October 30, 2025 • 37 mins
Happy True Crime Thursday! Our beloved Eboni K. Williams is back to break down the latest in the Osefo family fraud case. Wendy’s lawyer has spoken, claiming that she and Eddie were illegally arrested - and you know Eboni and Carlos are digging into every detail. They lay it all out: the facts, the fallout, and what it could mean for the Osefos moving forward.
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 (00:03):
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well. Hey, rain drops on today's episode of
Reality with the King, I got my girl and you'all
favorite Epony k Williams is black to look, not brack
but back.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
She's black and baby, we're in the brackets.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
What's going on with the Wendy and Eddie osepho case?
With more updates? But before we get into it, Ebony,
how argue my love? Oh?
Speaker 3 (01:05):
I'm doing so well, Carlos the King. Just back from
a little Judge Ebony taping in Los Angeles. So I'm
back on the East Coast and excited about it.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
So excited a lot of your fans and the rain
drops happened asking about this show. So when can we
expect it to come back on the airwaves?
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:25):
So you know, it's syndication. So we love a good
syndication because we keep it going. But the brand new
episodes those top of the year, top of the year.
They can expect brand new episodes of Judge Evitie.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay, good, So listen, raindog'rek in for a Christmas tree.
Our gift is more episode the top of the year.
So look, let's get right into the latest update, Ebony
as it relates to what's going on with Wendy and
Eddie and their alegend prime of insurance fraud. So the
(02:00):
update is this, Wendy Oseppho accuses police of illegal arrest
as she demands the fraud charges be dismissed. So Rain drops,
what's going on right now is Wendy demanded the same
of why you're in verbal communications due to an allegedly
(02:24):
unlawful interception, also claiming that unlawfully obtained admission statements or
confessions should not be allowed as evidence in court. She
also requested that the trial of co defendants be severed
from the trials of a defendant, meaning that she wants
(02:46):
her and Eddie to be tried separately. So listen, Evan,
we have a lot to talk about. But before we
get to all of that, explain to me why is
now Wendy alleging that the charges should be dropped because
in her words, her attorney's words, rather, she is alleging
(03:06):
that it was an illegal yes.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Erect Okay, So we're going to zoom out for a second, Carlos,
because this is is it's dense, uh, and it's meaty,
and it's all very standard. Actually, so I want rain
drops to know that this is not wild beyond scope
type of behavior from the case of this of this
nature and this magnitude. So as a defense lawyer, you know,
(03:33):
our job is to defend our clients zealously in every
legal parameter available to us. So there's basically two ways
in which we tend to do that. Uh, the substance
of the case. Okay, so that's kind of what we
see a trial. You know, they literally didn't do it.
But before we get to that, there's a great opportunity,
(03:53):
and any defense lawyer will tell you this, Carlos, to
get rid of the case, so to speak, eradicated, beat
the charges, so to speak, before we even get to trial.
And it's these types of pre trial motions. So that's
what y'all are looking at raindrop. This is a standard
pre trial motion that doesn't even get to whether they
(04:14):
actually did this or not. This is simply saying that
the way in which these charges even came about are illegal.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
At the onset. So this is procedural. Okay.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
This is where ca dural pre trial procedural stage, and Windy,
through her attorney, is saying that pump the brakes. We
don't even need to get to a trial because the
way in which my client has even faced charges, the
way y'all collected this evidence, the way that you have
actually charged her with these crimes is illegal, and it's
(04:48):
illegal per the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States. So the Fourth Amendment, amongst other things, Carlos,
protects all of us from being free from illegal searches
and seizures. Okay, so this is a search and seizure clause,
amongst other things. But that's the biggie. So that says
(05:09):
that no government entity can invade our privacy, can can
take from us, can search our person or home or
car or anything without probable cause.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
So that's another big legal easee word. I want you
all to stay with me.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
On probable cause. What is probable cause, Carlos. Probable cause
is a requirement before you eat start searching and patent
and all of this. You have to have a reasonable leave.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Law enforcement.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
I'm talking about the cops, the sheriff, whatever, the law enforcement,
the FBI, whoever is acting as law enforcement in the case,
must have a reasonable belief okay, that criminal activity is afoot,
that a crime. They can't just out of the clear
blue sky walk up to you off the street, Carlos,
and start patting you down, and you know, going through
(05:59):
your car and all of this. That and the third
and let's say they find contraband, drugs, weapons, whatever.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Now you're arrested.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Well, if I'm your lawyer, I'm getting all that tossed
out and my client is walking away free because you
had no probable cause to stop mister King.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Now, what does probable cause look like?
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Basic example, most people are maybe familiar with or someone
they know the odor of marijuana. So let's say you're
driving down the street and you're speeding. Excuse me, not
speeding because speeding is probable cause, because that's a crime too,
or in fact, but let's say you're driving the speed
limit and the cop pulls you over, Hey, mister King,
(06:38):
hope you're well licensing registration. As you hand over licensing registration, Carlos,
if that officer claims to smell the aroma of Marie
Juana Okay or sees maybe something that looks like contraband
and plain sight in your vehicle, that.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Can service the probable cause.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
So going to the set and then that allows everything
to come after that, the search, the seizure, the arrest.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Potentially they're all legal because.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
They are respecting the Fourth Amendment because the probable cause
requirement reasonable belief that crime is afoot has been satisfied.
Going to Wendy, her lawyer, Carlos is saying, I don't
care what y'all say y'all have on my client. I
don't care what audiotapes, what emails, what alleged confessions, what
(07:27):
statements she may or may not have made to officers
or investigators against her interests.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Y'all can't use any of it.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
It's all illegally obtained because it is all gathered in
violation of her Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
She is being they are arguing illegally.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Illegally, she has had illegal searches and seizures afoot.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
Is that making sense?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
No, No, it's makes sense because the thing is this,
what you're saying is, look, any lawyer right would at
their first step is to make sure, yes, this is
the first step, to make sure that we do not
want to go to trial, and let's try to enforce
something where our charges can be dropped so that a
(08:17):
trial is not you know, does not occur. Yes, So
any lawyer would first say, look, let's look into the
Fourth Amendment, the search and caizuar clause to make sure
that I don't care what you allss you have on
my client. We are considering this as a way of
saying that you gots I legally search her home.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Because again, I.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Want to make it very clear, and I'm gonna get
to the rest of a second. This is only doctor
Wendy's attorney.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Correct, We're not talking about Eddie at all, rain Drops.
We're gonna get to mister Ocepo, the Eddie of it
all in a minute. We are strict and this is
very important. As you said in the intro, Carlos, there's
already been a request from Wendy's legal team to bifer
Kate sever the trials. They do not want mister and
missus Osseppho tried jointly. I'm sure they have reasons for that,
(09:11):
great reasons. I'm sure they want them tried separately. So
Wendy has a lawyer, and then Eddie has a lawyer,
and they are separate counsels. They will not be collaborating
on this matter.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
So the thing with that is okay, because we're gonna
get to that in one second. When it comes to
Wendy's lawyer making this proclamation, do you think, just base
on the fact that we know it to be as
of today, do you think there's probable cause for this
(09:47):
for amendment to stick.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Yeah, it's so hard to speculate, Carlos, because we can't
see what they would have cited as the probable cause.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Now it could be.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Now, I will say to Range, it's not a very
hard burden to reach. Probable cause just means more probable
than not. Right, we call it fifty one percent. It's
not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a trial standard. Okay,
that's not the standard. The standard is reasonable belief that
criminal activity is afoot. So it could be the testimony
(10:24):
of one of the investigating officers from the alleged home burglary,
saying that, well, we're not seeing any evidence of a
third party breaking and entering, so that gives us reasonable suspicion.
See how we're possibly getting me that fraudulent activities are
(10:44):
taking place. That is an example, brain drops. I'm not
saying that's what they're citing as their probable cause.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
That would be an example.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
It could be a.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Limn of things.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
It could be that somebody testifies that they saw some
of the garments on social media or this or that,
and that triggered a reasonable suspicion to go back to
the inventory documents of what was claimed to be stolen,
and upon comparison there's a discrepancy. That's an example of
(11:18):
what the reasonable.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Cause could look like. Now I want to make clear
this too, Carlos.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
When the Wendy's lawyer is asking for all the evidence,
it's also a suppression motion, right, So it's a dismissal motion.
I'm asking for all charges against my client to be
dismissed because I'm alleging that this was an illegal search,
a violation of her Fourth Amendment right to protect against
illegal searches and seizures, and also any and all evidence,
(11:45):
as you laid out.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Carlos, We're talking about potential.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Emails, wires, audio tapes, polygraph results, anything, all the evidence.
We're asking for all of that to be suppressed, including
confessions that I was interesting, including any alleged confessions or
statements against their own interest from MISSOZPPHO. We want all
of that suppressed, your honor. We don't want any of
(12:08):
that being used as evidence at trial if there is
a trial, because we are saying that that is what
we call fruit of the poisonous tree.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Fruit of the tree. Let's go back to Adam and Eve,
ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yeah, fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal doctrine
that says anything gathered under a defective search warrant or
see you know it is seized under a defective search
warrant is rotten, it's tainted, it's poisonous. It means it
could be totally good evidence, it could really prove the
(12:43):
veracity of the claims.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
But because it was gathered and collected.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Under a defective, unconstitutional way, throw it up.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
It must be all thrown out.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
The evidence now becomes as deficient as the charging document
is that connecting.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Oh no, it's connecting majorly some rang job justice sort
of like summing up for you guys too. What Ebany
is saying is, look, when these lawyers in a separate filing,
she acts the prosecutors for all alleged evidence, a list
of witnesses, polygraph results of the witnesses, the names of
(13:23):
any confidential informants, and copies of the police reports.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Because what the lawyer is.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Saying, even if this look regardless of what you have
the basis of this being an alleged illegal search removes
all evidence from even being used as in a court
of law.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
If this goes to trial, that's correct.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
Its poisonous. Think of it, think of it as tainted.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
And I remember learning about this in law school, Carlos,
and it making so much sense right as to why
sometimes we see things as the public and we're like, well, clearly,
I mean it's on tape or we saw it or
this or that, and how did they get off and
how did they get dismissed? I mean, we all know
this happened. Oftentimes it's through this mechanism. It's because and
(14:11):
this is why if you're a law and order fan
or you watch any of these procedural shows the way
in which law enforcement on the front end, you know,
whether you know you know, you know, whether it's Stabler
and Benson or whoever, how they go about collecting evidence
is paramount. They must follow the rules and the book
(14:31):
to a t because if they don't, it could be
the best case in the world, the most got them
dead right a center or whatever. And if they if
they take one misstep, Carlos, and if they don't have
you know, a judge sign off on the search warrant,
or they don't have solid probable calls to enter the
room or into the home or into the room or
(14:52):
into the car, all that good, good evidence they got
goes out the window.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And Rain drive.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
So I of course, I was a junior in high
school when the O. J. Simpson trial was around and
the Verdi came out. And I want you guys to
really listen to what Evny K Willing is saying because
everything is about reasonable doubt. And that's something I've learned
watching the OJA trial because Rain dropped. If you remember
(15:22):
the glove when Johnny Cochran said, if it doesn't fit,
you must have quit. So remember the glove was fouled
at the crime scene and the prosecutor used that as evidence.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
And the one thing was when they had O. J.
Simpson with the plastic glove, try on the glove.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
The evidence was not thrown out. No evidence was thrown
out in the OJ trial. However, what Johnny Cockran and
his team did was the cast reasonable doubt when the
visual evidence of O. J.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Simpson putting on the glove and it didn't fit.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
That cast a reasonable doubt When Mark Ferman okay, the
police officers had seen the crime, when he was caught
on tape saying the in word yes, it cast the
doubt of okay, is the LAPD And guys, remember this
is years after the Rodney King situation happened, So the LAPD,
(16:25):
they were seen at that time as being a very racist,
apartment hostile Thank you so again, Ebany's cooking because it's
not about whether or not it's true if this does
go to trial.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Let's say it goes to trial.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Well, when these lawyers doing is casting reasonable doubt on
the onslaught just in case it goes to trial. But
obviously they want this to be thrown out. I'm fascinated
by this.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Yeah, No, it's amazing. It's amazing, And like I said,
it's not.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
A deviation Carlos from how these things typically play out.
It's the thing lawyers, you know, keep in mind. And
I am a you know, when I practiced, I was
a defense attorney. But putting that bias aside, our job
as defense attorneys is, you know, the stakes couldn't be higher.
We are normally dealing with life and or liberty of
(17:17):
human beings. So it is we take an oath, we
put our hand on a bible, you know, and we
swear before God and government that we will do everything
we can ethically do to zealously defend our clients and
their interest. So Wendy's lawyer, and any lawyer frankly worth
their salt should be doing something like this. Now I'm
(17:40):
not saying every single case, but generally speaking, why would
you not try to challenge you know, the search and
the seizure and then if that's unsuccessful, if then you
essentially get a second bite at the apple, so to speak,
once you get to the trial level and now you're challenging,
like you're saying, you know that prosecutorial standard of proof
(18:04):
beyond a reasonable doubt. So you kind of get two opportunities,
see what I'm saying here, to challenge this process. And
if I'm a defendant, I want my lawyer to take
every single opportunity to challenge what I am up against.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Yes, so now rain drops the time you've guys been
waiting for. Which is another fascination that I want miss
edby k Williams to really download and break down for us,
is the fact that Wendy and Eddie have two separate lawyers,
and Wendy's attorney wants elected to file emotions so that
(18:41):
they can be trial tried separately. So with that being said,
her husband Eddie osepho he hired a powerhouse attorney, Joseph Martha,
who previously worked on a high profile case involving former
President Bill Clinton and Malaka.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Okay, so just for you guys know he is.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
A veteran trial attorney with experience in both state and
federal courts, which I'm gonna get ebany talk about the
state and federal because as of today.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Wendy and Eddie's case is only state. It has not
reached federal just yet.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
So just note that, however, Joseph Marda represented Linda Tripp. Okay,
remember Linda Tripp was the one who Malica Lewinsky trusted
as a you know, a friend. Little did she know
that Linda Tripp was recording a conversation. So in the case,
(19:41):
Linda Tripp was accused of breaking the law when she
taped the conversation with Monica, who we all know was
involved in the sex scandal with President Clinton. So in
his filing, Eddie demanded prosecutors turn over the names once
again Ebney, of all potential witness they plan to a
(20:01):
call to testify against him.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Eddie's lawyer acts that all charges.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Be dismissed due to issues with the charging document, like
the same thing with Wendy.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Same thing. So they're doing the same thing. It's just
two separate lawyers.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
What before we get into the lawyer and his background,
the million dollars question, is this, what message is Eddie
and Whndy is sending to the courts and to the
court of public opinion and being tried separately Because a
lot of people are saying Eddie may be trying to
(20:39):
take the fall for this if it comes to that,
because they do have three small children.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Sure, yes, I mean, we can just kind of cut
to the chase.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Right.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
There's much chatter that perhaps perhaps a strategy at play
here is one co defendant in this case. Eddie assumes
responsibility so to speak of all of the charges you
know and say there was no conspiracy because conspiracy requires
two people. There was no conspiracy. My wife, the co defendant,
(21:10):
knew nothing. If indeed there was foul play here, it's
all on me, and he assumes all of that liability,
that legal responsibility himself that is being widely speculated. Is
that possible? Sure, we've seen it before. It can't happen.
But two things, it's very important that raindrops understand even
(21:32):
if that is the legal strategy mister osepho Eddie and
his legal team are trying to implement, and even if
there's agreement from Wendy and her legal team and this
is how we want it to go, prosecutors are not.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
Bound by that, Carlos.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
So it's not as if there's optionality amongst the defendants
to say I'm volunteering to take all the weight here.
Just let her off and then it just be that way,
if that makes sense. The evidence is what must be evaluated,
and then the judge and ultimately jewelry. If it gets
(22:08):
to trial level, will decide if it's believable that you know,
only one person, if any are responsible here. But certainly
I just don't want there to be a belief which
I've seen, you know, some people being confused like, oh, well,
if he's willing to take the fall, doesn't that mean
she's gonna be okay? It doesn't mean that. It means
(22:30):
that is a strategy that could be implemented, and then
they will have to see how that plays out in
front of said judge and jury.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
But that's not a sure thing, is essentially what I'm
trying to say.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
You know, it's no different than I'm sure many of
us know back in high school or college where the
young ladies holding weight so to speak, drugs for her
boyfriend and then she gets plat and then he's, oh,
you're honor, she was running it for me and don't
worry about it.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
I'll take I'll take the rap for her. It don't
go that way. It don't go that way once once
the facts are out, that is up to what we
call the trier of fact, the judge and or the jury.
It is not.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Defendant's choice or co defendant's choice the way these things
play out to be.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Very clear on that.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I'm glad you are, so
we understand that. So with that being said, him hiring
this powerhouse attorney Joseph Mrda, who was involved, I mean, Ebony,
we're talking about the biggest scandal to rock the White House,
I think, I think in history when it came to
(23:40):
Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
So you run around for Watergate, but go ahead, all right,
a little people's little we we.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Thought in our parents eye for water Gate.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yes, yes, no, you're right about that.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
In modern presidential history.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Absolutely yes.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
What message does that then, to hire someone of his
caliber to represent him in an insurance broad case with
a lawyer Ebony who is capable of representing him in
the state, which is their current filing, but also the
(24:21):
federal and if this reaches a federal then baby, we're
talking like we're talking a big deal.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Yeah, yeah, we're talking a bigger deal.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
We should say, right, yeah, bigger deal. Sorry, no, no, no, you're.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
Right, listen to me.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
I actually think it says something very good, which is
that they are taking this very seriously.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Eddie.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
Let me just speak to Eddie because that's the one
you know who's representing him. Uh.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
That means that Eddie is rightfully taking this even at
just the state level, which, to be clear, raindrops is
certainly a less severe legal consequence than anything federal would be.
To Carloser's point, everything just gets ratcheted up and some
arrange offsight be like, but why is that the case?
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Let me explain.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
It is because the federal government, as we can see
certainly very clearly in this administration, even more so than
ever before, has almost unlimited resources, unlimited resources when it
comes to prosecuting claims. So that means there are infinity
number of investigators, infinity number of expert witnesses, infinity number
(25:29):
of all the things that the prosecution will need to
prove their case, which is why federal prosecutors have over
a ninety five percent prosecution rate versus if you look
at that of almost any state in the country, it
is vastly lower because states are subject to what state
budgets and so therefore there is a massive reduction of resources.
(25:49):
There's only so many investigators that are at the helm
of a state prosecution prosecution office, There's only so many
expert witnesses. There's only so many of appeal they can go.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
So there's just a reduction of resources that are going
to be at play at the state level, which makes
it less severe than anything they could be potentially facing federally.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
As Carlos said, we're not even talking federal at this point,
and we may never be. Let's be clear that dog
might not hunt because there are certain things that elements
are are what we call them legally, Carlos, that the
state requires that the federal it could look totally different.
I do want to just drop this for something for
(26:35):
rain Drops to consider as well, because these are state charges.
That means the state government and political leadership have a
lot of power here. And it's not lost on anybody
that the current governor of Maryland is Governor Wesmore, who
(26:56):
we know has some however casual or lucid, may be
some relationship with I know his wife, the first Lady
Don Moore has had some social acquaintances with Wendy him cephone.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
So just putting that.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Out there as everybody's talking about Trump and and and
Diddy or whatever and all of these pardons and this,
that and the third. There is a political element that
might enter this conversation at some point.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
So I'm not sure if you watched last night's episode Potomac.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
I did not, but I did see the clip of
Stacy speaking with Andy. I watch What Happens Live.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
Okay, So the First Lady was at this like Derby event,
and so.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
She was actually in the episode last night.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Oh wow, I'm about to gag you. So long story short,
long story short.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
The girls are being you know, housewise, you know of
feel them being loved. Caddy and Wendy interrupts and it
says the first Lady's approaching, behave yourself. She puts her
heels back on, and her and Joseille go to speak
to the first Lady.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
And Evany K.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Williams the camera stopped, freeze frozen frame, pointed an arrow
at this person off camera, and wrote wrote on the
screen the First Lady did not want to appear on camera, right,
not at all surprised.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
I was wondering how they were So I only knew.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
This because full disclosure, I have not watched Potomac since
the binder of it all, many many moves ago.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
I loved them all.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
I loved them all and I, as you know, we
have friends, we have all we all have mutual friends
who had literally been at events and not this derby,
by the way. So in addition to this derby, there
are other social events, which makes this because Wendy is
a lady about town, you know, she is running in
(29:04):
the social circles of the social lights of Maryland. And
so it is no surprise and I'm not at all surprised,
but I am a.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
Little gagged that they actually and how they produced it.
I guess like you're saying. But yeah, so that's just.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Something again, you know, not trying to overplay that, not
trying to make any assumptions around it, but just something
for rain drops to consider that because it stays. Because
if these were federal charges, the governor and and and
and everybody else can't do anything about it. But because
they are state charges, there could be opportunity, if need be,
(29:42):
for relief at that level.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
I do want to ask you this before I let
you go, because I'm just curious in terms of your thought,
because a lot of people had a lot of things
to say about this. So last week, Ebony, uh, doctor
Wendy and Eddie both released.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Their own personal statement. So prior to.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Last Sunday, they had a lawyer speak on their behalf
asking for privacy as they figured this out. Last Sunday, however,
they released a statement separately on their Instagram pages.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
I want to read you, Ebeny's and I want to
read you something that.
Speaker 4 (30:28):
Made no statement Wendy statement.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
We did a caption on his page to Ebony.
Speaker 4 (30:34):
Oh Eddie, Oh I'm sorry, you said, Eddie.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Okay, that's okay, look at it.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
So Wendy and Eddie both left the caption on their
Instagram pages.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Yes, yes, okay, okay.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
So I want to read you.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Wendy's she posted a picture of herself and the caption
read and through it all, God remains faithful. Thank you
for the outpouring of love, support and prayers for myself
and most importantly, my family during this time. We are
forever grateful. Eddie also released his own statement, pretty much
(31:08):
echoing their faith in God. Well, some people pointed out,
is this and this is the million dollar question if
this was purposeful and if it means anything the rain
drops and the audience said hmm. And the statement from
y'all joint attorney at the time, a representative an attorney.
(31:31):
Y'all did not use the word we're innocent. In y'all
separate Instagram post talking about God.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
You both did not use the word innocent.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
A lot of people are wondering, why wouldn't they say
we deny all of this and we're innocent, like they
may have read in other people's statements.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Is that something that practs your curiosity?
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Not really, And I'm gonna tell you why.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
It's because if they're being advised early and wisely, I
wouldn't tell my clients to make any statement of factual
innocence at this stage.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Why. Because it's not of service. It's not of service?
Is that? Who does that?
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Feed the peanut gallery? The folks in the comments. They're
not in charge of my client's destiny or faith. And
if I you know what I mean, no disrespect, love
you all, but maybe you're not the triyer's or fault.
That is for your honor and the twelve ladies and
gentlemen of the jury. And because I want all options
available to me, Carlos, I just went through the ethics
(32:37):
and the oath that we take, and I need to
have all the bites at the apple, and I need
to have all the all the plays on the table
that could include.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
A plead, and it is a wholly possible. Let me
just pay a scenario.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Let's say let's say they figured they I'll just use
wind random.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Wendy and her legal team decide that the best legal
interest for her is to enter into a plea bargain.
It is possible that such plea bargain might require an
admission of guilt.
Speaker 4 (33:14):
It's possible.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
I'm gonna tell you about another kind of plea bargain
that doesn't even require that minute. I'm gonna gag you right,
gag you right back, honey.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
But let's say that, let's say one.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
You're so silly me, honey, listen, we read. But let's
say let's say one requires an admission of guilt. You
know what I wouldn't want is from my client to
now look less credible, less believable, less truthful, because.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
They're gonna say, oh, well, that's interesting. Uh.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Back in October you said you were innocent, incident and innocent,
and now you're standing before the coreroom today, accepting responsibility
and asking for mercy from the court. Well, which one
is it it's unnecessary. Now, I mentioned that there's another
type of plea that doesn't even require an admission of guilt.
It's called an Alford plea. I used to use these
(34:15):
on occasion as a defense lawyer. An Alford plea, Alfred
that comes from that's a president, that's a case, an
alphad plea. Carlos says that I could say, your honor,
I am entering into on behalf of my client, Wendyocephal
We're entering into an alphad plea, which says we're making
no admission of factual guilt. We're not saying we did
(34:37):
anything wrong at all, but we are saying that the evidence.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
Looks compelling, and we believe that legally.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
And strategically, it is in my client's best interest to
not go to trial because the evidence is so compelling.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
Even though we're not admitting any actual guilt.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Here, we're saying that the best legal thing to do
is enter into a plea bargain.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
That is the beauty of an alpha please.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
So it allows you to reap the legal benefit of
a bargain with prosecution, a pre determined deal, you know,
which normally comes with reduced sentence. And this and that
and other perks. But you actually do not make an
admission of factual guilt an Alfred plead. So but back
to you, back to your question. Those are all the
(35:26):
reasons why I am not bothered or alarmed by the
omission of a declaration of innocence at this stage of
the game. That it literally serves it's it's it's of
no service to either.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Osepha Listen, That's why I wanted to clear it up,
because I thought the safe thing. And at the end
of the day, at the end of the day, what's
interesting range jobs is this, by law, you're innothent.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Until proving guilty. So like like having.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Said, it does more harm than good for me to
do stopping for the court of public opinion. I'm going
to behave in a way that makes me do things
the right way in the court of law and that
the depths are rest.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Yes, yeah, yeah, we're not playing crisis management. You know,
no disrespect to that important work, because it's very important.
But the stakes are too high. The stakes are too high.
They can worry about image rehabilitation and all that far
down the road. This is a time to be totally
preoccupied with legal best interest, legal best interest. Yeah, and
(36:36):
one thing at a time. Like I said it, rain drops,
We're at a very preluminary stage. We have not gotten
to anything substantive yet. That's why it is way too
early to make any assumptions about substantive guilt or innocence.
This is are the charging documents even right? Is the
evidence collected properly? Are the witnesses credible? That's the stage
(36:57):
of the game we're.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
At, ladies, gentlemen, Games and Dave Ebony K Williams, thank
you so much, Sis for.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
Bringing down for us and listen.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Will We will be back excuse me when more conversations
and more talks about this occur.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
But in the meantime, guys, thank you.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
All for tapping into this episode and we'll see y'all
the next one.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Bye.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
My Loves.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership with.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
The Lack Effect Network.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
the Carlos King Underscore
Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
(00:27):
addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
scripted as well. Hey, rain drops on today's episode of
Reality with the King, I got my girl and you'all
favorite Epony k Williams is black to look, not brack
but back.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
She's black and baby, we're in the brackets.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
What's going on with the Wendy and Eddie osepho case?
With more updates? But before we get into it, Ebony,
how argue my love? Oh?
Speaker 3 (01:05):
I'm doing so well, Carlos the King. Just back from
a little Judge Ebony taping in Los Angeles. So I'm
back on the East Coast and excited about it.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
So excited a lot of your fans and the rain
drops happened asking about this show. So when can we
expect it to come back on the airwaves?
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:25):
So you know, it's syndication. So we love a good
syndication because we keep it going. But the brand new
episodes those top of the year, top of the year.
They can expect brand new episodes of Judge Evitie.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay, good, So listen, raindog'rek in for a Christmas tree.
Our gift is more episode the top of the year.
So look, let's get right into the latest update, Ebony
as it relates to what's going on with Wendy and
Eddie and their alegend prime of insurance fraud. So the
(02:00):
update is this, Wendy Oseppho accuses police of illegal arrest
as she demands the fraud charges be dismissed. So Rain drops,
what's going on right now is Wendy demanded the same
of why you're in verbal communications due to an allegedly
(02:24):
unlawful interception, also claiming that unlawfully obtained admission statements or
confessions should not be allowed as evidence in court. She
also requested that the trial of co defendants be severed
from the trials of a defendant, meaning that she wants
(02:46):
her and Eddie to be tried separately. So listen, Evan,
we have a lot to talk about. But before we
get to all of that, explain to me why is
now Wendy alleging that the charges should be dropped because
in her words, her attorney's words, rather, she is alleging
(03:06):
that it was an illegal yes.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Erect Okay, So we're going to zoom out for a second, Carlos,
because this is is it's dense, uh, and it's meaty,
and it's all very standard. Actually, so I want rain
drops to know that this is not wild beyond scope
type of behavior from the case of this of this
nature and this magnitude. So as a defense lawyer, you know,
(03:33):
our job is to defend our clients zealously in every
legal parameter available to us. So there's basically two ways
in which we tend to do that. Uh, the substance
of the case. Okay, so that's kind of what we
see a trial. You know, they literally didn't do it.
But before we get to that, there's a great opportunity,
(03:53):
and any defense lawyer will tell you this, Carlos, to
get rid of the case, so to speak, eradicated, beat
the charges, so to speak, before we even get to trial.
And it's these types of pre trial motions. So that's
what y'all are looking at raindrop. This is a standard
pre trial motion that doesn't even get to whether they
(04:14):
actually did this or not. This is simply saying that
the way in which these charges even came about are illegal.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
At the onset. So this is procedural. Okay.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
This is where ca dural pre trial procedural stage, and Windy,
through her attorney, is saying that pump the brakes. We
don't even need to get to a trial because the
way in which my client has even faced charges, the
way y'all collected this evidence, the way that you have
actually charged her with these crimes is illegal, and it's
(04:48):
illegal per the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States. So the Fourth Amendment, amongst other things, Carlos,
protects all of us from being free from illegal searches
and seizures. Okay, so this is a search and seizure clause,
amongst other things. But that's the biggie. So that says
(05:09):
that no government entity can invade our privacy, can can
take from us, can search our person or home or
car or anything without probable cause.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
So that's another big legal easee word. I want you
all to stay with me.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
On probable cause. What is probable cause, Carlos. Probable cause
is a requirement before you eat start searching and patent
and all of this. You have to have a reasonable leave.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Law enforcement.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
I'm talking about the cops, the sheriff, whatever, the law enforcement,
the FBI, whoever is acting as law enforcement in the case,
must have a reasonable belief okay, that criminal activity is afoot,
that a crime. They can't just out of the clear
blue sky walk up to you off the street, Carlos,
and start patting you down, and you know, going through
(05:59):
your car and all of this. That and the third
and let's say they find contraband, drugs, weapons, whatever.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Now you're arrested.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Well, if I'm your lawyer, I'm getting all that tossed
out and my client is walking away free because you
had no probable cause to stop mister King.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Now, what does probable cause look like?
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Basic example, most people are maybe familiar with or someone
they know the odor of marijuana. So let's say you're
driving down the street and you're speeding. Excuse me, not
speeding because speeding is probable cause, because that's a crime too,
or in fact, but let's say you're driving the speed
limit and the cop pulls you over, Hey, mister King,
(06:38):
hope you're well licensing registration. As you hand over licensing registration, Carlos,
if that officer claims to smell the aroma of Marie
Juana Okay or sees maybe something that looks like contraband
and plain sight in your vehicle, that.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Can service the probable cause.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
So going to the set and then that allows everything
to come after that, the search, the seizure, the arrest.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
Potentially they're all legal because.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
They are respecting the Fourth Amendment because the probable cause
requirement reasonable belief that crime is afoot has been satisfied.
Going to Wendy, her lawyer, Carlos is saying, I don't
care what y'all say y'all have on my client. I
don't care what audiotapes, what emails, what alleged confessions, what
(07:27):
statements she may or may not have made to officers
or investigators against her interests.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Y'all can't use any of it.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
It's all illegally obtained because it is all gathered in
violation of her Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
She is being they are arguing illegally.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Illegally, she has had illegal searches and seizures afoot.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
Is that making sense?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
No, No, it's makes sense because the thing is this,
what you're saying is, look, any lawyer right would at
their first step is to make sure, yes, this is
the first step, to make sure that we do not
want to go to trial, and let's try to enforce
something where our charges can be dropped so that a
(08:17):
trial is not you know, does not occur. Yes, So
any lawyer would first say, look, let's look into the
Fourth Amendment, the search and caizuar clause to make sure
that I don't care what you allss you have on
my client. We are considering this as a way of
saying that you gots I legally search her home.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Because again, I.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Want to make it very clear, and I'm gonna get
to the rest of a second. This is only doctor
Wendy's attorney.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Correct, We're not talking about Eddie at all, rain Drops.
We're gonna get to mister Ocepo, the Eddie of it
all in a minute. We are strict and this is
very important. As you said in the intro, Carlos, there's
already been a request from Wendy's legal team to bifer
Kate sever the trials. They do not want mister and
missus Osseppho tried jointly. I'm sure they have reasons for that,
(09:11):
great reasons. I'm sure they want them tried separately. So
Wendy has a lawyer, and then Eddie has a lawyer,
and they are separate counsels. They will not be collaborating
on this matter.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
So the thing with that is okay, because we're gonna
get to that in one second. When it comes to
Wendy's lawyer making this proclamation, do you think, just base
on the fact that we know it to be as
of today, do you think there's probable cause for this
(09:47):
for amendment to stick.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Yeah, it's so hard to speculate, Carlos, because we can't
see what they would have cited as the probable cause.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
Now it could be.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Now, I will say to Range, it's not a very
hard burden to reach. Probable cause just means more probable
than not. Right, we call it fifty one percent. It's
not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a trial standard. Okay,
that's not the standard. The standard is reasonable belief that
criminal activity is afoot. So it could be the testimony
(10:24):
of one of the investigating officers from the alleged home burglary,
saying that, well, we're not seeing any evidence of a
third party breaking and entering, so that gives us reasonable suspicion.
See how we're possibly getting me that fraudulent activities are
(10:44):
taking place. That is an example, brain drops. I'm not
saying that's what they're citing as their probable cause.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
That would be an example.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
It could be a.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Limn of things.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
It could be that somebody testifies that they saw some
of the garments on social media or this or that,
and that triggered a reasonable suspicion to go back to
the inventory documents of what was claimed to be stolen,
and upon comparison there's a discrepancy. That's an example of
(11:18):
what the reasonable.
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Cause could look like. Now I want to make clear
this too, Carlos.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
When the Wendy's lawyer is asking for all the evidence,
it's also a suppression motion, right, So it's a dismissal motion.
I'm asking for all charges against my client to be
dismissed because I'm alleging that this was an illegal search,
a violation of her Fourth Amendment right to protect against
illegal searches and seizures, and also any and all evidence,
(11:45):
as you laid out.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Carlos, We're talking about potential.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Emails, wires, audio tapes, polygraph results, anything, all the evidence.
We're asking for all of that to be suppressed, including
confessions that I was interesting, including any alleged confessions or
statements against their own interest from MISSOZPPHO. We want all
of that suppressed, your honor. We don't want any of
(12:08):
that being used as evidence at trial if there is
a trial, because we are saying that that is what
we call fruit of the poisonous tree.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
Fruit of the tree. Let's go back to Adam and Eve,
ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yeah, fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal doctrine
that says anything gathered under a defective search warrant or
see you know it is seized under a defective search
warrant is rotten, it's tainted, it's poisonous. It means it
could be totally good evidence, it could really prove the
(12:43):
veracity of the claims.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
But because it was gathered and collected.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Under a defective, unconstitutional way, throw it up.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
It must be all thrown out.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
The evidence now becomes as deficient as the charging document
is that connecting.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Oh no, it's connecting majorly some rang job justice sort
of like summing up for you guys too. What Ebany
is saying is, look, when these lawyers in a separate filing,
she acts the prosecutors for all alleged evidence, a list
of witnesses, polygraph results of the witnesses, the names of
(13:23):
any confidential informants, and copies of the police reports.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Because what the lawyer is.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Saying, even if this look regardless of what you have
the basis of this being an alleged illegal search removes
all evidence from even being used as in a court
of law.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
If this goes to trial, that's correct.
Speaker 4 (13:46):
Its poisonous. Think of it, think of it as tainted.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
And I remember learning about this in law school, Carlos,
and it making so much sense right as to why
sometimes we see things as the public and we're like, well, clearly,
I mean it's on tape or we saw it or
this or that, and how did they get off and
how did they get dismissed? I mean, we all know
this happened. Oftentimes it's through this mechanism. It's because and
(14:11):
this is why if you're a law and order fan
or you watch any of these procedural shows the way
in which law enforcement on the front end, you know,
whether you know you know, you know, whether it's Stabler
and Benson or whoever, how they go about collecting evidence
is paramount. They must follow the rules and the book
(14:31):
to a t because if they don't, it could be
the best case in the world, the most got them
dead right a center or whatever. And if they if
they take one misstep, Carlos, and if they don't have
you know, a judge sign off on the search warrant,
or they don't have solid probable calls to enter the
room or into the home or into the room or
(14:52):
into the car, all that good, good evidence they got
goes out the window.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And Rain drive.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
So I of course, I was a junior in high
school when the O. J. Simpson trial was around and
the Verdi came out. And I want you guys to
really listen to what Evny K Willing is saying because
everything is about reasonable doubt. And that's something I've learned
watching the OJA trial because Rain dropped. If you remember
(15:22):
the glove when Johnny Cochran said, if it doesn't fit,
you must have quit. So remember the glove was fouled
at the crime scene and the prosecutor used that as evidence.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
And the one thing was when they had O. J.
Simpson with the plastic glove, try on the glove.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
The evidence was not thrown out. No evidence was thrown
out in the OJ trial. However, what Johnny Cockran and
his team did was the cast reasonable doubt when the
visual evidence of O. J.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Simpson putting on the glove and it didn't fit.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
That cast a reasonable doubt When Mark Ferman okay, the
police officers had seen the crime, when he was caught
on tape saying the in word yes, it cast the
doubt of okay, is the LAPD And guys, remember this
is years after the Rodney King situation happened, So the LAPD,
(16:25):
they were seen at that time as being a very racist,
apartment hostile Thank you so again, Ebany's cooking because it's
not about whether or not it's true if this does
go to trial.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Let's say it goes to trial.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Well, when these lawyers doing is casting reasonable doubt on
the onslaught just in case it goes to trial. But
obviously they want this to be thrown out. I'm fascinated
by this.
Speaker 4 (16:52):
Yeah, No, it's amazing. It's amazing, And like I said,
it's not.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
A deviation Carlos from how these things typically play out.
It's the thing lawyers, you know, keep in mind. And
I am a you know, when I practiced, I was
a defense attorney. But putting that bias aside, our job
as defense attorneys is, you know, the stakes couldn't be higher.
We are normally dealing with life and or liberty of
(17:17):
human beings. So it is we take an oath, we
put our hand on a bible, you know, and we
swear before God and government that we will do everything
we can ethically do to zealously defend our clients and
their interest. So Wendy's lawyer, and any lawyer frankly worth
their salt should be doing something like this. Now I'm
(17:40):
not saying every single case, but generally speaking, why would
you not try to challenge you know, the search and
the seizure and then if that's unsuccessful, if then you
essentially get a second bite at the apple, so to speak,
once you get to the trial level and now you're challenging,
like you're saying, you know that prosecutorial standard of proof
(18:04):
beyond a reasonable doubt. So you kind of get two opportunities,
see what I'm saying here, to challenge this process. And
if I'm a defendant, I want my lawyer to take
every single opportunity to challenge what I am up against.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Yes, so now rain drops the time you've guys been
waiting for. Which is another fascination that I want miss
edby k Williams to really download and break down for us,
is the fact that Wendy and Eddie have two separate lawyers,
and Wendy's attorney wants elected to file emotions so that
(18:41):
they can be trial tried separately. So with that being said,
her husband Eddie osepho he hired a powerhouse attorney, Joseph Martha,
who previously worked on a high profile case involving former
President Bill Clinton and Malaka.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Okay, so just for you guys know he is.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
A veteran trial attorney with experience in both state and
federal courts, which I'm gonna get ebany talk about the
state and federal because as of today.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Wendy and Eddie's case is only state. It has not
reached federal just yet.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
So just note that, however, Joseph Marda represented Linda Tripp. Okay,
remember Linda Tripp was the one who Malica Lewinsky trusted
as a you know, a friend. Little did she know
that Linda Tripp was recording a conversation. So in the case,
(19:41):
Linda Tripp was accused of breaking the law when she
taped the conversation with Monica, who we all know was
involved in the sex scandal with President Clinton. So in
his filing, Eddie demanded prosecutors turn over the names once
again Ebney, of all potential witness they plan to a
(20:01):
call to testify against him.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
Eddie's lawyer acts that all charges.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
Be dismissed due to issues with the charging document, like
the same thing with Wendy.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
Same thing. So they're doing the same thing. It's just
two separate lawyers.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
What before we get into the lawyer and his background,
the million dollars question, is this, what message is Eddie
and Whndy is sending to the courts and to the
court of public opinion and being tried separately Because a
lot of people are saying Eddie may be trying to
(20:39):
take the fall for this if it comes to that,
because they do have three small children.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Sure, yes, I mean, we can just kind of cut
to the chase.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Right.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
There's much chatter that perhaps perhaps a strategy at play
here is one co defendant in this case. Eddie assumes
responsibility so to speak of all of the charges you
know and say there was no conspiracy because conspiracy requires
two people. There was no conspiracy. My wife, the co defendant,
(21:10):
knew nothing. If indeed there was foul play here, it's
all on me, and he assumes all of that liability,
that legal responsibility himself that is being widely speculated. Is
that possible? Sure, we've seen it before. It can't happen.
But two things, it's very important that raindrops understand even
(21:32):
if that is the legal strategy mister osepho Eddie and
his legal team are trying to implement, and even if
there's agreement from Wendy and her legal team and this
is how we want it to go, prosecutors are not.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
Bound by that, Carlos.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
So it's not as if there's optionality amongst the defendants
to say I'm volunteering to take all the weight here.
Just let her off and then it just be that way,
if that makes sense. The evidence is what must be evaluated,
and then the judge and ultimately jewelry. If it gets
(22:08):
to trial level, will decide if it's believable that you know,
only one person, if any are responsible here. But certainly
I just don't want there to be a belief which
I've seen, you know, some people being confused like, oh, well,
if he's willing to take the fall, doesn't that mean
she's gonna be okay? It doesn't mean that. It means
(22:30):
that is a strategy that could be implemented, and then
they will have to see how that plays out in
front of said judge and jury.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
But that's not a sure thing, is essentially what I'm
trying to say.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
You know, it's no different than I'm sure many of
us know back in high school or college where the
young ladies holding weight so to speak, drugs for her
boyfriend and then she gets plat and then he's, oh,
you're honor, she was running it for me and don't
worry about it.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
I'll take I'll take the rap for her. It don't
go that way. It don't go that way once once
the facts are out, that is up to what we
call the trier of fact, the judge and or the jury.
It is not.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Defendant's choice or co defendant's choice the way these things
play out to be.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
Very clear on that.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I'm glad you are, so
we understand that. So with that being said, him hiring
this powerhouse attorney Joseph Mrda, who was involved, I mean, Ebony,
we're talking about the biggest scandal to rock the White House,
I think, I think in history when it came to
(23:40):
Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
So you run around for Watergate, but go ahead, all right,
a little people's little we we.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Thought in our parents eye for water Gate.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yes, yes, no, you're right about that.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
In modern presidential history.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Absolutely yes.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
What message does that then, to hire someone of his
caliber to represent him in an insurance broad case with
a lawyer Ebony who is capable of representing him in
the state, which is their current filing, but also the
(24:21):
federal and if this reaches a federal then baby, we're
talking like we're talking a big deal.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Yeah, yeah, we're talking a bigger deal.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
We should say, right, yeah, bigger deal. Sorry, no, no, no, you're.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
Right, listen to me.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
I actually think it says something very good, which is
that they are taking this very seriously.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Eddie.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
Let me just speak to Eddie because that's the one
you know who's representing him. Uh.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
That means that Eddie is rightfully taking this even at
just the state level, which, to be clear, raindrops is
certainly a less severe legal consequence than anything federal would be.
To Carloser's point, everything just gets ratcheted up and some
arrange offsight be like, but why is that the case?
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Let me explain.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
It is because the federal government, as we can see
certainly very clearly in this administration, even more so than
ever before, has almost unlimited resources, unlimited resources when it
comes to prosecuting claims. So that means there are infinity
number of investigators, infinity number of expert witnesses, infinity number
(25:29):
of all the things that the prosecution will need to
prove their case, which is why federal prosecutors have over
a ninety five percent prosecution rate versus if you look
at that of almost any state in the country, it
is vastly lower because states are subject to what state
budgets and so therefore there is a massive reduction of resources.
(25:49):
There's only so many investigators that are at the helm
of a state prosecution prosecution office, There's only so many
expert witnesses. There's only so many of appeal they can go.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
So there's just a reduction of resources that are going
to be at play at the state level, which makes
it less severe than anything they could be potentially facing federally.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
As Carlos said, we're not even talking federal at this point,
and we may never be. Let's be clear that dog
might not hunt because there are certain things that elements
are are what we call them legally, Carlos, that the
state requires that the federal it could look totally different.
I do want to just drop this for something for
(26:35):
rain Drops to consider as well, because these are state charges.
That means the state government and political leadership have a
lot of power here. And it's not lost on anybody
that the current governor of Maryland is Governor Wesmore, who
(26:56):
we know has some however casual or lucid, may be
some relationship with I know his wife, the first Lady
Don Moore has had some social acquaintances with Wendy him cephone.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
So just putting that.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Out there as everybody's talking about Trump and and and
Diddy or whatever and all of these pardons and this,
that and the third. There is a political element that
might enter this conversation at some point.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
So I'm not sure if you watched last night's episode Potomac.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
I did not, but I did see the clip of
Stacy speaking with Andy. I watch What Happens Live.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
Okay, So the First Lady was at this like Derby event,
and so.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
She was actually in the episode last night.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Oh wow, I'm about to gag you. So long story short,
long story short.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
The girls are being you know, housewise, you know of
feel them being loved. Caddy and Wendy interrupts and it
says the first Lady's approaching, behave yourself. She puts her
heels back on, and her and Joseille go to speak
to the first Lady.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
And Evany K.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Williams the camera stopped, freeze frozen frame, pointed an arrow
at this person off camera, and wrote wrote on the
screen the First Lady did not want to appear on camera, right,
not at all surprised.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
I was wondering how they were So I only knew.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
This because full disclosure, I have not watched Potomac since
the binder of it all, many many moves ago.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
I loved them all.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
I loved them all and I, as you know, we
have friends, we have all we all have mutual friends
who had literally been at events and not this derby,
by the way. So in addition to this derby, there
are other social events, which makes this because Wendy is
a lady about town, you know, she is running in
(29:04):
the social circles of the social lights of Maryland. And
so it is no surprise and I'm not at all surprised,
but I am a.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
Little gagged that they actually and how they produced it.
I guess like you're saying. But yeah, so that's just.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Something again, you know, not trying to overplay that, not
trying to make any assumptions around it, but just something
for rain drops to consider that because it stays. Because
if these were federal charges, the governor and and and
and everybody else can't do anything about it. But because
they are state charges, there could be opportunity, if need be,
(29:42):
for relief at that level.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
I do want to ask you this before I let
you go, because I'm just curious in terms of your thought,
because a lot of people had a lot of things
to say about this. So last week, Ebony, uh, doctor
Wendy and Eddie both released.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Their own personal statement. So prior to.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Last Sunday, they had a lawyer speak on their behalf
asking for privacy as they figured this out. Last Sunday, however,
they released a statement separately on their Instagram pages.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
I want to read you, Ebeny's and I want to
read you something that.
Speaker 4 (30:28):
Made no statement Wendy statement.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
We did a caption on his page to Ebony.
Speaker 4 (30:34):
Oh Eddie, Oh I'm sorry, you said, Eddie.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Okay, that's okay, look at it.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
So Wendy and Eddie both left the caption on their
Instagram pages.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
Yes, yes, okay, okay.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
So I want to read you.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Wendy's she posted a picture of herself and the caption
read and through it all, God remains faithful. Thank you
for the outpouring of love, support and prayers for myself
and most importantly, my family during this time. We are
forever grateful. Eddie also released his own statement, pretty much
(31:08):
echoing their faith in God. Well, some people pointed out,
is this and this is the million dollar question if
this was purposeful and if it means anything the rain
drops and the audience said hmm. And the statement from
y'all joint attorney at the time, a representative an attorney.
(31:31):
Y'all did not use the word we're innocent. In y'all
separate Instagram post talking about God.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
You both did not use the word innocent.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
A lot of people are wondering, why wouldn't they say
we deny all of this and we're innocent, like they
may have read in other people's statements.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Is that something that practs your curiosity?
Speaker 4 (31:56):
Not really, And I'm gonna tell you why.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
It's because if they're being advised early and wisely, I
wouldn't tell my clients to make any statement of factual
innocence at this stage.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Why. Because it's not of service. It's not of service?
Is that? Who does that?
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Feed the peanut gallery? The folks in the comments. They're
not in charge of my client's destiny or faith. And
if I you know what I mean, no disrespect, love
you all, but maybe you're not the triyer's or fault.
That is for your honor and the twelve ladies and
gentlemen of the jury. And because I want all options
available to me, Carlos, I just went through the ethics
(32:37):
and the oath that we take, and I need to
have all the bites at the apple, and I need
to have all the all the plays on the table
that could include.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
A plead, and it is a wholly possible. Let me
just pay a scenario.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Let's say let's say they figured they I'll just use
wind random.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Wendy and her legal team decide that the best legal
interest for her is to enter into a plea bargain.
It is possible that such plea bargain might require an
admission of guilt.
Speaker 4 (33:14):
It's possible.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
I'm gonna tell you about another kind of plea bargain
that doesn't even require that minute. I'm gonna gag you right,
gag you right back, honey.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
But let's say that, let's say one.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
You're so silly me, honey, listen, we read. But let's
say let's say one requires an admission of guilt. You
know what I wouldn't want is from my client to
now look less credible, less believable, less truthful, because.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
They're gonna say, oh, well, that's interesting. Uh.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Back in October you said you were innocent, incident and innocent,
and now you're standing before the coreroom today, accepting responsibility
and asking for mercy from the court. Well, which one
is it it's unnecessary. Now, I mentioned that there's another
type of plea that doesn't even require an admission of guilt.
It's called an Alford plea. I used to use these
(34:15):
on occasion as a defense lawyer. An Alford plea, Alfred
that comes from that's a president, that's a case, an
alphad plea. Carlos says that I could say, your honor,
I am entering into on behalf of my client, Wendyocephal
We're entering into an alphad plea, which says we're making
no admission of factual guilt. We're not saying we did
(34:37):
anything wrong at all, but we are saying that the evidence.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
Looks compelling, and we believe that legally.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
And strategically, it is in my client's best interest to
not go to trial because the evidence is so compelling.
Speaker 4 (34:56):
Even though we're not admitting any actual guilt.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Here, we're saying that the best legal thing to do
is enter into a plea bargain.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
That is the beauty of an alpha please.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
So it allows you to reap the legal benefit of
a bargain with prosecution, a pre determined deal, you know,
which normally comes with reduced sentence. And this and that
and other perks. But you actually do not make an
admission of factual guilt an Alfred plead. So but back
to you, back to your question. Those are all the
(35:26):
reasons why I am not bothered or alarmed by the
omission of a declaration of innocence at this stage of
the game. That it literally serves it's it's it's of
no service to either.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Osepha Listen, That's why I wanted to clear it up,
because I thought the safe thing. And at the end
of the day, at the end of the day, what's
interesting range jobs is this, by law, you're innothent.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Until proving guilty. So like like having.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Said, it does more harm than good for me to
do stopping for the court of public opinion. I'm going
to behave in a way that makes me do things
the right way in the court of law and that
the depths are rest.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Yes, yeah, yeah, we're not playing crisis management. You know,
no disrespect to that important work, because it's very important.
But the stakes are too high. The stakes are too high.
They can worry about image rehabilitation and all that far
down the road. This is a time to be totally
preoccupied with legal best interest, legal best interest. Yeah, and
(36:36):
one thing at a time. Like I said it, rain drops,
We're at a very preluminary stage. We have not gotten
to anything substantive yet. That's why it is way too
early to make any assumptions about substantive guilt or innocence.
This is are the charging documents even right? Is the
evidence collected properly? Are the witnesses credible? That's the stage
(36:57):
of the game we're.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
At, ladies, gentlemen, Games and Dave Ebony K Williams, thank
you so much, Sis for.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
Bringing down for us and listen.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Will We will be back excuse me when more conversations
and more talks about this occur.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
But in the meantime, guys, thank you.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
All for tapping into this episode and we'll see y'all
the next one.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Bye.
Speaker 4 (37:22):
My Loves.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership with.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
The Lack Effect Network.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
the Carlos King Underscore
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.