I suspect the prosecution will respond by saying that Charlie is only claiming that he didn't know the *details* of the plot and actually carry it out himself. He solicited the murder, and he conspired that someone do it, but he intentionally stayed unaware of the details of who would carry it out and how. So when he says, "I don't have any knowledge of what went on," he's saying that he has no knowledge of the details of what happened. And when he says, "I didn't do anything," he means that he hired the hitman but he didn't actually carry out the crime.
Fascinating transcript. There’s a second part as well, if you didn’t see, that overlaps with pages 29-32 of the first transcript and continues from there.
"Again, the discussion below assumes familiarity with the facts of the case, which are detailed and complex; if you haven’t been following it, you might want to stop reading here."
Thanks for the warning. I did read on anyway, and was pleased that the defense lawyer was willing to make substantive comments. So many lawyers want to keep their cards close to their chest at the expense of the client, whose reputation goes undefended. The public battle is important too, not just the courtroom battle.
I suspect the prosecution will respond by saying that Charlie is only claiming that he didn't know the *details* of the plot and actually carry it out himself. He solicited the murder, and he conspired that someone do it, but he intentionally stayed unaware of the details of who would carry it out and how. So when he says, "I don't have any knowledge of what went on," he's saying that he has no knowledge of the details of what happened. And when he says, "I didn't do anything," he means that he hired the hitman but he didn't actually carry out the crime.
Fascinating transcript. There’s a second part as well, if you didn’t see, that overlaps with pages 29-32 of the first transcript and continues from there.
Thanks again! I just added an update to the post that links to the second part and pulls out some highlights.
Charlie: "I don't even know who Tuto f-ing is, but I do know you and he were on a break when I dated you. So he isn't mad at me, right?"
Oh wow, no—thanks!
"Again, the discussion below assumes familiarity with the facts of the case, which are detailed and complex; if you haven’t been following it, you might want to stop reading here."
Thanks for the warning. I did read on anyway, and was pleased that the defense lawyer was willing to make substantive comments. So many lawyers want to keep their cards close to their chest at the expense of the client, whose reputation goes undefended. The public battle is important too, not just the courtroom battle.