the 10,000 foot elephants in the room. Uh you have a a 16-year-old being tried as an adult who's waved his rights to be tried as a child. They he wanted to be tried as an adult. has questions there. But anyway, being tried as an adult, judge saying if he were 20, he'd be locked up, but he's free. And he's in a house with minors and he has the allegation of essaying and murdering his stepsister. And the judge is is waiting for more information on h what should we do here? What's the best course of action? Uh what the hell's going on?

[00:02:27]Uh what more info do you need? Uh if you had these allegations, he's presumed innocent, of course, but they're extremely serious. Uh they're not only homicidal, but there is a uh essay component to them as well. Uh as about as elevated as you can get and there's also um this sort of uh quasi incest piece on top of that that should give a judge very serious pause about uh whether the individual should be detained. The fact that he's 16 as opposed to 20. We're talking about a difference of four years there in the grand scheme of things. That's not a ton of time. That's not a tremendous difference. At least not one that would typically justify allowing somebody to be on the outside during a case like this. But lo and behold, uh that's what the judge said. How often do you have cases where it's kind of like piece meal together where he is a kid, he's 16, he's being tried as an adult, then why isn't everything going forward as if he were an adult? How often is it where well we're still going to kind of treat you like a kid over here on some of these things, but as an adult over here on this, we want to treat you. It It's like to me it should be all or nothing, but how often is it all or nothing when someone is going down the lane of what they're being tried as it it usually is all or nothing, Tony. don't get to kind of cherrypick like, oh, I really love these two aspects from this juvenile system, so I'm going to get those in my case, but then I I I I prefer these aspects of the adult system in other respects, and so I'm going to sort of put all these together and just get the best possible scenario for myself. That that's not at all how it works. If you're being tried in the adult system, the adult rules apply, um you are compared with other adult alleged offenders and and um to sort of, you know, say, "Oh, yeah, but but you know, we got to keep in mind he's also 16."

[00:04:23]That's a consideration. It is, but but it it's sort of odd the way that the court seems to be straddling these two very different justice systems, the juvenile and the adult.

[00:04:35]Eric, do you see this as potentially paying more attention to the rights of the accused as opposed to, you know, the rights of the victims in this? Because, you know, I I looked at the judge's background when you can't do anything with the accused and they made their choice.

[00:04:52]You can't really do much about it when it comes to detention. I was like, "All right, so let's look at this judge's background." And like many judges, he's very involved in community and education and he and he did and does mute courts uh with children and high schoolers. He just did one there. And so I I wonder if that gave him too much of a bias for the age because he even said it, the age of the of the accused, regardless of the acts, because when you look at the the acts he's accused of being released prior to trial with those kind of charges, it is so rare. We're talking like teens, I think, is when I did the research on this. And so, do you think that kind of bias came into play for him, >> Robin? So, the judges have the law and and and their job is to interpret and apply that law. And what comes in between those two events is the judge's philosophy. The law is kind of filtered through that philosophy and that can color the interpretation, that can color the application. And so, um, you know, certainly a judge's background and how they see things can affect how they're going to issue rulings on cases like this. And and and if this judge did have, uh, a philosophy that some might see as overly sympathetic to, uh, ensuring the rights of the accused, well, criminal defense attorneys are going to think that's great.

[00:06:13]Prosecutors, not so much. uh and and and uh wouldn't be uncommon for those sorts of considerations to creep in and and and find themselves in in a ruling such as this.

[00:06:24]>> Is this a judge who's practicing philosophy and not practicing law?

[00:06:29]>> Great question.

[00:06:31]>> Uh you know, there are more judges out there like that than you think, Tony.

[00:06:35]Yeah. Uh there are uh some judges who, you know, they have their own agendas.

[00:06:41]They have their own missions. And I'm not casting a spurs on this judge. I'm just talking generally.

[00:06:45]>> I am.

[00:06:46]>> But Aaron's not I am >> Tony can go ahead and do it. He's the host. But uh um you know and I think you've got to look out for that because it's easy to get in a position of power and then instead of having fidelity to the law, which is which is really that to which you're supposed to have fidelity, you sort of use the law as a tool to bring about outcomes that you think are right. Uh and and I I see that so often on the bench and it goes both ways.

[00:07:16]>> So what happens if Timothy the accused here has a recidivism and he actually does another assault on someone he or he breaks in the rules which he's he's living in the house with two underage people which he's not supposed to. I mean, so what kind of repercussions are there legally then against the person, the judge, or anyone else that allowed him to be out and he shouldn't have been out um because they're practicing philosophy and not law.

[00:07:43]>> It's a question that comes up a lot, Robin, where judges in other instances have released defendants and that was the wrong decision. They went on, those defendants went on to do monstrous things. Uh and so a lot of people are saying, "Hey, can we go back on the judge? Can we go back? Can we sue the government? Can we um you know is there some kind of legal mechanism some check some control against that and presently that there there often isn't >> crazy yeah I mean that's where you end up getting people practicing not law as well to uh to go after uh this sort of situation should Timothy go and do something horrible again little Timmy um the the insanity here is that I mean it's it's layer upon layer number one The argument is why is he free in general? Whether he's with his uncle or whoever, uh it seems kind of nuts with the charges and he's being tried as an adult. Add on top of that, by the way, judge, there's two minors living in the house that he's been placed in.

[00:08:47]That violates the agreement. And it's still like how the the the attorney even said like, what more do you need? What what more would it take to prove the danger? A second body is literally what was said in court. And the judge's like, "Well, I'm still going to I'm going to figure this out." Like, yeah, >> the family has reps of putting bad people together, and that's how this whole thing happened.

[00:09:08]>> It's all a bad I mean, it's just it's it's the whole family is just a cacophony of chaos.

[00:09:14]>> So, it's the is so again, whether something bad happens, god forbid, now or not is so again, we're going on the prosecution side, like the standard side. Is anyone liable civily? Can they be sued civily for doing something like this?

[00:09:29]>> That's an interesting thought.

[00:09:30]>> Typically not. Um, typically, uh, government actors are shielded with what's called qualified immunity, which basically says if you have a mistake, if you have an oops, you can't really be sued like that like a private person could. There are exceptions to that, but uh, >> can they sue the uncle now? What about the Can they sue the uncle now? I mean, he's put himself in jeopardy, isn't he?

[00:09:53]uh the uncle might be in a precarious position, but unless the uncle materially contributes to some civil or criminal wrong, uh we we we wouldn't be at that place yet.

[00:10:04]>> This is why it matters with who people vote for. Like cuz basically our system is this. If you're stupid enough to vote for this judge and get him on the bench to begin with, don't be complaining about any of the idiotic [ __ ] he does because he has car blanch to do basically whatever he wants and you can't go after him for it. That's why it matters. Like if it's my biggest thing is always like when people go and vote it's like oh you just fill in the blank.

[00:10:28]No, don't just fill in the blank. If you don't know what the hell you're voting for, just don't vote. Don't vote on that line because this is how you get people like this in power. And I don't care how bleeding hard and goodwill they are and oh let's up with people [ __ ] Um you're a [ __ ] judge. This is it's pretty clear as day who the hell this kid is and the decisions that he made.

[00:10:49]We can argue how he got there which I think should be argued. But this cart block let's just he can go free. There's more kids in the house. What could possibly go wrong? Judge G. I wonder >> just look at the research. Research says don't do this. That's you know that's that helps. That's helps. that helps shape law is research past events you know passes prologue with a lot of things you know and why would you gamble with someone's life on that so also then is so here's the again the world of conjecture and hypothesis is is there anything that can be done then to the uncle for breaking the conditions of the release >> well is he breaking it though I mean I'm assuming they went into this knowing I mean it wasn't they >> and Eric aren't we >> well I don't think I mean I don't think the uncle went into this like surprised and I have children. I think everybody knew he had kids and they all said, "This is a great idea. Let's put little Timmy rapist here with the kids allegedly and what could possibly go wrong?" I mean, this seems like a great choice for all of us.

[00:11:49]>> Yeah. And and and I think the uncle is sort of probably caught in a pretty crummy situation where he's like, "Oh, you want me to go like step up and try to help my nephew?" Okay, I'll >> do what? Right.

[00:12:01]>> I wonder how that conversation went. You know, you know, >> I really was it like, "Uh, hey, yeah.

[00:12:07]Uh, by the way, can you watch Timmy for a week? We got some stuff going on." Oh, yeah. Timmy can come on over here. Oh, by the way, he killed the stepsister and sater and covered her up in life jackets. Hey, see you later. I I bet you can help out your uncle with the landscaping business.

[00:12:23]>> Bye.

[00:12:25]>> Oh my god.

[00:12:26]>> You know, it's like what? I mean, it's like whoa. Oh, >> it's stupid whack-a-ole, man. Well, it well, the thing is it's so disheartening because you have a family like this that clearly operates with the baseline of chaos and you're hoping that that when the law gets involved after something horrific inevitably happens with one of the people in this circle that the law would make a little bit of sense. Nope.

[00:12:55]>> Nope.

[00:12:55]>> You know, and and I don't understand the judge's argument. Like, it sounded decent on the surface. And Eric, tell tell me if there's other ways to do this.

[00:13:03]>> You know, they said that the system is not really equipped for a 16-year-old who is um being tried as an adult. And so that's why they said it's better for him to be released. Again, I'm paraphrasing what the judge what the ruling here is why he's released. But why couldn't you put him on isolation? I mean I mean dely him, right?

[00:13:19]>> Seem to do to a lot of other people, >> right?

[00:13:22]>> Yeah. There are arrangements that can be made. And Robin, to your point, you know, sending this kid back into a family dynamic that reportedly uh had some problems and and and may have even somehow contributed to to everything that went down. You know, putting the kid back within that environment and you know, I know it wasn't the uncle who was directly involved, but gosh, things haven't gone so well uh just just letting this kid to their to their own family devices. So, uh you know, there there is protective custody. Um, there are other facilities to which that this this gentleman could be sent uh that might be more protective, less risky.

[00:13:58]There are options there. Uh, I just think the judge didn't want to look at him.

[00:14:04]>> Yeah, maybe we could it could be a sitcom and and we could put little Timmy in with the judge. Timmy and the Judge Fridays on ABC. It's the with the relaunch of TGIF. What happens when you mix a federal judge with a stray teen who murders his stepsister on a cruise ship? It's a Friday night of comedy, you know. I mean, that's, you know, >> it's a new episode of Different Strokes, right? Little like, yeah, cameos from like people from other shows. I think it could be great. You know, >> Neil Patrick Harris.

[00:14:37]>> Yeah. Like, what's Uncle Jesse? Why are you here? What's going on? It'd be it'd be interesting. Um, >> Tony's creative brain's going, man.

[00:14:46]>> Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. Uh, links are are in the description.

[00:14:52]>> Bark Fry, Timmy the Rapist comes over on the next episode.

[00:14:58]>> I mean, if if they're going to handle it with the with kid gloves, then okay, I guess let's treat it like kid gloves and and, you know, make it what it is, cuz this is utterly utterly insane. Let's go to another family that we're fond of, the Adson.

[00:15:16]>> How many broken people are there in the world, man? It's broken people Thursday is what this is.

[00:15:21]>> And the hits just keep coming. Five people are now behind bars for the murder of Dan Markell. Two hitmen, a goeteen, the brother who allegedly bankrolled it, and the mother who allegedly orchestrated it. I know. Put Timmy in a cell with these guys. That could be the that could be the competing comedy on CBS. Uh and yet when you look at who prosecutors have publicly labeled uh unindicted co-conspirators in this case, two names are still walking free.

[00:15:49]And I'm going to say at the beginning here, I'm not saying Wendy had anything to do with this. I'm not saying Harvey had anything to do with this. I'm just saying this is interesting. Most of the family got knocked down like dominoes.

[00:15:58]These two are still standing. Uh Wendy Adles, Dan's ex-wife and the person who arguably stood to gain the most from the death. And Harvey Adlesen, the family patriarch who was literally on uh the jetway with Donna holding one-way tickets to Vietnam when she got caught.

[00:16:17]Uh Jack Campbell, the estate attorney for Florida's second judicial circuit, the man whose office has successfully convicted every person charged in this case, told reporters after Donna's conviction that his office would quote make decisions in the coming weeks. That was September of 25. It's been months.

[00:16:35]It's what are we at like six, seven months now at least? Uh more than half a year. No indictment, no grand jury announcement, nothing. So, the question the Markell family and everyone following this case keeps asking is Wendy or Harvey free? Uh, or why are they free? Or could anything happen at some point? Or is this silence uh that this thing has been uh creating the the new norm? Is there nothing that they need to worry about? Uh, Eric Fattis, defense attorney, former prosecutor is with us. Eric Campbell looked right at the camera and said after Donna went down uh in the coming weeks uh that some decisions would be made. That was in September. Um have the decisions been made and are they simply we don't we're not going to be going after these two?

[00:17:23]>> You know, um that clock is surely ticking and there's going to come a point at which it's it's for all pragmatic sense is going to be too late uh to bring successful prosecution.

[00:17:35]We're not there yet. still have some time. Um, but I would have expected something to come down the pike a little bit more quickly. You know, that he really sort of knocked down the Adlesen cards uh in in uh successively swift fashion uh with these other prosecutions. And so why now the pause?

[00:17:52]Is it because they really don't think they've got enough to go against Wendy and Harvey or are they teeing up something uh really big? I'm not not quite sure. So, Eric, in these types of situations where the public has a big expectation of something happening, do you think they're going to be compelled to make an announcement one way or the other, or will silence just be their thing they do unless they do move forward with with the prosecution? I think from an optics standpoint, if they're not going to bring charges, there's not a ton of benefit from them to uh to make some sort of big PR move and and you know, get all the press there only to uh you know, have this unsatisfying uh non-update that hey, we're not going to do anything. I I I think instead it would make sense for them in terms of the optics to sort of just let that pit out. they've got their pound of flesh uh with from the Aden family right now and and uh not making a big deal out of non-action uh would be the way to go.

[00:18:48]>> So what do you think would keep them from taking a swing at this because there seem I mean there's such there's such proximity I know you know if they don't have evidence they don't have they don't have if they don't think they have enough but surely you would think that with with that kind of proximity they could at least make an argument to give it a swing. Yes. No.

[00:19:09]>> You you you would think so. Um you would think so, Robin. But, you know, keep in mind they've got a flawless record on the Zosen cases right now. And attorneys have egos, man. And uh you know, uh they might want to maintain those flawless victories. And if they take a gamble on what might be some of the weakest, shakiest potential cases, if there even is a case against these folks, they might not want to take that gamble. They might say, "Hey, justice has been served here. folks are incarcerated. Uh, we're all moving on at this point without risking our perfect record.

[00:19:44]>> I can hear Mortal Kombat in the background when you flawless victory.

[00:19:48]Flawless victory. I remember that.

[00:19:50]>> Um, you know, or showmanship, George Castanza like we ending up. Drop the mic and I'm getting out. Those are the two things that come to mind. Is there a world, Eric, where um they wouldn't prosecute Wendy Adlesen for the consideration of her children? um where where maybe there's enough to to take the swing and maybe maybe they'll score, maybe she'll get locked up, but you know, we're not quite. But but because these kids at the center of all this who have not asked for their family to go batshit crazy and kill each other um and are just trying to live their life, all they have left is mom. Uh you know, uncles in prison. You got the one uncle in New York that I guess could be a prospective person that could take them in maybe. I mean, there's another >> one, right? The sane one.

[00:20:43]>> Um, you know, or you, you know, or you got Harvey, and I don't think Harvey's, you know, necessarily looking to raise three little, you know, now they're teenage boys angry.

[00:20:52]>> So, is there a world where they might be sitting there going, you know what, just let those kids have some peace? let them have their mom in her fake name and her new husband and let them go live out whatever they're going to do. Does that exist? Uh if the evidence is kind of on on the fence >> as a prosecutor, the cardinal rule that that we have was above all else do justice. Not not just seek convictions, but to do justice. And so sometimes those two components are intention.

[00:21:30]Sometimes uh you might have what you think is significant evidence in a case and and that could induce you to want to seek a conviction when on the other hand there there are considerations that militate against a prosecution and that may serve the interests of justice better. So prosecutors have wide discretion Tony when it comes to making these charging decisions. A and could I envision a prosecutor saying, "Hey, this case against Wendy is kind of shaky."

[00:22:00]And an outcome of it, if we prevail, is going to be that these kids are even worse off than they already are, which is pretty darn bad. Um, that could absolutely influence charging decisions.

[00:22:11]>> You know, it's interesting. You know, if we're talking about the kids and we're talking about proximity, we're talking about how Donna was communicating with everyone and Harvey's proximity. And then when we're watching Donna's sentencing, we're watching his performance in the courtroom. I would think out of the two, he would be the easier one to go after just because of all that, because of that communication, just because of that. I'm really curious about why they're not at least um from our knowledge today, you know, taking a swing at him just because I think he would and that's so that's my question to you, Eric. out of the two, again, all we know from the public view, would he look like he's an easier um lowerhanging fruit than her or uh >> and he's got no little kids to watch?

[00:22:52]>> Right. I know. That's what I was thinking, too.

[00:22:55]>> Yeah. I think for those reasons, Robin, and also because there is a more identifiable charge that could potentially be levied against against Harvey, and that is aiding and abetting.

[00:23:07]That that's um uh concealment. that that that's accessory after the fact potentially. That's helping somebody try to flee the jurisdiction when you know that they are that the hammer's coming down on them legally and and you have knowledge of this and if you materially aid them in doing so even like if you order the Uber from your house to the airport as you guys were going to scadaddle off to Vietnam uh that it just seems like the facts are are a little bit more crystallized when it comes to potential culpability. ility of Harvey.

[00:23:45]Um, that being said, it's it's hard to say what he knew and what he didn't know and and what he thought he was assisting in and what he might not have realized.

[00:23:53]>> I'm I'm guessing it was Donna, but do we know actually who booked the flight to Vietnam and planned it?

[00:24:00]>> Off the top of my head, I don't know.

[00:24:03]But but I but but I do know that that at trial cell records came in showing calls between a phone registered to Harvey and the phone connected to one of the hitmen which is kind of a big deal. Uh I remember Campbell said that at the time they didn't have enough to arrest him. I mean so is Harvey the one who actually walks away I mean from all of this as well? Is there is there any world where he gets charged at some point? or I'm going to throw almost the same sort of question at you again. You know, mitigating circumstances basically or existential circumstances. If if the circumstance for Wendy is that she's still got teenage kids who are in school and maybe they're given some grace so those kids can do that. Harvey's old. Uh I mean, not that you're old and you're going to die, but it will hit you at some point in time. is is do they ever look at a case like this and go the amount of time and effort it's going to take to lock this guy up is it worth it or just let him let him rot out here he's not going to go hurt anybody at this point and they're hedging their bets that way uh you know and and maybe there's just not enough to do any like I said I'm not saying Harvey did anything this is all conjecture in my opinion blah blah blah allegedly but I'm I'm just wondering if they're looking at it like that going again yeah we could swing Maybe we'll hit the piñata. Maybe we won't. Maybe it has candy inside. Maybe it doesn't. Let's just save the piñata for another party.

[00:25:30]>> Harvey booked it.

[00:25:32]>> Richard Shagrin, close family friend of Don and Harvey Adlesen with Harvey Aden performing the actual booking of the one-way tickets to Vietnam.

[00:25:40]>> H Harvey, come on. I mean, it feels like there there would be enough for going after Harvey.

[00:25:45]>> Come on, Eric. Take this case, man. We got this. Maybe he thought they were going on a on an anniversary trip uh to to lovely Vietnam. I don't know. But um uh you know, I I I think that those considerations certainly do come into play. I remember when I was in the prosecutor's office and there was um uh a question about whether we prosecute this person who was in an assisted living facility. They probably had some level of diminished cognitive capacity.

[00:26:12]They were older and they engaged in some unwanted touching. And the question was, hey, what what is the costbenefit analysis here? What what justice are we really going to secure if we uh you know, uh brand this guy with a scarlet letter for, you know, the remaining year and a half of life he might have or whatever. Uh so, so those those considerations certainly come into play, but then there's the rule of law pushing back against that, saying, "Hey, um you know, we're going to give hung boy a pass, but but another guy who's in his 50s, we're going to throw the book at him for doing the same thing. You gota you got to make sure you're being evenhanded too. So it's >> you know you know people die people die of old age behind bars for a reason.

[00:26:53]>> Yeah.

[00:26:53]>> You know I mean so you know let the rule of law rule. H >> have you ever seen a case Eric where kind of going back to Wendy where the prosecutor waits until the kids have graduated before they go after who they they think may you know is is some fruit that they could go after. And how much of an incentive is that for Wendy to keep her children living in the basement until they're 35?

[00:27:20]>> You play Human Shields.

[00:27:22]>> Here, REALLY GET INTO FORTNITE, KIDS.

[00:27:25]>> BOY, we're going down roads today, man.

[00:27:27]It's good. I >> I haven't seen that. And you've got to be a little bit careful as a prosecutor.

[00:27:33]Um because you could be strategic in terms of the timing of charges, but you can't, you know, if you had valid charges to bring in 2026, but you waited until 2029 because the defendant's kids were going to be out uh of of school, does that look shady on the prosecutor?

[00:27:52]Is that like, hey, your duty is to bring charges when you think you have the evidence and you waited on this for three years. Is that because your your case is [ __ ] Is that because um you had other reservations about bringing this?

[00:28:04]I just think it it it can possibly have uh weaknesses in the prosecution's case if they are using such selective timing even if it is purportedly to benefit the defendant. Um so I haven't seen that much and I think prosecutors are kind of mindful of how of how that could be a bad look.

[00:28:23]>> Is there any world here? Obviously you got appeals that that are going on.

[00:28:27]Charlie's appeal went in front of the court back in February and it's likely not going to go anywhere. But, you know, I just let's play the game. Uh, if they throw out his conviction and say he gets a new trial, uh, we've seen crazier things that have happened in other cases. Alec Murdo is going back to trial. I mean, does that change anything for Wendy or or or even Donna? Let's say if Donna somehow got some sort of appeal granted. I mean, like, could prosecutors use a doover on Charlie or Donna to go after evidence that they held back the first time to maybe build a stronger case against her in the process? Or does it actually hurt them? Because now you've you got a court saying that the first trial had problems and that makes everything even shakier.

[00:29:11]>> It is a quagmire. And um what the prosecution would have to be worried about in those circumstances is vindictive prosecution. So the the principle is that um you can't punish somebody as a prosecutor for them exercising some legal right. So if if uh Donna exercised her legal right to an appeal and she won and in response the prosecutors were like, "Oh, we're going to lay it on you double time. This this time it's going to we're going to make it way worse on you because you uh beat us on appeal." There there's there's a potential legal problem with that. And so, um, certainly they would have the same evidence that they had against her that was sufficient to convict her. Um, but if they tried to really bring the hammer down in response to a successful appeal, you've got to worry about vindictive prosecution. We're seeing this play out at the federal level uh with Abrago Garcia and some other cases.

[00:30:08]And uh, this is something judges are aware of.

[00:30:11]>> It's going to be fascinating if if this goes anywhere. What would you say? I mean, there's obviously there's no there's no expiration on murder uh in and charging it, but with what we've seen thus far, where how far down the road would you feel confident that nothing's going to be happening, nobody's going after Wendy or Harvey?

[00:30:36]How far down the line, how many years in after Donna's conviction, would you be like, "Yeah, they're not." If they would have, they would have already done it.

[00:30:44]>> For a high-profile case like this, there is no point at which I would feel 100% safe. In part because um there are going to be new prosecutorial administrations over the years and those folks might have different priorities and they might look back at this case and say, "Hey, um you know, justice was served, but it wasn't all the way served. Uh there's still work to be done here, and we're going to finish that justice." and and and uh especially with high-profile cases like this, it wouldn't be unusual for that to happen down the road. And I don't think uh these unpresently uncharged folks are ever safe.

[00:31:20]>> So here's another kind of how the sausage is made question. Do you think there's a possible delay also if other priorities came up because that's you know when you're talking just there Eric it just kind of popped in my mind of the things I dealt with inside the FBI was that you have as my boss has always said you know every case is important but you got to stack like this but time to handle this and so you got to constantly triage every day depending on who the boss is moving in who's moving out and so you're constantly retriaging these things. Do you think other priorities might have come up that put this on a back burner and they're waiting for it to come on forefront again?

[00:31:54]>> Oh, uh, totally could be and and and Robin, I I feel that completely. When I was in the prosecutor's office, that's totally you've got an oppressive stack of cases and you've got to really decide where am I going to devote my resources? A and uh, one office head might make a decision one way, another office head might make a decision another way. Um, you know, perhaps they said, "Hey, we got some wins on this one. Let's work on the rest of this docket and maybe we'll circle back." You never know. And, uh, if I were the Adens's, I don't think I'm out of the woods on on the prosecutors possibly circling back.

[00:32:30]>> Yeah, that's the way we would typically do it, too, is so like you said, you make some hay for a little bit. You're able to get your because again, everything when you're dealing with law enforcement, any organization is the stats you get from the prosecution, from successful, from techniques used. And so you got some you got some stats there.

[00:32:45]You put it aside because you know the next one's going to have another boatload. So we're gonna kind of make it a bank. Like we're going to be able to make some hay here, but we don't need it today. So we're going to focus on here.

[00:32:55]See if we can make some headway here, get one or two done, then we'll be back to this. So we did that a lot. Um because again, limited resource. We the stacks we had, Eric, was the um we got to get it done. Oh my god, I got to get it done and I'm going to go to jail if I don't get it done. So, we was always triaged in the I got to go to jail one every single day to make sure we kept on that one first.

[00:33:15]>> This seems like it could be uh ripe fruit for someone who wanted to be elected. Now, I I'm I'm not saying this because I have any sort of knowledge of of who's running for what. I don't I could look into it. I should look into it. I will look into it, but I don't know right now. So, I just want to preface that that this question is not coming from any place of I wonder if this is sitting on a shelf until it makes sense for election season. Uh, but running on prosecuting Wendy might get somebody elected um at some point or another. Um, what are your thoughts on that? I mean I mean could this and it doesn't even necessarily mean it's going to be the next election cycle. This could be something in theory, I would think, Eric, that that somewhere 10 years down the road, you have new prosecutors, you have everything's kind of changed up in the office. Uh, and somebody, you know, they they they need to get some some ump behind them. They need some public support. Uh, this might not be a bad, you know, piece of fruit to pull off the tree and go, hm, I wonder if this is still ripe. Uh do you see that that this possibly just kind of be a piece of fruit sitting there that someone could use in the lifetime of Wendy? Uh that that that fruit could be picked by someone not necessarily because their motive is is getting justice, but it is getting reelected and Wendy Adlesen's prosecution may be just the ticket for that.

[00:34:43]>> Oh, I I can I can see the campaign commercial now. you know, uh, the prior administration let, uh, dangerous criminals fall through the cracks. We're here to shore up those cracks, and we're going to make sure that those folks aren't, you know, uh, behind you at the grocery store line. And and one of those people is Wendy Ad is is how the commercial could go. I'm not alleging that.

[00:35:08]>> You're pitching it already. Let's let's make it. Let's do >> but uh but but 100% I mean um especially in the district attorney races that I've seen in Colorado where I practice, there's often times where they um isolate one specific case and they're like, "Hey, the prior guy screwed this case up, man. I'm going to come and I'm going to give you justice for this case and so many others. That's why you should elect me." And and um no question this would be the type of case about which a candidate could make an example.

[00:35:38]So, I just looked it up. The uh the prosecutor responsible for charging decisions in this case, uh state attorney Jack Campbell, uh second judicial circuit, elected in 2016, reelected without opposition 2020 and 2024. His current term is good till 2029. So, uh nothing really coming up um any any sooner than 2029 that would potentially impact it at the smaller local level.

[00:36:00]>> And that would all Well, I mean, and that'll also be around probably the time Wendy's kids are graduating. Um, no conspiracy theories.

[00:36:08]>> I'm just saying Jack, uh, if you'd like to be reelected, maybe hold that in your pocket for a few years. I don't know. Anything's possible. Uh, or whoever would like to get rid of Jack. That might be an angle to go into. Um, I don't know. Again, I'm not saying Wendy has done anything. I have no idea. It's all conjecture allegedly, blah, blah, blah. Uh, your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. We'd love for you to weigh in. The links are in the description. Let's uh move on uh over here to uh another uh case that we have been following uh that continues to progress. A federal judge just used a phrase you almost never hear from the bench calling the evidence against former Stoton police officer Matthew Farwell very strong if not overwhelming bail denied. A motion to dismiss already rejected. a sealed request to suppress evidence likely heading for the same fate. And the state medical examiner has quietly uh amended Sander Burmore's death certificate, removing the word uh s uh entirely. Uh so with the October trial approaching and every major pre-trial move failing, the question isn't whether Farwell's defense is in trouble. It's uh what their actual strategy is uh at this point and whether any of it can work. Eric Fattis, defense attorney, former prosecutor, is with us.

[00:37:29]Uh, Eric, that state medical examiner just did something almost unheard of.

[00:37:32]They went back and changed Sandra's death certificate, took out the word sui since we have to play by YouTube's rules. Um, took that out, changed Xfixia, uh, by hanging to just Xfixia.

[00:37:46]Uh, that was the foundation. Uh, Farwell's defense was building the entire case on that. The state already ruled THAT THIS WAS THAT. SEE, IT'S IN WRITING, JUDGE. IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY be that. What goes through defense's team's mind when the ground that they've been standing on that they I'm sure knew was rather shaky just pretty much cracked and disappeared right before the trial.

[00:38:10]>> Well, um you know, as a trial lord, especially on the defense side, you've got to shuck and jive with uh the punches that are going to be thrown at you and you're not going to be able to anticipate all of those. So, so they've got to adjust. But there is there is an adjustment they can make here. And I think the adjustment, Tony, is is saying, "Hey, um the medical examiner, they got it right the first time." And they they maintain that position for years and years. And I know there's all this public pressure and and and and they're uh being compelled to sort of change their position. in fact that that these folks are so um you know rickety and and and flimsy that that they're willing to just change their their final position years later to uh pacify the the public masses. That just shows you how scary mob rule is and and how it is uh influencing what's happening in this case. Jury, you don't buy it. You you you stick to your guns and and uh something along those lines. I think defense has a way to make adjustments, but uh not as good as it was.

[00:39:15]>> Yeah. Uh Farwell's defense, they they lost that motion, dismissed the venue change, the bail request uh and the judge signaled uh the motion to suppress is probably going to be going nowhere either. Um obviously so many most cases the everything that goes on being litigated happens before the trial. so much of the actual case is litigated before we actually get into the courtroom for the actual trial itself.

[00:39:40]Looking at this case specifically with all the motions that they've lost. Um how is this stacking up for you in your mind? Is this a case that that um it's it's the normal procedures that have been gone through here? Yes, they've lost pretty much all of them on the defense of Farwell. Um and sometimes this takes us to one of two places.

[00:39:59]Either okay, we've lost everything. This is all we could stand on. uh we got to figure out a plea deal uh of some sort here uh or we're going to take this uh this thing to trial and go all the way.

[00:40:10]What does this read like to you? Is this something where you know let's try this lever, let's try that lever. They all failed. Now what what is the what for you? Uh in the defense camp of Farwell at this point >> I think this thing is pretty well teed up for trial. I I I don't see some plea agreement unless it's to some substantially reduced charge with very limited incarceration.

[00:40:38]Um I I I just think that the defendants's going to stick to their guns on this. I I don't think that they're they're budging. and and also, you know, the the original determination that this was a suicide, you know, self deleted um by um uh you know, I I think that that holds water and and and a juryy's going to look at that be like, "Oh, and you know, the experts who make these determinations with the first time they looked at this, they sided with the defense and now things are all messed up. Is that enough doubt to uh secure reasonable doubt at a jury trial? Uh I think that's the direction we're headed. I think a plea is rather unlikely.

[00:41:20]>> Yeah. But I'm I'm curious about the impact also though of the years that I think they're going to be able to bring and correct me if I'm wrong on this. If if I misread everything I'm seeing on the grooming that took place from the time she was 15. I mean there's a lot of observations. There's obviously there's most likely going to be text communications between Sandra and friends and family of hers which we already know about. I mean, so when you have that as an arc of behavior, it's hard to it's hard to imagine a conclusion that didn't end with her selfdeion.

[00:41:56]I mean, it's hard to imagine a conclusion where she selfdeleted rather than him do it just because that arc.

[00:42:01]>> Uh, very fair point. and and that that grooming is going to take center stage.

[00:42:07]And I think the way defense might play it is they might say, "Hey, um you know, have you ever made a mistake at work?

[00:42:14]You you you fudged something. You you weren't accurate about something. You lied about something." Um uh but then later on someone got really hurt and they're trying to pin this second thing on you when you're saying, "Hey, I I I made some errors uh at this level, but but I didn't but those errors did not somehow connect me to this subsequent event where where tragedy happened and and and now they're trying to loop me in on both of these things. you got to find me guilty for my misdeeds, but those misdeeds are minor compared to the death that they're saying I inflicted upon this person. I'm just wondering if if the defense tries to handle the grooming aspects in that fashion.

[00:42:56]>> So, in other words, you're thinking that they might say, "Yes, I did do the grooming, but I didn't do this."

[00:43:02]>> They they might halfway admit to it, saying that there were some um regrettable interactions, something along those lines.

[00:43:09]>> Yeah. Is that chargeable though? Again, I'm so sorry, Tony. I mean, >> depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have grooming charges, others don't.

[00:43:16]>> Yeah. I mean, it would be I mean, when they when the argument is made, it's like these are minor. No, they're not minor. What you did was to a minor. Uh and and that needs to be uh brought into the open here. And and I'm wondering just how much how much does that then uh I'm I'm I'm if we were to take this case and we were to take all of the um the things that we know uh about the her years of being in the police explorer program as a young teenager meeting these officers including Farwell and the grooming and all that that went on while she was underage and yes she was you know an adult by the time this happened and she died but if you were to take that out of there. I'm wondering how much of a strategy I know how much you can actually employ that strategy. I know we just kind of talked about that a bit, but I don't I don't know how you how you downplay that one. It's not like, oh, he you know, he was calling her a lot when they were kid when she was a kid. But nothing else happened. I mean, there's not like a lighter side to this. It's it's pretty dark and pretty damning when you look at at all of the behavior while she was uh was a minor.

[00:44:30]And juries are not going to read that one very kindly. Uh he would have a far better chance, I think, at surviving this and and maybe getting reasonable doubt, although I doubt it. Um if if all of that did not exist, but the fact that that's there, I mean, it's like Murdo's financial crimes but worse. Um, it's such a damning footnote to the story that that >> it's almost >> it's just like a teacher that gets that gets accused of essaying a student because it's a position of authority that you're taking and a public trust and you're abusing your position, you know, because you actually have that power and authority over someone else.

[00:45:09]To me, it's exactly the same.

[00:45:12]>> I don't know what the question is.

[00:45:14]>> I know. I'm just making language.

[00:45:15]>> I don't either. No, I mean I cuz I'm like I'm just I'm just kind of making the observation of like is you know does that uh how do they can they how I don't know how would you get around that?

[00:45:27]>> How does the defense get by that? There you go.

[00:45:29]>> You know I think you you do a few things. Um uh and you know you would have to have ethical and and evidentiary support to do this but um you you you sort of frame it as hey my client was going through some stuff. they were at a rough patch in their life and people aren't always thinking clearly. They're not always making the right decisions.

[00:45:50]Sometimes they make really bad decisions. And in fact, um, juries often appreciate when you own facts that you cannot reasonably dispute, ones that are in black and white. Uh if you could cop to those sometimes you could you can impress upon the jury, hey this guy's being real with you. He he's he's admitting to some untored stuff, some stuff that that that no one is going to admit to unless they did it. Uh because he's here to be real with you about that, but he's not going to admit to something he didn't do because he didn't kill her. He he did these really bad things. Uh and so sometimes that's a way to to handle it is to own it by saying, "Hey, he's cop into the stuff he did."

[00:46:31]Uh but but he's not admitted to the death because he didn't do that. And if he would have, he'd be cop to that, too.

[00:46:37]But he didn't do it.

[00:46:38]>> But how h how does how does he argue the uh the DNA the I mean, there's there's so much that puts him there on camera. I mean, it's pretty it's like you're there, dude. Like, what did you just say? Oh, bye. And then she did it. I mean, I guess that must be the argument of like they saw each other. That's probably the lane they're going to go down is, yeah, he was there that because he can't argue that he wasn't there right before this happened. That's factual. Um, I guess it would be, well, they had an argument or something and then she was so depressed that she ended. I don't I mean, that must be the only road they could be picking to go down here.

[00:47:15]>> Yeah, that not be surprised about that at all. And you know they're going to play upon the trope of a uh minor woman who's going through adolescence and all the pressures and stresses and anxiety of that and the inst the insecurity and instability of that and then uh who has you know reached out to and and is having >> improper communication. It's not that it's her fault that she but these interactions and you know is someone in that position capable of doing something drastic if they got emotionally distressing news if there was an emotionally distressing event are they capable of that and I think you sort of open up that world to the jury by saying hey is there an alternative potential explanation well let's look at the factual predicates that would be necessary yeah looks like those are present here in terms of this type of person now I'm not blaming her. I'm not saying she did this, but I'm saying this how her defense team could try to handle it.

[00:48:13]>> How come they're not going for an essay um charge on him? There's no statute of limitations on this for when she was 15 and groomed into this. I'm just curious any idea on why that is, Eric? Because I I I would think that I would think why not?

[00:48:28]>> If they have the goods, I think absolutely you bring it because it's a big piece of the story. Jury's going to want to hear about that. And in fact, if it remains uncharged, I think that unersurs significantly to the benefit of the defense because they're gonna say, "Hey, look, um, they're telling you he murdered her. Uh, they're also telling you basically that he has her, but oh, they didn't even bother to bring a charge. Why did they bring the charge?"

[00:48:54]Well, it's because they actually don't have evidence supporting that. They want this whole uh monstrous narrative to be true against my dude, and it's just not.

[00:49:04]and the absence of this charge with which they're saying is a central component of this entire saga tells you that they don't even believe in it. Um that that's one way of defense.

[00:49:15]>> Do you think that's why they might not be going for a plea deal just because they think it's weak on that side because they haven't been charged? And now and I'll flip it two questions. One, sorry. Do you think if they were able to bring those um SA charges from when she was a minor that they might actually seek a plea?

[00:49:30]They could still bring them now and that could give added leverage for a play.

[00:49:34]Yes.

[00:49:34]>> Yeah. It's interesting.

[00:49:36]>> How what I'm wondering about is if they're going to do this play this card or not is that she was a promiscuous young lady. Um and and that's why I'm saying like like I kind of want them to try and argue this cuz it ain't going to work out well. Um because I mean and you can't obviously say that about her, you know, when she's a minor, but she was an adult when she was murdered. Um but I I am wondering because they do have others that that can back that up. Um she was uh but then you look at the world of well she was also groomed into this by these monstrous men. Uh so I mean it's a pretty quick oh you're going to make that argument. Well, let's see what made the recipe here uh of of her mind state at at that point in time. I'm just wondering, do you see a world where they're going to try and make that argument to a jury? And how well do you think that shit's going to land?

[00:50:34]I think in this case in particular, it would be perilous to try for defense to try to uh insinuate that this uh at during most of the time minor uh was somehow loose and as some you know, however they do it. uh in and and if I'm the prosecutor, I am absolutely making a pre-trial motion to exclude any such evidence or argument regarding that about uh the the alleged victim here. Uh because it's a character assassination and it doesn't really go to the charges. Let's assume for a second that a human being was promiscuous. How is that relevant to whether this police officer offed her or not? It it it doesn't factor in to that to that analysis. So, I'm telling the judge, hey, it's not relevant to the extent it has any relevance. It's outweighed by undue prejudice of character assassination against this young victim uh who is now deceased. I think a judge is going to exclude it.

[00:51:35]>> Yeah. I mean, just I don't know. I mean, I'm just trying to think of any lanes that they could go down of of trying to basically character assassinate her cuz she's not there to stand up for herself.

[00:51:45]And and you might get Again, you're going for a jury. All it takes is one.

[00:51:50]Um, I think you'd have most of them being disgusted by that sort of argument. Uh, but 12 people, uh, you might get one that's sympathetic that that thinks in a very different way than the rest of us. Um, and that might be I mean when when when the cards are down, um, obviously be way too hard to to determine if that's the road to take, but do you could you see a scenario where it's like, well, let's roll the dice because that's about the only thing we can go for is maybe a hung jury, maybe some jackass will be sympathetic to to that claim.

[00:52:27]>> Oh, totally, Tony. There are um many instances in which uh you know the defense really doesn't have all doesn't have the right hand, but they got a wild card in there and they're going to throw that out there and they're going to see what happens. Uh you know, jury nullification is a real thing. There are cases where there is substantial evidence uh sufficient to convict somebody, but you get a jury thinking in a particular way about a particular issue and then you magnify that issue and and and you you have that be front of mind for the jury and all of a sudden the jury is questioning the fairness of the system. They're questioning the the the fairness of this entire process in which they are involved. And that can make some folks disincclined to issue a conviction even if there is substantial evidence supporting it. And these sort of wild cards are are often the ways that we get to a jury nullification, a quiddle.

[00:53:21]>> And is there also because just doing the research on this essay, everyone's everyone so a lot of people are aware of it. The family's up in arms about how come the prosecution actually hasn't brought that charge forward um from when she's groomed and essayed and you know, horrendous things done to her at an early age. Is is there is there a strategy that is actually beneficial to the prosecution because they're saying they're going to bring it up most likely in the trial. Is there a strategy that it's better to not bring it up so they could use it in trial or is it just kind of befuddling as why they're not?

[00:53:54]>> No, you can't do a trial by ambush and in the criminal uh world especially if you're a prosecutor, you're going to bring some [ __ ] up at trial. You've got to give the other side pre-trial notice and uh so the other side would see it coming. And I just don't see any benefit to not bring the charge if you have significant evidence and if it is a critical piece of your theme and theory.

[00:54:13]Uh which for the prosecution it looks like it is.

[00:54:16]>> Yeah.

[00:54:17]Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. We'd love for you to weigh in. Eric Fattis, defense attorney, former prosecutor. As always, thank you for being here and giving us your insight into all these cases.

[00:54:29]Robin's latest book, It's Not All About Me. It's available wherever you get books and on audiobook. Go and check that out. That's going to wrap it up.

[00:54:37]Uh, until next time for Robin, for Eric, for Todd, I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brussi and the Hidden Killers podcast.