October 16, 2025 • 41 mins
Reigndrops, you asked - and the King delivered! We’re thrilled to welcome our good friend Eboni K. Williams to dive deeper into the shocking charges against Wendy and Eddie Osefo. There’s no such thing as a “usual suspect” here, and Eboni is giving us EVERYTHING we wanted when it comes to breaking down the legal side. The only thing left to say? Tune in to get THE legal tea on these shocking allegations.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hi, there, Rain Drove. So before we get to the
episode of Evane K. Williams and I recapping what's happening
with Dr Wendyocepho and her husband Eddiocepho.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I first want to start r by breaking.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
The news that Wendy has officially resigned. She did not
get fire, Okay, but doctor Wendy has resigned from West
Lehand University amid fraud charges. The reality star and political
commentator was previously announced as a distinguished visiting professor at
(00:45):
the private Connecticut institution. So this news broke today, Okay,
So this is what's going on. Doctor Wendyocepho, in a
statement to People Magazine on behalf of her spokesperson wanted
to clarify that doctor Wendy was not fired. Okay, news
(01:07):
broke that she was fired. But this is what her
spokesperson has to say about it, and I quote. Contrary
to recent media reports, doctor Wendy Osepha was not terminated
from a faculty position at West Lean University. She formally
submitted her letter of resignation prior to any public announcement
(01:33):
made by the university. Doctor Oceppha made the voluntary decision
to step down from her role. This decision was made
independently and communicated directly to the university before any external
reports surfaced. Now, the reason why they're saying in the
(01:58):
statement that doctor Wendy resigned before any external reports surface,
it's because was Lean University. They did confirm Oseppho's resignation
by telling People magazine Wendy Oceppho is no longer an
employee of west Lean University. She resigned from her position.
(02:23):
So prior to that, news were saying that she was fired,
so they wanted to clear that up. So again, doctor
Wendy did not get fired, She actually resigned. Now what
is so fast that I think about all of this
is the fact that doctor Wendy was supposed to teach
(02:45):
a class that she wrote up calling it the Sociology
of Reality TV. At that time, she spoke highly of
her relationship with wes Lean University as she reflected on
past teaching positions where she did not feel appreciated. In
(03:08):
a November interview back in twenty twenty four, doctor Wendy
did say, I didn't feel like people saw the value
in what I brought to the institution, But for wes
Lean as much prestige as they have to see me
and to say.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Not only do we want you, but we want you.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
To have a title of distinguished professor. I was like
this as a sign. So, of course this is all
unfortunate news. As more reports are detailing whether or not
doctor Wendy will continue promoting this season of Potomac. As
(03:55):
I've recorded a Monday Night Live with Dustin and Claudia.
Doctor Wendy this week was supposed to appear and watch
What Happens Live and have pressed in New York. Her
episode on Watching Happens Live is being replaced by KK
coming on the show instead of Wendy. What has also
(04:19):
sort of been revealed due to stacy Instagram posts, it
appears that the Potomac Ladies are shooting their APPA show.
Stacy posted a video on a set that appears to
be the after show where one or two or three
(04:41):
housewives come together separately to give us the audience their
thoughts on each episode and that airs exclusively on Peacock.
We did see Stacy by herself, we do not know
whether or not Wendy was also there, so we don't
know if Wendy has started filming back on Potomac Base
(05:08):
on what's been happening so far, and we don't know whether
or not Wendy has committed to her duties on taping
the after show as well. What we do know as
of now is Wife Swap now has a premiere date.
As you all know, the episode of White Swap was
(05:29):
supposed to be Doctor Wendy as their premiere episode. The
network has since decided to pull her episode. They delayed
the premiere. It is now happening Tuesday, October twenty first
at nine pm easterd and the episode will be Angie
from the Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, So that
(05:52):
will be the premiere episode of White Swap. This is
a four episode special. As of today, we do not
know whether or not Doctors Wendy's episode will make air
so without y'all all know always say this wrong, so
I'm gonna give it right without much further ado, I
(06:15):
think I survived that child. Here is M. D. K.
Williams and I on the Doctor Wendy and Eddie cakese Hey,
rain Dross, I mean listen. Ever since news broke.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
Out about Doctor Wendy and Eddie Osepho, my timeline has
been blowing up tremendously and I'm pretty sure hers as well,
which made me feel good the fact that my audience
in the world really only cared to hear about Emny K.
Williams's expert opinion when it comes to anything relating to
(06:50):
you know, crime, politics, political stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
And this woman is ready listen.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
I wanted to make sure she had enough time to
do her due diligence, because, like me, she's not gonna
hop on just to have a conversation without having all
the information she needed. So ladies, gentlemen, gays and bays,
give it up for the woman y'all have been begging
for me to talk to ever since news broke out
about their cephos Ebony K.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
William Carlos the King as happy as I am to
see you, my darling, looking very delicious and cozy. Might
I add this in this green, ever green velvet, you
know this chill hit the air, baby, and Carlos said,
y'all gonna get your velveteen baby, you know it. You
know I do wish gathering. I love you so much.
(07:41):
I wish we were gathering under better circumstances. But here
we are to discuss simply the facts simply the facts
as we know them as of this moment regarding the
indictment and charges related to doctor Wendy and Edward osseoppho.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Yeah, so let's just get right into it. Listen.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
As of now we all know what has happened, but
I'll update the rain drops as well.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Listen.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Last Friday, it was revealed that Eddie and doctor Wendy
were arrested for allegations of insurance fraud, counts of insurance frau,
counts of conspiracy of fraud in addition to falsifying a
police report by alleging that the burglary that they reported
(08:29):
last year actually did not happen. They could face up to,
from what I've read, in the state of Maryland, fifteen
years in prison if convicted of this crime.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
The Ocephos have.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Released a statement stating that look, they want privacy at
this time, but they look forward to seeing their day
in court. Ebany, I really just want to go many
ways with you, But first I want to start with
the fact that to Wendy professor for degrees, Eddie a lawyer,
(09:06):
has his law degree licensed to pre were you just
as surprise as the rest of us was when this
news hit last Friday.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
See, you're probably asking the wrong person, Parlos, because unfortunately,
due to my almost twenty years of legal expert experience myself,
what I know is there's no such thing as a
usual suspect. There's no such thing as a usual suspect, right,
So surprised in the general sense. Sure, sure you know.
(09:39):
I've been at Bravocan with the Osfos. I've shared spaces
in a variety of ways over the many years that
those of us that live in this wonderful world that
intersects between academia and politics and mass media. Do you
know we are certainly colleagues. I've had both Eddie and
Wendy on on my Grio show. When I hosted The
(10:02):
Grilloh with Vany K Williams, which was a nightly news show,
they had dsfos graciously came on my show to promote
Happy Eddie, you know, their cannabis line. So my point
is giving context to the rain drops. My relationship was
very casual with with Theosephos, but one that was rooted
(10:22):
in shared values as it relates to everything that you
named academics, community service and you know, the betterment of
our people. So in that generalized sense, sure, but again,
you know, those of us that do this legal thing
for real, for real and for a living, we always
kind of hold out the possibility that it could be anybody. Carlos,
(10:46):
nobody's above the program. No one is a perfect person.
I want to reiterate what we all know. The Ocephos
are innocent, innocent, innocent, innocent until proven in a court
of law to be guilty. So we're gonna operate with
that presumption of innocence, and we're gonna lay out the
facts as we know them, and we're going to talk
about possibilities and next steps.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Let's let's talk about next steps.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
We know that they bail themselves out of jail fifty
thousand dollars a piece.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
They are at home.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Doctor Wendy was supposed to be in New York City
this week doing press watch What Happens Live has canceled
her appearance on the show that was supposed to take
this week. Her Wife Swap episode, which was the season
premiere that was supposed to air this week, has now
been erased. And by erase, I mean as of today,
(11:42):
we are not going to see Doctor Wendy's episode.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Why swap Wive Swap has been pushed back.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
A week or two in order to replace her episode
as the premiere episode to another one. Those are the
facts in which we know based on what you have
read and Ebany K. Williams in the court documents, Does
it concern you based on what you've read?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Right, Yes, they're inno sense of proven guilty.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
The burglary being investigated, the allegations of returning items that
they claim in their insurance allegations of doctor Wendy wearing
the wedding ring the band that she and Eddie got
twenty five, three hundred and eighty dollars for from the
insurance company. They're now saying she wore it in a
(12:32):
social media post. The things you're reading, dude, are you
concerned about whether or not they'll be able to prove
their innocence if that's what they want to do.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
So two things I want to bifurcate these issues for
the rain Drops, So everything you just laid out accurately, Carlos,
I'm going to put in the category of media impact,
the cancelation of Watch What Happens Live, the reshuffling of
the new edit that's going to be necessary, for the
(13:03):
White Swap series and anything else, you know, whether or not.
I think it's being reported that cameras are up to
now already start pre record for the new season of
Potomac Housewives. So all of that I'm going to put
in the category, Carlos, of media impact. That's over there.
Let me first address legal impact. Okay, So from the
(13:25):
legal impact space, here's what we know so far. Like
you said, they had been arrested following the indictment, which
is general procedure, they immediately posted fifty thousand dollars bond
apiece and they were released. That is typical. So for
anybody wondering was that abnormally high or low? That is
a standard kind of rate, if you will, for release
(13:49):
given the charges and the amount associated, which is around
half a million dollars worth of kind of damages being claimed.
You know, I think it's a to know, Carlos, like
the fact that insurance fraud is a very specific kind
of criminal activity. I say that because unlike let's say,
(14:11):
tax fraud, which we've seen before with Teresa Judae and
her ex husband, which you know, you were a huge
producer for Teresa in the series, it's a little different, right,
because in tax fraud and even tax evasion, typically you've
got third party players. You've got the accountants, you've got
(14:34):
other tax specialists conceivably that I think can help create
defense arguments that lend themselves to more creativity. Said another way,
you could blame it on the accountant. You can say
I didn't know. You can do things of this nature. Now,
they're not always successful, which is why Judice is deported
(14:54):
to this day and Theresa did prison time and they
were convicted. So I'm not saying that that's get out
of jail free card. I'm simply saying for the rain
drops that that from a legal defense strategy point, which
is what we're talking about in this part of the conversation,
it gives you more opportunity, perhaps to have alternative arguments
(15:15):
for the defense. But when you're talking about an insurance
claim in the way in which we're hearing these facts
that it was indeed doctor Wendy and Eddie directly themselves
picking up the phone and asserting these claims straight to
their insurance companies. And let's be clear, there were three
different insurance companies allegedly involved here, right, so we know
(15:38):
that there's allegedly a claim against Travelers Insurance, Home Site Insurance,
and a third insurance company known as Jewelers Mutual. Okay,
so all three of those insurance companies are at play. Allegedly,
all three insurance companies had claims filed directly from the
(16:00):
oseppos around costs associated with items and contents in this
alleged burglary. The reason I'm saying this, Carlos, is that
could make it more difficult from the defense posture because
according to the Sheriff's department, and we learned a lot
of this information during that press conference that the local
(16:21):
sheriff's department and state attorney held. Now, I want to
be clear, Carlos King, Like a lot of folks, I
didn't like that we got that press conference. And let
me tell you why. Yeah, I didn't like it at all.
It gave cloud chasing, It gave happy to be seen,
especially during the Q and A when the sheriff to me,
(16:41):
had a couple of very cringey moments where he's kind of,
you know, kind of trying to be cute with the
press that was in present. You know, Oh, do you
watch the show? I don't watch the show. It was
too tongue in cheek. It was too casual for something
of this magnitude, don't you and I see you not?
You agree, right?
Speaker 4 (17:01):
Couldn't wait to ask you about that because I wanted
to ask you, you know, when the share first of all,
a press conference in general, for like, for a situation
like this. In addition to him asking the reporters, I
don't care if she's a real housewife or an old
housewife and asking the reporter, I mean, do you watch it?
It's okay, admit it, I thought like, look, I understand
this relaciousness surrounding this particular situation with them being celebrities,
(17:25):
but I thought it were going to focus on the law.
And I want to ask you this, is it normal
for a press conference to be held under these circumstances?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
No, no, no, Carlos King, absolutely not. It is highly atypical.
Now they're gonna say in their defense that doctor Wendy
and Edward are Seppo, are not typical defendants, which is true.
And this is true. This is true of all of
us that choose to live our lives publicly. We often
lose some of the protection that what so called private
(17:55):
citizens continue to enjoy. We talked about this a little bit, Carlos.
We talked about the the Frost and their and their son. Right,
So the law does treat public figures differently. It does,
and whether it's criminal, as we're seeing in this case,
or whether it's civil, which we've also seen, whether it's libel.
(18:17):
And you know, the standard of proving that somebody has
defamed a so called celebrity famous person is much higher
than it is if someone tried to defame Carlos King
or Giselle Bryant, because you know that bar becomes raised
according to your profile. Quite frankly so in this case,
because doctor Wendy and Edward Osseppo have Eddie have decided
(18:40):
to live their life publicly, this Sheriff's department is set.
It is claiming that they're getting overwhelmed with so many
media inquiries and that I believe that. I believe. I
do believe everybody from TMZ to local outlets, to national
network news, to cable news, to every blow and content
(19:01):
creator known demand was calling their phone, emailing them asking
about the latest and greatest with doctor Wendy and Eddie
and these charges. I believe that. And also did they
have to take the step of having a press conference,
a televised press conference. They did not, So that was
a choice. Further to me, Carlos, if you're gonna do that,
(19:22):
to say, hey, let us address the entire public at
one time, let us give everybody the same information, so
everyone's dealing with the same facts. I could buy that.
You know where they lost me, Carlos, was the Q
and A because normally, let's think back to other press
conferences we've seen recently. We saw press conferences with Sean
(19:43):
Combs's trial. We've seen press conferences with Meg the Stallion's case,
the Tory Lanez shooting. We've seen press conferences recently with celebrities.
And nine out of ten times, after the law enforcement agency,
the cops or the sheriff or the distri attorneys speaks,
what do they do, Carlos, They say, no questions, thank you,
(20:07):
we will let you know if we have updated information,
and they leave the podium. That's typically what that looks
like when you're really to me about the business. But
when you start entertaining Q and A and questions and
chit chat and small talk at the podium, that's giving
an alternative agenda for me. That's giving a different intentionality,
(20:28):
and I didn't like that on behalf of If those
were my clients, I would have held a counter press conference.
Quite frankly, if I represented the Osfos Carlos, Oh baby,
oh baby. Now, my clients wouldn't have been there, but
I would have been, Ebany K. Williams. That's why I
would have been there, greeting the press and letting them
know that my clients are horrified by the charges. They
(20:50):
are horror bied by the accusations. They're loving on their
three babies. They look forward to defending themselves and against
these heinous accusations. And please believe, this is America still.
This is America still where we presume and enjoy the
presumption of innocence, and we can't wait for all the
facts to come out. Thank you and have a nice day.
(21:13):
Oh y'all would have got that if I was a
Vince counsel. Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
I want to ask you this.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
In their statement, somebody outlined to me, Ebany that there
wasn't this proclaimed in a sense that most released statements
and press releases have under people who are being prosecuted
for a crime. Do you think the omission of yourself
are saying, and you know, we proclaim our innocence and
(21:44):
we can't wait to defend in the court. Is that
omission something that raises eyebrows to you too much.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Into that I could hear someone being curious or speculative.
We don't do a lot of speculation here with what
we do. We really follow the facts, and I'm proud
of that for us, Carlos. So, I wouldn't go too
far down a rabbit hole that says because there wasn't
a staunch defense in the way in which we want
to hear it or we're used to hearing it, that
(22:12):
that could be interpreted as takeed admission. No, No, I
wouldn't say that. I would say the statement was extraordinarily broad,
extraordinarily general, and it leaves space for a lot of
different things. It leaves space for a staunch, adamant defense
that could go to trial. It leaves space for the
prosecution's case falling apart pre trial. It leaves space for
(22:36):
cooperation while a plea bargain of some sort being worked
on or worked out, so a litany of things could happen.
And that statement, to me gives us no real indication
as to where this will go.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
Based on the stuff you ran the court documents, Should
Eddie and Wendy be very concerned because it appears that
the state has a good case.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Again, well, I.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Certainly think the state has a case. Now, let's go
to standards. Let's go back to the law school one
oh one, Let's go back to how do you get
how does one even get to the place of indictment,
because that's that's not always a guarantee. You know, there's
a saying a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. That's
becoming less and less than less true. People the public,
(23:23):
social media, the people are less and less inclinent these days,
Carlos king to just indict because a prosecutor says so. So,
I do want to alert rain drops that this prosecution office,
this state's attorney's office, this sheriff's office, and their investigators
did have to present evidence in front of a grand jury,
(23:45):
and that grand jury decided based off of the paperwork
any witnesses that testified everything that came before them via
as evidence, they decided it was fifty one percent likely,
meaning more likely than not, that the allegations were true.
That Eddie and Wendy indeed worked in cooperation with each
(24:09):
other conspiracy. That's hence the conspiracy piece to commit insurance fraud,
to claim lost money around items totally up to the
maximum of their insurance policies, that four hundred and fifty
thousand dollars mark, to recover those funds in a way
(24:29):
that was fraudulent and fictitious and erroneous. I do think
it's important to note, as much as I hated the
Q and A, it did give us some facts. The
one question I thought was valuable, Carlos, was when one
of the journalists asked the sheriff, what made you suspicious?
People found insurance claims every day in this country, many
(24:51):
of them for high dollar amounts. But he said, the
fact that it was at the policy max four hundred
and fifty thousand dollars, that was a little bit concerning,
But we still carried out an investigation per the reported burglary.
But the fact that then the social media was displaying
that we saw the twenty five thousand dollars diamond anniversary
(25:13):
ring allegedly showing up on social media after it was
in the claim. Now some of y'all perused the comments.
Several people commented, including real housewife of Atlanta of Portia
Williams that, Hey, wealthy people, celebrity people, people with means
often get dupes made of their high worth jewelry items.
(25:37):
You know, they'll get a jeweler to make a dupe
of an engagement ring, anniversary band, even a watch. Right.
I think it's an interesting argument. I think that there's
going to be an argument made. But this is also
very easy to prove true or not true, Carlos, because
most of these high end jewelry items, you know, take
off any number of those wealthy items you're wearing now,
(26:01):
those wealthy items you're wearing now, honey, and we're gonna
see indicators on the inside, right, whether it's engravements, whether
it's fourteen care of Goals stamps, twenty four carric you know.
So while it's an interesting, exciting defense possibility, it's going
to be very easy to shoot it down or make
the case. You know, was it a duke, was it
(26:21):
not a duke. We're going to figure it out real
clean again. I think that if I had to point
to a piece that the state is arguing evidence, why
is Carlos? That is most concerning from a defense strategy.
It's the emails. It's the email. The fact that the
sheriff talks about that on the receipts that were submitted
(26:42):
by the oscephos themselves. See that's also not great. That's
not a great. Fact is that a lot of the
evidence that the prosecution is alleging to hold came straight
from the defendants, not their handlers necessarily, not their accountants.
I was saying, third party, not their business managers. No, no, no,
(27:03):
this came straight allegedly from doctor Wendy and Eddie. The
receipts to prove the valuation to get them to that
four hundred and fifty thousand dollars insurance cap total. And
on some of those receipts were email addresses from both
Wendy and Eddie. And on those email addresses, that's how
then the law enforcement was able to because how do
(27:24):
you access somebody emails?
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Right?
Speaker 3 (27:25):
That's private?
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Right?
Speaker 3 (27:27):
They were a because you gave it to me, I
now get to execute a search warrant on that basis
as law enforcement. And when I execute my search warrant, Carlos,
I now get to pull up the content of those emails.
You essentially gave me your emails. See they got to
connect all these dots when we give people evidence, okay,
and when they did that, they're able to now see
(27:48):
emails from Eddie saying Hey, Wendy, And this is the
conspiracy allegation. This is where that comes in, Hey, can
you give me more high value items so that we
can meet this inventory requirement to reach the four hundred
and fifty thousand dollars maximum threshold on our insurance policy.
(28:09):
That's that's a line of facts, Parloughs that gets us
to conspiracy allegedly and fraud allegedly.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Based on that email alone. Excuse me, based only email alone?
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Is it?
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Is it going to be hard for the defense to
try to rationalize why someone would suggest to their wife, hey,
add more stuff on this claim so that we're able
to reach the maximum. Is that alone at least account
(28:45):
of guilt versus the other seven he's facing it.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
I can't say it's a count of guilt. I can
say it's going to be difficult depending on This is
why jury is so important. You know, can you convince
a juror one of twelve presumably that when you said, hey, baby,
can you add some more hot ticket items to this list?
So we can get to the number we're supposed to
get to. Can you find a juror that interprets that
(29:10):
as Hey, honey, I forgot how many Chanelle flats you have?
Can you remind me so that we can make sure
that we're covering all our bases here. If you can
convince a juror to a juror to interpret it that way,
you're in good position. I think that's gonna be hard.
(29:31):
I think most jurors are gonna hear that email and
interpret it as hustle. But this is where there, this
is where who their lawyer is is gonna matter a lot.
And if this goes to trial, who is on that
jury is gonna matter a lot. You see how just
the I can give you the same the same email,
(29:52):
but I can. I could argue it, Hey honey, you
have such an enormous wardrobe, you have so many great items.
Was it was it the gucciese? Was it the Chanelle's?
Was it the van she helped me out? Or girl?
You know what, you know what it is, you know
what we're trying to do over here, Go ahead and
ask some more to this. Because we were a little light,
we're a little light on the balance, same facts, but
(30:15):
I'm arguing in it in two different ways. How successful
can you be as a litigator in getting your jewelry
to buy the version you need them to buy. That's
the brilliance of a good lawyer.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I know we have a short amount of time.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
I want to get a few more questions before I'll
let you go. In the case of Teresa and Joe,
Judai is one of the arguments that the defense team
didn't make was Teresa had no idea what she was
signing on behalf of being a wife to Joe. Joe said,
my wife had nothing to do with it. I did
everything give her leniency. A lot of people did feel
(30:50):
ebony that based on just Teresa being guilty based on
signature alone.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
That's the only sort of proof they had was her signature.
That because she was a celebrity, our best were off
and they were made an example out of the ones
they were.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
They were both found guilty, but they both served.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
They're sentencing at different times because they wanted to at
least have one parent be with their minor children.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
In this particular case, you have a.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
Married couple who are both accused of fraud. Do you
see a world where Eddie can say I did everything,
I'm guilty. Wendy had no idea what was going on.
In order for this not to be something where our
kids have to suffer for this, I am guilty. Give
her leniency and give me and throw the book at me.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
Could it happen? Sure? Will this? Will that be a
harder sell for Wendy than it was for Teresa. Yes,
and let me tell you why. First of all, let
me say, because they do have the three small children.
If worst case scenario for the Oseephos they were both
convicted and both got active jail sentences, I don't see
(32:02):
a world in which they're made to serve them concurrently.
I do believe at the same time, at the same simultaneously. Rather,
I do believe they will get to serve them back
to back for the exact same reasons you said the
JUDI were able to do.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
So.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Here's where Wendy's rightful in my opinion, rightful ownership and
pride of her education and savvy and brilliant and academic
excellence will work against her. Now, I don't want to
say speak out a turn about Teresa, but I'm not
(32:39):
familiar of Teresa having an extraordinary academic background. I'm not
familiar with Teresa having extraordinary academic or professional pursuits as
it relates to esteemed intelligence or accolades. I'm not aware
of that. We are aware of wind having at least
(33:02):
four academic professional degrees. We're aware that Wendy has worked
very successfully in academia and professionalism and media broadly. So
when if Wendy, excuse me, if Eddie were to make
the case that you laid out Carlos your honor. We
you know we've been convicted. This is all on me.
(33:24):
Throw the book at me. My wife had nothing to
do with it. She didn't know. She was ignorant to
what I had going on and what I was doing,
and she thus should be held harmless. That's gonna be
hard for a judge to buy Carlos when everybody knows,
and it's public record that your wife is brilliant. Your wife,
(33:47):
some could argue, is more educated than you are. Counselor Ocevo.
It's certainly to be believed that she is a woman
of extreme brilliance, high intelligence, and documented academic record. So
this court would find it difficult to believe that she
was near about as ignorant as you would lead us
(34:09):
to think based off this argument. See the difference.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Yeah, I do, I do, I do.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
And what's interesting is Eddie is a lawyer. Even based
on the fact that a lawyer is being accused of fraud,
in a harder case for the defense to even say
that Eddie may not have known what he was doing
and did not have that intent when he was sending
these emails and when everything else happened. And the part
(34:41):
be that question is do you think based on this
that there's a possibility of him being disbarred?
Speaker 3 (34:46):
I answer the first part first, Yes, he's held to
a higher standard. No, he will not have an easy
time making a defense claim of I didn't know. I'll
prove it to you, and I'll take some risk here, Carlos.
Let's say you and I had a contract going on.
Because I am an attorney and still hold a law license.
(35:08):
I'm not active in North Carolina now, but I still
have my license, right, the contract would be construed more
strictly against me than you. Even if the nature of
the contract was just you sold me a baloney sandwich
for two dollars, you could say, well, I didn't know
(35:29):
she was expecting it to be fried. And if I said, well,
yea right, No, of course I wanted it to be fried.
Everybody knows a baloney sandwich contract is a fried sandwich.
The court would say, none, no, no, Miss Williams. One of
y'all two went to law school. One of y'all two
took a bar exam. One of y'all two passed it.
You did, Miss Williams, So you should know that if
you expected your baloney sandwich to be fried, show it
(35:53):
to me in the four corners of the document where
you specified that you wanted a fried baloney sandwich for
the price of two dollars. See how that worked. The
contract is construed more strictly against the person with formal
legal training and legal experience. And just to show you
how minutia this plays out, because I've actually seen this.
This is a great line of questioning. By the way, Carlos,
(36:13):
you don't sometimes understand the brilliance of the minutia of
what you asked. Let's say this was me and a
law student. That law student would have some some burden,
but I would be held to a higher standard because
I completed law school and passed a bar. But if
it was you and the law student in a contract,
(36:34):
the law student would be held to a higher standard
than you. So they really do interpret it on a
case by case basis. If this was, you know, a
first year lawyer, maybe a little more leeway. To my knowledge,
Eddie is at least to think about as old as
I am. So Eddie is about twenty years in the game.
(36:55):
As an attorney that goes they have they cut us
very little margin. The expectation is that we know what
we sign, we know what we report, we know what
we call in, and we know what the hell we're doing.
That is the presumption. Now I'm not saying it's impossible
to argue your way out of that, but that is
going to be a very high threshold. The same thing
(37:16):
basically that has afforded the cephos rightfully. In my opinion,
prestige and deference and respect are all things that are
going to be held against them respectfully as it relates
to crafting a believable successful defense in a case involving fraud.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
Last question, ebid K Williams, based on what you read,
based on your expertise, does ebny K Williams think those
cephos will serve jail time, whether it's the maximum fifteen
years or six months or whatever.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Do you think they'll ultimately serve jalp If they.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
Are convicted, they will serve time. And part of that
I don't like in the sense that if that was
Mary Joe and Bobby Smith, I don't know that I
would give you that same answer their first time offender.
If they are convicted, they will be first time offenders.
It is a nonviolent crime, not saying that it is
a harmless crime, but it is a nonviolent crime. We
(38:17):
all can agree on that, as certainly we have seen
cases where people get probation and not what we call
non custodial sentences. But to me, this Sheriff's office, this
state prosecutor have already told us Carlow's king that they
are making examples out of these wealthy, famous black people.
(38:38):
They are. We know that from the press conference alone,
and we also know that Clock t when that state
attorney came out and one of the first things he
said out of his mouth was don't think of insurance
fraud as a victimless crime. He didn't have to say that,
did you Clock Tea on that? Because that was making
(39:02):
sure The first foundational premise of his remarks was that
this impacts you and me. This impacts every American that
folds an insurance policy and any capacity, and all of
us are impacted negatively. When people go about the business
of committing insurance fraud, all of our premiums rise, all
(39:24):
of our coverage decreases. He went into all of that
first and foremost. That is an indicator, Carlos, that they
intend to be as harsh and scrutinizing as legally possible
in this particular matter. And I don't like that. I
will tell you objectively, whether those semples are guilty or
(39:44):
not is not my business or even at this point
my concern. What I am concerned with is the fairness
of this process right now, and that indicates to me
that there is a tipped balancing of the scales as
it relates to the intentionality going into the case, and
I do not like that. So I think that they
(40:05):
if they are convicted, they will serve an active jail sentence.
I don't think there is any question about it. And
I think that that was determined at the onset of
the case because of all the facts that have been
laid out, because of who it is, because of how
they are perceived as wealthy, as black, as affluent, as
(40:25):
highly educated, and if this political, and don't think for
one second, Carlos, that the politics of the moment aren't
at play, because they are. They absolutely are. And there
is a cultural backlash that is happening in America again,
whether they're guilty or not. That says some of you
(40:45):
negroes have gotten way too much and we don't like it,
and we are looking to course correct in every way
available to us. And I think that is also very
much at play.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Thank you, m k Williams.
Speaker 4 (40:59):
I would love to bring you back as further information
arise from this unfortunate situation. And like Ebany K Williams said,
rain Joss, remember they are innocent until proven guilty. So
thank you, Ebany, give my best at Baby Liberty.
Speaker 3 (41:13):
Thank you dearly, See you soon by rain Drops.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
With the Lack of Effect Network.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
the Carlos King Underscore
Hi, there, Rain Drove. So before we get to the
episode of Evane K. Williams and I recapping what's happening
with Dr Wendyocepho and her husband Eddiocepho.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I first want to start r by breaking.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
The news that Wendy has officially resigned. She did not
get fire, Okay, but doctor Wendy has resigned from West
Lehand University amid fraud charges. The reality star and political
commentator was previously announced as a distinguished visiting professor at
(00:45):
the private Connecticut institution. So this news broke today, Okay,
So this is what's going on. Doctor Wendyocepho, in a
statement to People Magazine on behalf of her spokesperson wanted
to clarify that doctor Wendy was not fired. Okay, news
(01:07):
broke that she was fired. But this is what her
spokesperson has to say about it, and I quote. Contrary
to recent media reports, doctor Wendy Osepha was not terminated
from a faculty position at West Lean University. She formally
submitted her letter of resignation prior to any public announcement
(01:33):
made by the university. Doctor Oceppha made the voluntary decision
to step down from her role. This decision was made
independently and communicated directly to the university before any external
reports surfaced. Now, the reason why they're saying in the
(01:58):
statement that doctor Wendy resigned before any external reports surface,
it's because was Lean University. They did confirm Oseppho's resignation
by telling People magazine Wendy Oceppho is no longer an
employee of west Lean University. She resigned from her position.
(02:23):
So prior to that, news were saying that she was fired,
so they wanted to clear that up. So again, doctor
Wendy did not get fired, She actually resigned. Now what
is so fast that I think about all of this
is the fact that doctor Wendy was supposed to teach
(02:45):
a class that she wrote up calling it the Sociology
of Reality TV. At that time, she spoke highly of
her relationship with wes Lean University as she reflected on
past teaching positions where she did not feel appreciated. In
(03:08):
a November interview back in twenty twenty four, doctor Wendy
did say, I didn't feel like people saw the value
in what I brought to the institution, But for wes
Lean as much prestige as they have to see me
and to say.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Not only do we want you, but we want you.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
To have a title of distinguished professor. I was like
this as a sign. So, of course this is all
unfortunate news. As more reports are detailing whether or not
doctor Wendy will continue promoting this season of Potomac. As
(03:55):
I've recorded a Monday Night Live with Dustin and Claudia.
Doctor Wendy this week was supposed to appear and watch
What Happens Live and have pressed in New York. Her
episode on Watching Happens Live is being replaced by KK
coming on the show instead of Wendy. What has also
(04:19):
sort of been revealed due to stacy Instagram posts, it
appears that the Potomac Ladies are shooting their APPA show.
Stacy posted a video on a set that appears to
be the after show where one or two or three
(04:41):
housewives come together separately to give us the audience their
thoughts on each episode and that airs exclusively on Peacock.
We did see Stacy by herself, we do not know
whether or not Wendy was also there, so we don't
know if Wendy has started filming back on Potomac Base
(05:08):
on what's been happening so far, and we don't know whether
or not Wendy has committed to her duties on taping
the after show as well. What we do know as
of now is Wife Swap now has a premiere date.
As you all know, the episode of White Swap was
(05:29):
supposed to be Doctor Wendy as their premiere episode. The
network has since decided to pull her episode. They delayed
the premiere. It is now happening Tuesday, October twenty first
at nine pm easterd and the episode will be Angie
from the Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, So that
(05:52):
will be the premiere episode of White Swap. This is
a four episode special. As of today, we do not
know whether or not Doctors Wendy's episode will make air
so without y'all all know always say this wrong, so
I'm gonna give it right without much further ado, I
(06:15):
think I survived that child. Here is M. D. K.
Williams and I on the Doctor Wendy and Eddie cakese Hey,
rain Dross, I mean listen. Ever since news broke.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
Out about Doctor Wendy and Eddie Osepho, my timeline has
been blowing up tremendously and I'm pretty sure hers as well,
which made me feel good the fact that my audience
in the world really only cared to hear about Emny K.
Williams's expert opinion when it comes to anything relating to
(06:50):
you know, crime, politics, political stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
And this woman is ready listen.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
I wanted to make sure she had enough time to
do her due diligence, because, like me, she's not gonna
hop on just to have a conversation without having all
the information she needed. So ladies, gentlemen, gays and bays,
give it up for the woman y'all have been begging
for me to talk to ever since news broke out
about their cephos Ebony K.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
William Carlos the King as happy as I am to
see you, my darling, looking very delicious and cozy. Might
I add this in this green, ever green velvet, you
know this chill hit the air, baby, and Carlos said,
y'all gonna get your velveteen baby, you know it. You
know I do wish gathering. I love you so much.
(07:41):
I wish we were gathering under better circumstances. But here
we are to discuss simply the facts simply the facts
as we know them as of this moment regarding the
indictment and charges related to doctor Wendy and Edward osseoppho.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Yeah, so let's just get right into it. Listen.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
As of now we all know what has happened, but
I'll update the rain drops as well.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Listen.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Last Friday, it was revealed that Eddie and doctor Wendy
were arrested for allegations of insurance fraud, counts of insurance frau,
counts of conspiracy of fraud in addition to falsifying a
police report by alleging that the burglary that they reported
(08:29):
last year actually did not happen. They could face up to,
from what I've read, in the state of Maryland, fifteen
years in prison if convicted of this crime.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
The Ocephos have.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Released a statement stating that look, they want privacy at
this time, but they look forward to seeing their day
in court. Ebany, I really just want to go many
ways with you, But first I want to start with
the fact that to Wendy professor for degrees, Eddie a lawyer,
(09:06):
has his law degree licensed to pre were you just
as surprise as the rest of us was when this
news hit last Friday.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
See, you're probably asking the wrong person, Parlos, because unfortunately,
due to my almost twenty years of legal expert experience myself,
what I know is there's no such thing as a
usual suspect. There's no such thing as a usual suspect, right,
So surprised in the general sense. Sure, sure you know.
(09:39):
I've been at Bravocan with the Osfos. I've shared spaces
in a variety of ways over the many years that
those of us that live in this wonderful world that
intersects between academia and politics and mass media. Do you
know we are certainly colleagues. I've had both Eddie and
Wendy on on my Grio show. When I hosted The
(10:02):
Grilloh with Vany K Williams, which was a nightly news show,
they had dsfos graciously came on my show to promote
Happy Eddie, you know, their cannabis line. So my point
is giving context to the rain drops. My relationship was
very casual with with Theosephos, but one that was rooted
(10:22):
in shared values as it relates to everything that you
named academics, community service and you know, the betterment of
our people. So in that generalized sense, sure, but again,
you know, those of us that do this legal thing
for real, for real and for a living, we always
kind of hold out the possibility that it could be anybody. Carlos,
(10:46):
nobody's above the program. No one is a perfect person.
I want to reiterate what we all know. The Ocephos
are innocent, innocent, innocent, innocent until proven in a court
of law to be guilty. So we're gonna operate with
that presumption of innocence, and we're gonna lay out the
facts as we know them, and we're going to talk
about possibilities and next steps.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Let's let's talk about next steps.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
We know that they bail themselves out of jail fifty
thousand dollars a piece.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
They are at home.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Doctor Wendy was supposed to be in New York City
this week doing press watch What Happens Live has canceled
her appearance on the show that was supposed to take
this week. Her Wife Swap episode, which was the season
premiere that was supposed to air this week, has now
been erased. And by erase, I mean as of today,
(11:42):
we are not going to see Doctor Wendy's episode.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Why swap Wive Swap has been pushed back.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
A week or two in order to replace her episode
as the premiere episode to another one. Those are the
facts in which we know based on what you have
read and Ebany K. Williams in the court documents, Does
it concern you based on what you've read?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Right, Yes, they're inno sense of proven guilty.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
The burglary being investigated, the allegations of returning items that
they claim in their insurance allegations of doctor Wendy wearing
the wedding ring the band that she and Eddie got
twenty five, three hundred and eighty dollars for from the
insurance company. They're now saying she wore it in a
(12:32):
social media post. The things you're reading, dude, are you
concerned about whether or not they'll be able to prove
their innocence if that's what they want to do.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
So two things I want to bifurcate these issues for
the rain Drops, So everything you just laid out accurately, Carlos,
I'm going to put in the category of media impact,
the cancelation of Watch What Happens Live, the reshuffling of
the new edit that's going to be necessary, for the
(13:03):
White Swap series and anything else, you know, whether or not.
I think it's being reported that cameras are up to
now already start pre record for the new season of
Potomac Housewives. So all of that I'm going to put
in the category, Carlos, of media impact. That's over there.
Let me first address legal impact. Okay, So from the
(13:25):
legal impact space, here's what we know so far. Like
you said, they had been arrested following the indictment, which
is general procedure, they immediately posted fifty thousand dollars bond
apiece and they were released. That is typical. So for
anybody wondering was that abnormally high or low? That is
a standard kind of rate, if you will, for release
(13:49):
given the charges and the amount associated, which is around
half a million dollars worth of kind of damages being claimed.
You know, I think it's a to know, Carlos, like
the fact that insurance fraud is a very specific kind
of criminal activity. I say that because unlike let's say,
(14:11):
tax fraud, which we've seen before with Teresa Judae and
her ex husband, which you know, you were a huge
producer for Teresa in the series, it's a little different, right,
because in tax fraud and even tax evasion, typically you've
got third party players. You've got the accountants, you've got
(14:34):
other tax specialists conceivably that I think can help create
defense arguments that lend themselves to more creativity. Said another way,
you could blame it on the accountant. You can say
I didn't know. You can do things of this nature. Now,
they're not always successful, which is why Judice is deported
(14:54):
to this day and Theresa did prison time and they
were convicted. So I'm not saying that that's get out
of jail free card. I'm simply saying for the rain
drops that that from a legal defense strategy point, which
is what we're talking about in this part of the conversation,
it gives you more opportunity, perhaps to have alternative arguments
(15:15):
for the defense. But when you're talking about an insurance
claim in the way in which we're hearing these facts
that it was indeed doctor Wendy and Eddie directly themselves
picking up the phone and asserting these claims straight to
their insurance companies. And let's be clear, there were three
different insurance companies allegedly involved here, right, so we know
(15:38):
that there's allegedly a claim against Travelers Insurance, Home Site Insurance,
and a third insurance company known as Jewelers Mutual. Okay,
so all three of those insurance companies are at play. Allegedly,
all three insurance companies had claims filed directly from the
(16:00):
oseppos around costs associated with items and contents in this
alleged burglary. The reason I'm saying this, Carlos, is that
could make it more difficult from the defense posture because
according to the Sheriff's department, and we learned a lot
of this information during that press conference that the local
(16:21):
sheriff's department and state attorney held. Now, I want to
be clear, Carlos King, Like a lot of folks, I
didn't like that we got that press conference. And let
me tell you why. Yeah, I didn't like it at all.
It gave cloud chasing, It gave happy to be seen,
especially during the Q and A when the sheriff to me,
(16:41):
had a couple of very cringey moments where he's kind of,
you know, kind of trying to be cute with the
press that was in present. You know, Oh, do you
watch the show? I don't watch the show. It was
too tongue in cheek. It was too casual for something
of this magnitude, don't you and I see you not?
You agree, right?
Speaker 4 (17:01):
Couldn't wait to ask you about that because I wanted
to ask you, you know, when the share first of all,
a press conference in general, for like, for a situation
like this. In addition to him asking the reporters, I
don't care if she's a real housewife or an old
housewife and asking the reporter, I mean, do you watch it?
It's okay, admit it, I thought like, look, I understand
this relaciousness surrounding this particular situation with them being celebrities,
(17:25):
but I thought it were going to focus on the law.
And I want to ask you this, is it normal
for a press conference to be held under these circumstances?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
No, no, no, Carlos King, absolutely not. It is highly atypical.
Now they're gonna say in their defense that doctor Wendy
and Edward are Seppo, are not typical defendants, which is true.
And this is true. This is true of all of
us that choose to live our lives publicly. We often
lose some of the protection that what so called private
(17:55):
citizens continue to enjoy. We talked about this a little bit, Carlos.
We talked about the the Frost and their and their son. Right,
So the law does treat public figures differently. It does,
and whether it's criminal, as we're seeing in this case,
or whether it's civil, which we've also seen, whether it's libel.
(18:17):
And you know, the standard of proving that somebody has
defamed a so called celebrity famous person is much higher
than it is if someone tried to defame Carlos King
or Giselle Bryant, because you know that bar becomes raised
according to your profile. Quite frankly so in this case,
because doctor Wendy and Edward Osseppo have Eddie have decided
(18:40):
to live their life publicly, this Sheriff's department is set.
It is claiming that they're getting overwhelmed with so many
media inquiries and that I believe that. I believe. I
do believe everybody from TMZ to local outlets, to national
network news, to cable news, to every blow and content
(19:01):
creator known demand was calling their phone, emailing them asking
about the latest and greatest with doctor Wendy and Eddie
and these charges. I believe that. And also did they
have to take the step of having a press conference,
a televised press conference. They did not, So that was
a choice. Further to me, Carlos, if you're gonna do that,
(19:22):
to say, hey, let us address the entire public at
one time, let us give everybody the same information, so
everyone's dealing with the same facts. I could buy that.
You know where they lost me, Carlos, was the Q
and A because normally, let's think back to other press
conferences we've seen recently. We saw press conferences with Sean
(19:43):
Combs's trial. We've seen press conferences with Meg the Stallion's case,
the Tory Lanez shooting. We've seen press conferences recently with celebrities.
And nine out of ten times, after the law enforcement agency,
the cops or the sheriff or the distri attorneys speaks,
what do they do, Carlos, They say, no questions, thank you,
(20:07):
we will let you know if we have updated information,
and they leave the podium. That's typically what that looks
like when you're really to me about the business. But
when you start entertaining Q and A and questions and
chit chat and small talk at the podium, that's giving
an alternative agenda for me. That's giving a different intentionality,
(20:28):
and I didn't like that on behalf of If those
were my clients, I would have held a counter press conference.
Quite frankly, if I represented the Osfos Carlos, Oh baby,
oh baby. Now, my clients wouldn't have been there, but
I would have been, Ebany K. Williams. That's why I
would have been there, greeting the press and letting them
know that my clients are horrified by the charges. They
(20:50):
are horror bied by the accusations. They're loving on their
three babies. They look forward to defending themselves and against
these heinous accusations. And please believe, this is America still.
This is America still where we presume and enjoy the
presumption of innocence, and we can't wait for all the
facts to come out. Thank you and have a nice day.
(21:13):
Oh y'all would have got that if I was a
Vince counsel. Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
I want to ask you this.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
In their statement, somebody outlined to me, Ebany that there
wasn't this proclaimed in a sense that most released statements
and press releases have under people who are being prosecuted
for a crime. Do you think the omission of yourself
are saying, and you know, we proclaim our innocence and
(21:44):
we can't wait to defend in the court. Is that
omission something that raises eyebrows to you too much.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Into that I could hear someone being curious or speculative.
We don't do a lot of speculation here with what
we do. We really follow the facts, and I'm proud
of that for us, Carlos. So, I wouldn't go too
far down a rabbit hole that says because there wasn't
a staunch defense in the way in which we want
to hear it or we're used to hearing it, that
(22:12):
that could be interpreted as takeed admission. No, No, I
wouldn't say that. I would say the statement was extraordinarily broad,
extraordinarily general, and it leaves space for a lot of
different things. It leaves space for a staunch, adamant defense
that could go to trial. It leaves space for the
prosecution's case falling apart pre trial. It leaves space for
(22:36):
cooperation while a plea bargain of some sort being worked
on or worked out, so a litany of things could happen.
And that statement, to me gives us no real indication
as to where this will go.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
Based on the stuff you ran the court documents, Should
Eddie and Wendy be very concerned because it appears that
the state has a good case.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Again, well, I.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Certainly think the state has a case. Now, let's go
to standards. Let's go back to the law school one
oh one, Let's go back to how do you get
how does one even get to the place of indictment,
because that's that's not always a guarantee. You know, there's
a saying a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. That's
becoming less and less than less true. People the public,
(23:23):
social media, the people are less and less inclinent these days,
Carlos king to just indict because a prosecutor says so. So,
I do want to alert rain drops that this prosecution office,
this state's attorney's office, this sheriff's office, and their investigators
did have to present evidence in front of a grand jury,
(23:45):
and that grand jury decided based off of the paperwork
any witnesses that testified everything that came before them via
as evidence, they decided it was fifty one percent likely,
meaning more likely than not, that the allegations were true.
That Eddie and Wendy indeed worked in cooperation with each
(24:09):
other conspiracy. That's hence the conspiracy piece to commit insurance fraud,
to claim lost money around items totally up to the
maximum of their insurance policies, that four hundred and fifty
thousand dollars mark, to recover those funds in a way
(24:29):
that was fraudulent and fictitious and erroneous. I do think
it's important to note, as much as I hated the
Q and A, it did give us some facts. The
one question I thought was valuable, Carlos, was when one
of the journalists asked the sheriff, what made you suspicious?
People found insurance claims every day in this country, many
(24:51):
of them for high dollar amounts. But he said, the
fact that it was at the policy max four hundred
and fifty thousand dollars, that was a little bit concerning,
But we still carried out an investigation per the reported burglary.
But the fact that then the social media was displaying
that we saw the twenty five thousand dollars diamond anniversary
(25:13):
ring allegedly showing up on social media after it was
in the claim. Now some of y'all perused the comments.
Several people commented, including real housewife of Atlanta of Portia
Williams that, Hey, wealthy people, celebrity people, people with means
often get dupes made of their high worth jewelry items.
(25:37):
You know, they'll get a jeweler to make a dupe
of an engagement ring, anniversary band, even a watch. Right.
I think it's an interesting argument. I think that there's
going to be an argument made. But this is also
very easy to prove true or not true, Carlos, because
most of these high end jewelry items, you know, take
off any number of those wealthy items you're wearing now,
(26:01):
those wealthy items you're wearing now, honey, and we're gonna
see indicators on the inside, right, whether it's engravements, whether
it's fourteen care of Goals stamps, twenty four carric you know.
So while it's an interesting, exciting defense possibility, it's going
to be very easy to shoot it down or make
the case. You know, was it a duke, was it
(26:21):
not a duke. We're going to figure it out real
clean again. I think that if I had to point
to a piece that the state is arguing evidence, why
is Carlos? That is most concerning from a defense strategy.
It's the emails. It's the email. The fact that the
sheriff talks about that on the receipts that were submitted
(26:42):
by the oscephos themselves. See that's also not great. That's
not a great. Fact is that a lot of the
evidence that the prosecution is alleging to hold came straight
from the defendants, not their handlers necessarily, not their accountants.
I was saying, third party, not their business managers. No, no, no,
(27:03):
this came straight allegedly from doctor Wendy and Eddie. The
receipts to prove the valuation to get them to that
four hundred and fifty thousand dollars insurance cap total. And
on some of those receipts were email addresses from both
Wendy and Eddie. And on those email addresses, that's how
then the law enforcement was able to because how do
(27:24):
you access somebody emails?
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Right?
Speaker 3 (27:25):
That's private?
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Right?
Speaker 3 (27:27):
They were a because you gave it to me, I
now get to execute a search warrant on that basis
as law enforcement. And when I execute my search warrant, Carlos,
I now get to pull up the content of those emails.
You essentially gave me your emails. See they got to
connect all these dots when we give people evidence, okay,
and when they did that, they're able to now see
(27:48):
emails from Eddie saying Hey, Wendy, And this is the
conspiracy allegation. This is where that comes in, Hey, can
you give me more high value items so that we
can meet this inventory requirement to reach the four hundred
and fifty thousand dollars maximum threshold on our insurance policy.
(28:09):
That's that's a line of facts, Parloughs that gets us
to conspiracy allegedly and fraud allegedly.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Based on that email alone. Excuse me, based only email alone?
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Is it?
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Is it going to be hard for the defense to
try to rationalize why someone would suggest to their wife, hey,
add more stuff on this claim so that we're able
to reach the maximum. Is that alone at least account
(28:45):
of guilt versus the other seven he's facing it.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
I can't say it's a count of guilt. I can
say it's going to be difficult depending on This is
why jury is so important. You know, can you convince
a juror one of twelve presumably that when you said, hey, baby,
can you add some more hot ticket items to this list?
So we can get to the number we're supposed to
get to. Can you find a juror that interprets that
(29:10):
as Hey, honey, I forgot how many Chanelle flats you have?
Can you remind me so that we can make sure
that we're covering all our bases here. If you can
convince a juror to a juror to interpret it that way,
you're in good position. I think that's gonna be hard.
(29:31):
I think most jurors are gonna hear that email and
interpret it as hustle. But this is where there, this
is where who their lawyer is is gonna matter a lot.
And if this goes to trial, who is on that
jury is gonna matter a lot. You see how just
the I can give you the same the same email,
(29:52):
but I can. I could argue it, Hey honey, you
have such an enormous wardrobe, you have so many great items.
Was it was it the gucciese? Was it the Chanelle's?
Was it the van she helped me out? Or girl?
You know what, you know what it is, you know
what we're trying to do over here, Go ahead and
ask some more to this. Because we were a little light,
we're a little light on the balance, same facts, but
(30:15):
I'm arguing in it in two different ways. How successful
can you be as a litigator in getting your jewelry
to buy the version you need them to buy. That's
the brilliance of a good lawyer.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I know we have a short amount of time.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
I want to get a few more questions before I'll
let you go. In the case of Teresa and Joe,
Judai is one of the arguments that the defense team
didn't make was Teresa had no idea what she was
signing on behalf of being a wife to Joe. Joe said,
my wife had nothing to do with it. I did
everything give her leniency. A lot of people did feel
(30:50):
ebony that based on just Teresa being guilty based on
signature alone.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
That's the only sort of proof they had was her signature.
That because she was a celebrity, our best were off
and they were made an example out of the ones
they were.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
They were both found guilty, but they both served.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
They're sentencing at different times because they wanted to at
least have one parent be with their minor children.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
In this particular case, you have a.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
Married couple who are both accused of fraud. Do you
see a world where Eddie can say I did everything,
I'm guilty. Wendy had no idea what was going on.
In order for this not to be something where our
kids have to suffer for this, I am guilty. Give
her leniency and give me and throw the book at me.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
Could it happen? Sure? Will this? Will that be a
harder sell for Wendy than it was for Teresa. Yes,
and let me tell you why. First of all, let
me say, because they do have the three small children.
If worst case scenario for the Oseephos they were both
convicted and both got active jail sentences, I don't see
(32:02):
a world in which they're made to serve them concurrently.
I do believe at the same time, at the same simultaneously. Rather,
I do believe they will get to serve them back
to back for the exact same reasons you said the
JUDI were able to do.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
So.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Here's where Wendy's rightful in my opinion, rightful ownership and
pride of her education and savvy and brilliant and academic
excellence will work against her. Now, I don't want to
say speak out a turn about Teresa, but I'm not
(32:39):
familiar of Teresa having an extraordinary academic background. I'm not
familiar with Teresa having extraordinary academic or professional pursuits as
it relates to esteemed intelligence or accolades. I'm not aware
of that. We are aware of wind having at least
(33:02):
four academic professional degrees. We're aware that Wendy has worked
very successfully in academia and professionalism and media broadly. So
when if Wendy, excuse me, if Eddie were to make
the case that you laid out Carlos your honor. We
you know we've been convicted. This is all on me.
(33:24):
Throw the book at me. My wife had nothing to
do with it. She didn't know. She was ignorant to
what I had going on and what I was doing,
and she thus should be held harmless. That's gonna be
hard for a judge to buy Carlos when everybody knows,
and it's public record that your wife is brilliant. Your wife,
(33:47):
some could argue, is more educated than you are. Counselor Ocevo.
It's certainly to be believed that she is a woman
of extreme brilliance, high intelligence, and documented academic record. So
this court would find it difficult to believe that she
was near about as ignorant as you would lead us
(34:09):
to think based off this argument. See the difference.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Yeah, I do, I do, I do.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
And what's interesting is Eddie is a lawyer. Even based
on the fact that a lawyer is being accused of fraud,
in a harder case for the defense to even say
that Eddie may not have known what he was doing
and did not have that intent when he was sending
these emails and when everything else happened. And the part
(34:41):
be that question is do you think based on this
that there's a possibility of him being disbarred?
Speaker 3 (34:46):
I answer the first part first, Yes, he's held to
a higher standard. No, he will not have an easy
time making a defense claim of I didn't know. I'll
prove it to you, and I'll take some risk here, Carlos.
Let's say you and I had a contract going on.
Because I am an attorney and still hold a law license.
(35:08):
I'm not active in North Carolina now, but I still
have my license, right, the contract would be construed more
strictly against me than you. Even if the nature of
the contract was just you sold me a baloney sandwich
for two dollars, you could say, well, I didn't know
(35:29):
she was expecting it to be fried. And if I said, well,
yea right, No, of course I wanted it to be fried.
Everybody knows a baloney sandwich contract is a fried sandwich.
The court would say, none, no, no, Miss Williams. One of
y'all two went to law school. One of y'all two
took a bar exam. One of y'all two passed it.
You did, Miss Williams, So you should know that if
you expected your baloney sandwich to be fried, show it
(35:53):
to me in the four corners of the document where
you specified that you wanted a fried baloney sandwich for
the price of two dollars. See how that worked. The
contract is construed more strictly against the person with formal
legal training and legal experience. And just to show you
how minutia this plays out, because I've actually seen this.
This is a great line of questioning. By the way, Carlos,
(36:13):
you don't sometimes understand the brilliance of the minutia of
what you asked. Let's say this was me and a
law student. That law student would have some some burden,
but I would be held to a higher standard because
I completed law school and passed a bar. But if
it was you and the law student in a contract,
(36:34):
the law student would be held to a higher standard
than you. So they really do interpret it on a
case by case basis. If this was, you know, a
first year lawyer, maybe a little more leeway. To my knowledge,
Eddie is at least to think about as old as
I am. So Eddie is about twenty years in the game.
(36:55):
As an attorney that goes they have they cut us
very little margin. The expectation is that we know what
we sign, we know what we report, we know what
we call in, and we know what the hell we're doing.
That is the presumption. Now I'm not saying it's impossible
to argue your way out of that, but that is
going to be a very high threshold. The same thing
(37:16):
basically that has afforded the cephos rightfully. In my opinion,
prestige and deference and respect are all things that are
going to be held against them respectfully as it relates
to crafting a believable successful defense in a case involving fraud.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
Last question, ebid K Williams, based on what you read,
based on your expertise, does ebny K Williams think those
cephos will serve jail time, whether it's the maximum fifteen
years or six months or whatever.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Do you think they'll ultimately serve jalp If they.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
Are convicted, they will serve time. And part of that
I don't like in the sense that if that was
Mary Joe and Bobby Smith, I don't know that I
would give you that same answer their first time offender.
If they are convicted, they will be first time offenders.
It is a nonviolent crime, not saying that it is
a harmless crime, but it is a nonviolent crime. We
(38:17):
all can agree on that, as certainly we have seen
cases where people get probation and not what we call
non custodial sentences. But to me, this Sheriff's office, this
state prosecutor have already told us Carlow's king that they
are making examples out of these wealthy, famous black people.
(38:38):
They are. We know that from the press conference alone,
and we also know that Clock t when that state
attorney came out and one of the first things he
said out of his mouth was don't think of insurance
fraud as a victimless crime. He didn't have to say that,
did you Clock Tea on that? Because that was making
(39:02):
sure The first foundational premise of his remarks was that
this impacts you and me. This impacts every American that
folds an insurance policy and any capacity, and all of
us are impacted negatively. When people go about the business
of committing insurance fraud, all of our premiums rise, all
(39:24):
of our coverage decreases. He went into all of that
first and foremost. That is an indicator, Carlos, that they
intend to be as harsh and scrutinizing as legally possible
in this particular matter. And I don't like that. I
will tell you objectively, whether those semples are guilty or
(39:44):
not is not my business or even at this point
my concern. What I am concerned with is the fairness
of this process right now, and that indicates to me
that there is a tipped balancing of the scales as
it relates to the intentionality going into the case, and
I do not like that. So I think that they
(40:05):
if they are convicted, they will serve an active jail sentence.
I don't think there is any question about it. And
I think that that was determined at the onset of
the case because of all the facts that have been
laid out, because of who it is, because of how
they are perceived as wealthy, as black, as affluent, as
(40:25):
highly educated, and if this political, and don't think for
one second, Carlos, that the politics of the moment aren't
at play, because they are. They absolutely are. And there
is a cultural backlash that is happening in America again,
whether they're guilty or not. That says some of you
(40:45):
negroes have gotten way too much and we don't like it,
and we are looking to course correct in every way
available to us. And I think that is also very
much at play.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Thank you, m k Williams.
Speaker 4 (40:59):
I would love to bring you back as further information
arise from this unfortunate situation. And like Ebany K Williams said,
rain Joss, remember they are innocent until proven guilty. So
thank you, Ebany, give my best at Baby Liberty.
Speaker 3 (41:13):
Thank you dearly, See you soon by rain Drops.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
With the Lack of Effect Network.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
the Carlos King Underscore
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.