My guess is the MT and FD are broken up in the both sides of the mouth kind of sense:
(1) No animosity or love lost, just that the “biased” court system has forbidden them from communicating or communing with each other while out on bail; ankle bling — lessen the potential impact of accessory and subsequent crimes after the murder & evidence tampering; preemptive attempt to avoid additional allegations of witness tampering and witness intimidation; or, she’s served her purpose. No downside to tossing this out really as for some jurors chaos and liquify cycle easily mistaken for reasonable doubt. Just too messy; none of this makes sense; we give up; best worst outcome with this strategy: hung jury. It’s not a loss! It’s a win win!
(2) Set up chess move for the next one where FD throws MT under the bus. E.g., we can only imagine how horrified FD would feel and betrayed FD would be to discover MT actually orchestrated and executed (npi) such a vicious crime against the innocent mother of FD’s children! He can believe he actually ever trusted and believed and actually trusted in this person. She is really sociopathic and mentally ill drug user obsessed etc. Once FD discovered this (maybe he’ll say MT admitted this to him AFTER she tricked him into throwing away bloody garbage in Hartford as part of MT’s daughter’s class science fair project or scavenger hunt or community service volunteer work, well let’s just say it’s NP’s understanding that FD was horrified and cut ties.
(3) Looking forward to several motions to exclude evidence. Inconvenient babyfaced law clerk might know too much on now opposing sides of the case. Unclear whether international law or conflict of laws issues will arise, privilege issues, common law spouse or spousal privilege. If FD and MT both for sure knew JD was dead, FD was a single man. The two may be currrently married. Who can testify what as to whom and when. Is it polygamy? Is it evidence of anything? Can this be used as a shield and a sword — privilege what MT knows from coming into FD’s trial and Vice versa to avoid additional perjury risks and reputation issues, while moving to exclude any evidence the instant remarriage (likely in another jurisdiction) would be more prejudicial than probative, impairing the ability of either to receive a fair trial?
Once again, it’s another win win.
Confuse everyone.
Change it up as much as you can, like a deer or rabbit’s switchbacks to avoid the hunters.
Worst best outcome: just more potential issues for appeal.
ITA with
@LittleBitty that NP is a throw everything at the wall to see what sticks kind of guy.
Good thing for NP that FD is a good cook. They’re going to need a lot of pasta to pull off this one.
IMO/MOO
