0:02

Previously on Heeled,

0:04

Here comes Chuck

0:04

Jones stealing shoes from Donald

0:07

Trump's girlfriend. Yeah, I mean

0:07

the press went crazy.

0:09

He starts making

0:09

outrageous demands.

0:12

Chuck Jones says he will cooperate with prosecutors on one condition, he

0:14

wants the shoes back.

0:17

We at the DA's office wanted the case to go with Donald and Marla wanted the

0:19

case to go away. Now, Chuck, not

0:21

so much.

0:22

Jones may in

0:22

fact be concerned because he's

0:25

hired criminal defense attorney

0:25

Sal Alosco to replace his first

0:29

attorney, Herold Price

0:29

Fahringer.

0:32

We looked at the charges and we decided, you know what, we're gonna offer this guy

0:34

a deal of a lifetime. Chuck

0:36

Jones reappears and he walks

0:36

back to the door. And very

0:40

importantly, he looks out the

0:40

peep hole.

0:42

Donald is

0:42

calling off the wedding, Marla

0:46

is destined to be a baby mama

0:46

and not the second Mrs. Trump.

0:52

It's destroying my reputation again here. And now not to be married

0:53

before we have the baby. Oh my

0:57

god.

0:57

It's like one of those movies, right where people are on this raft. And there's a

0:59

raging river and like you had

1:02

you know, this is a huge

1:02

waterfall, right? Everybody

1:04

knows it's coming. But you can't

1:04

stop it.

1:08

I'm your host,

1:08

Tricia LaFache, and this is

1:11

The Curious Case of

1:11

Marla Trump's Shoes."

1:16

Good morning.

1:18

Hi.

1:19

How are you?

1:20

Oh, I'm great.

1:21

Good. Glad to have you here.

1:22

Thank you.

1:22

Last time, we

1:22

were talking about Chuck's

1:26

decision to not accept the ACD

1:26

the DA's office was going to

1:31

head towards a grand jury. And

1:31

you described it kind of as a

1:35

raging river rapids where

1:35

everybody's headed towards the

1:39

waterfall and they see the

1:39

waterfall coming, but there's

1:41

nothing else they can do. And

1:41

what did you mean by that?

1:43

You try to do

1:43

the right thing. And the right

1:46

thing doesn't happen. We had

1:46

hoped that the case would go

1:49

away. We thought we made a very,

1:49

very legitimate offer to him. It

1:52

didn't go away. They turned it

1:52

down. And so yes, the next step

1:55

was us to proceed towards the grand jury.

1:58

It boggles my

1:58

mind that Chuck just didn't want

2:01

to take this plea and continue

2:01

his profession. So what do you

2:05

think Sal Alosco was thinking at

2:05

the time?

2:08

I think Chuck's lawyer was probably disappointed to get an ACD off of felony is

2:09

an amazing job as a criminal

2:13

defense attorney, right? I

2:13

talked about why we made those

2:16

offers, and his client was

2:16

refusing that and he wasn't

2:19

going to go. Second thing, he's

2:19

probably thinking is well,

2:22

alright, my clients not going to

2:22

take the ACD, maybe we put the

2:25

DA's office up against the wall.

2:25

After I was a prosecutor in New

2:29

York for five years in the

2:29

Manhattan DA's office, I was a

2:31

criminal defense attorney for 10

2:31

years. And sometimes you will

2:36

stare down the prosecution and

2:36

say, go ahead indict it.

2:39

And that does not happen in federal court.

2:41

That's a little bit different. But it's a court because we had such a clogged

2:43

system and there were so many

2:45

different cases to prosecute,

2:45

that we would make decisions

2:48

based on you know, do we really

2:48

want to move forward with this

2:51

case?

2:51

So he's flexing?

2:52

I don't know if he's flexing, you know, I think he's disappointed. I think he's

2:54

hoping. It's what he's doing.

2:58

And that is not what happened here.

2:59

No, no, that's not what happened. We went to the grand jury.

3:09

Okay, so Kevin,

3:09

talk to us about the grand jury

3:12

process in New York.

3:14

Sure. I mean, the grand jury process is something that a lot of

3:15

listeners probably don't really know about. There's between 16

3:17

and 23 people sitting in a room.

3:21

And if you think about the room,

3:21

it's kind of like a college

3:24

classroom, right? There's stack

3:24

layers of people sitting in desk

3:28

chairs, like you would get in

3:28

high school or, you know, even

3:30

some colleges. 16 to 23 people

3:30

would sit in this room, and they

3:34

would hear cases all day from

3:34

the prosecutor in New York

3:37

County. It's just the

3:37

prosecutor, a stenographer and

3:41

the grand jurors and the witnesses.

3:43

No judge.

3:44

No, judge.

3:44

That is wild.

3:44

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in

3:48

the grand jury, unlike trial,

3:48

hearsay is admissible.

3:52

That's correct.

3:53

For those of you

3:53

who don't know what hearsay is,

3:55

the legal definition of hearsay

3:55

is an out of court statement,

3:58

which is being offered for the

3:58

truth of the matter asserted. So

4:02

when something is he said, she

4:02

said, but then after it, you say

4:05

facts.

4:06

Correct. It's

4:06

done that way soo you can

4:08

basically move through the process quickly.

4:10

Right. So you can basically say whatever you want.

4:12

Yeah, I mean, look, you're under oath, the witnesses are underoath. So

4:14

that's important. The judge will

4:17

read the grand jury minutes at

4:17

some point. So the judge will

4:20

make a decision whether or not

4:20

there was probable cause that

4:22

the defendant committed the crime.

4:24

So tell tell the

4:24

listeners what what's the

4:26

standard for probable cause?

4:27

Well, layman's

4:27

terms, it's, you know, more

4:29

likely than not.

4:30

More likely than not right.

4:31

People have said

4:31

that it's very easy to indict

4:34

somebody in New York State. And

4:34

in fact, that is true.

4:37

The standard is

4:37

so low, that there is a famous

4:41

legal phrase.

4:42

There was a judge named Sol Wachtler, who was the chief judge of the Court

4:44

of Appeals in New York State and

4:46

what he had said was any

4:46

prosecutor can indict a ham

4:51

sandwich.

4:51

You can indict a ham sandwich. Ham sandwich. Ham sandwich. Ham

4:53

sandwich indictment. Grand jury

4:57

will indict a ham sandwich.

4:58

Wachtler's

4:58

career as the chief judge did

5:00

not end on a high note. No, it did not.

5:02

He was forced to resign after he

5:02

No, it didn't. was arrested and charged with

5:06

stalking, extortion,

5:10

racketeering and blackmail.

5:10

Stemming from the plot to stop

5:14

his mistress, Joy Silverman,

5:14

from leaving him. He eventually

5:18

pled guilty to the stalking and

5:18

to harassment and to threatening

5:22

to kidnap Silverman's daughter.

5:22

He served 13 months in prison

5:27

for his crimes. Ouch. But he

5:27

will always be known as the man

5:32

who created one of the most

5:32

commonly used phrases in legal

5:35

discussions that a prosecutor

5:35

has the power to indict a ham

5:41

sandwich. Okay, back to Chuck.

5:41

So we're going to talk

5:48

specifically a little bit about

5:48

the grand jury proceedings and

5:53

the people for Chuck Jones. Yeah.

5:54

So you have

5:54

Marla Maples testifying before

5:57

the grand jury?

5:58

Yes. Is the victim she she does fight. Yes.

6:00

Okay. In the

6:00

article under the headline,

6:03

Marla laces shoe case, it's

6:03

reported that Marla testified

6:07

for over three and a half hours.

6:10

It's a total exaggeration. She did not testify for three and a half

6:12

hours, the whole case probably

6:15

took 40 minutes to present.

6:18

While the article says that it came from an informed source.

6:22

Okay, these

6:22

newspapers wrote anything they

6:25

want to write. Right and then

6:25

they say sources close to the

6:28

investigation or.

6:29

Why do you think

6:29

that they would say three and a

6:32

half hours if if it was undetermined?

6:33

It's it's a sexier headline, right? It's a sexier thing to say in the

6:35

papers like she was there.

6:37

Poor Marla. Poor

6:37

Marla.

6:39

I mean, look, I

6:39

can't sit still for 20 minutes

6:42

before getting bored. I'm not

6:42

gonna have the grand jury sit

6:44

there for three and a half hours

6:44

listening to her babble on about

6:47

her shoes.

6:47

Right. So this

6:47

is also from the same article

6:50

under the headline Marla laces

6:50

shoe case. The testimony

6:54

followed a face to face meeting

6:54

over the Easter weekend, during

6:58

which Maples and Trump pleaded

6:58

with Jones to enter counseling

7:01

rather than face what would

7:01

undoubtedly be a public and

7:05

sorted trial. These guys were

7:05

still meeting with Chuck, the

7:11

weekend before the scheduled her

7:11

scheduled grand jury testimony.

7:15

I mean, look,

7:15

this case was very unusual. Um,

7:18

I obviously was not involved

7:18

with that meeting, nor were any

7:21

of my colleagues. Did it happen?

7:21

I mean, probably something like

7:26

that happened. They'd always

7:26

made the point, Donald and Marla

7:30

that they want to Chuck to get

7:30

some counseling. So were they

7:32

meeting with him? Maybe? Look,

7:32

it's not the best thing that you

7:36

want in a case you don't want

7:36

your victim meeting with the

7:38

defendant.

7:39

So she showed up

7:39

to the grand jury, regardless of

7:42

the Easter weekend summit. And

7:42

she testified.

7:44

She did.

7:45

And what did she

7:45

testify to for all that time?

7:48

Well, I mean, first of all, it wasn't a lot of time. Secondly, it was...uhh

7:52

Nothing gets

7:52

past you Kevin J. Hynes.

7:54

I can't tell you

7:54

exactly what she testified to.

7:57

Because in New York State, the

7:57

grand jury testimony is secret.

8:01

Oh, come on to

8:01

get your tell us something...

8:03

Generally...Yeah.

8:03

she testified that she knew the

8:05

defendant that they had a

8:05

business relationship. She

8:08

testified that she did not give

8:08

him permission and authority to

8:12

be in her apartment. She

8:12

testified that she did not give

8:16

him permission and authority to

8:16

take her shoes and underwear,

8:20

stockings and whatever else. And

8:20

then she also testified to the

8:24

fact that she was present during

8:24

the search of his office and

8:27

that she was able to identify

8:27

her shoes underwear and other

8:31

stuff.

8:32

Did you happen

8:32

to notice what shoes she had on

8:34

the day of the grand jury?

8:35

Come on now. Are you out of your mind?

8:37

That actually

8:37

think that the papers report on

8:39

them that they were a brand new

8:39

pair of metallic gold Charles

8:43

Jourdan.

8:44

I mean, look, you know....

8:45

Ballet falts I believe.

8:46

You know me a

8:46

long time Trisha. I don't even

8:48

know what tennis shoes I'm wearing.

8:50

They're, Jordan's. Okay, so who else testified?

8:52

Giannetta and

8:52

Higgins the two cops. You know,

8:55

Detective William Lynch.

8:57

Okay.

8:57

Testified.

8:58

William Lynch.

8:59

William Lynch.

8:59

They testified about what they

9:01

knew about the case. They were called to the scene they had conversations with Chuck as a

9:03

result, Chuck decided to give

9:06

them permission to search the

9:06

office and all the things they

9:09

recovered the the shoes. The

9:09

over 30 pairs of shoes that

9:12

Marla identified as hers, her

9:12

her underwear, her bra, panties,

9:17

frilly. Oh, and the guns and the

9:17

guns and Spike Magazine.

9:21

Spike Magazine.

9:21

So what was the result of the

9:24

district attorney's presentation

9:24

to the grand jury?

9:27

So we presented all the evidence we charged them on the law. We told them we'd

9:28

like you consider burglary and

9:32

criminal possession of stolen

9:32

property. Weapons. Those are the

9:35

charges we then step out of the

9:35

room, the door closes they vote.

9:39

And in this case, you then come

9:39

back in you say did you vote

9:42

they say yes. And they tell you

9:42

vote.

9:44

Did you vote?

9:44

Did you vote?

9:44

And then they tell us, you know

9:47

whether or not there's a true

9:47

bill and what a true bill means

9:50

whether or not 12 jurors, at

9:50

least 12 jurors had voted to

9:54

indict meaning that there was

9:54

probable cause that these crimes

9:56

were committed.

9:57

Did you get the true bill?

9:58

We did get the true bill.

9:59

And on all three charges?

10:01

On all three

10:01

charges because as Sol Wachtler

10:04

would say, a prosecutor can

10:04

indict a ham sandwich.

10:08

Ham sandwich, ham sandwich, that ham sandwich is guilty.

10:15

Okay, so what

10:15

happens next? Because there's

10:17

always somebody willing to talk

10:17

to the press, especially in

10:21

Chuck's case, the indictment is

10:21

leaked to the press.

10:24

Yeah. I don't know how that happened because it's not supposed to happen.

10:26

Indictments are sealed until the

10:29

the arraignment, the Supreme Court arraignment.

10:31

Okay.

10:32

And in this

10:32

case, just like any other case,

10:34

what that means is that they're

10:34

secret, right. You're not

10:36

supposed to tell anybody whether

10:36

or not an indictment was voted.

10:39

In the old days, it used to be

10:39

they would take the indictment,

10:42

they would type it up, and then

10:42

they put it in an envelope and

10:45

seal it.

10:46

Okay. So it's a literal seal.

10:48

Yeah. And I

10:48

mean, you would not unseal it

10:50

until you're in the arraignment

10:50

a couple weeks later, when the

10:54

judge would actually open the envelope.

10:55

Stop. So it was a surprise to everybody.

10:57

If you're in Supreme Court, you know that you've got to be reined. Right?

10:59

Yeah. leaking to the press about

11:02

unsealed indictments is a crime

11:02

in New York. Having said that,

11:07

back then it always happened.

11:07

There was some sort of leak and

11:10

those leaks came from different places. They came from the defense side, because you'd have

11:11

to tell the defendant, you have

11:14

to be in court for your arraignment. They would come from the cops sometimes, in my

11:16

experience, never came from the

11:20

DA's office, but probably

11:20

happened also.

11:22

But what's interesting about you saying that is in the article under the

11:24

headline, "Marla's Ex-Soulmate

11:29

Indicted", the first line is

11:29

"New Yorkers have another sorted

11:33

celebrity trial to look forward

11:33

to." This article came out

11:37

before Chuck was arraigned on

11:37

the indictment. So as you're

11:41

saying it is a true leak.

11:42

Yeah, this is a leak this there was no arraignment yet. So obviously,

11:44

you know, we knew that the case

11:47

was indicted, the defense knew

11:47

because we called them up and

11:50

said, hey, you know, you've been

11:50

indicted and you can.

11:53

Produce Chuck.

11:54

Yeah. But you know, the newspapers are not supposed to know, having said

11:56

that. Newspapers always find

11:58

out.

11:58

In the article,

11:58

"Sal Alosco, Chuck's lawyer," is

12:02

quoted as saying of the

12:02

indictment, "Chuck is upset.

12:07

It's affecting his life, his

12:07

family. These two have been

12:11

friends for years. This matter

12:11

should have been resolved

12:14

between themselves. Now it has

12:14

to go through a whole trial. And

12:18

it's tragic. It's tragic on both

12:18

sides."

12:23

Yeah, there's a couple things there. Right. So it's not tragic, right? First of

12:25

all, it's not tragic. There are

12:28

tragic shit going on.

12:28

There's a lot of tragic things in the world. I would not. I would not call

12:30

Chuck turning down an ACD and

12:35

forcing the DA to indict him.

12:35

Tragic

12:37

And to your point, I mean, Chuck can be upset. But I mean, we we gave

12:39

Chuck every opportunity not to

12:43

be in this mess that he was in.

12:44

Oh, he poked the bear.

12:45

He poked the bear. And

12:45

the other thing that's really

12:48

important about what Alosco said

12:48

at that point, he said it's

12:50

tragic on both sides.

12:52

Yeah.

12:52

And again, as a

12:52

prosecutor prosecuting a case

12:56

and worrying about your victim.

12:57

Yeah.

12:58

And worrying

12:58

about the case, possibly having

13:00

to go to trial. That type of

13:00

talk in my view was incendiary.

13:05

Right? Basically, it was a

13:05

floater of, you know, yeah, it

13:08

may be bad for my guy, but it's

13:08

gonna be bad for your guys, too.

13:11

Yeah.

13:11

And, you know,

13:11

that's not the type of

13:13

negotiations that should be

13:13

going on at that point. Right.

13:16

Did you see a lot of defense attorneys in your ten year of being in the DA's

13:18

office function this way?

13:20

I mean, look, there was always this, you know, you put up your guys, I'll put

13:21

up mine. Let's see what happened.

13:23

Right.

13:24

Um, you know, as

13:24

a defense attorney, you always

13:26

want to look strong. But in this

13:26

particular case, those types of

13:31

comments to the press made me

13:31

feel like, this, this thing may

13:36

end up at trial.

13:37

Yeah. The

13:37

article goes on to say, Trump,

13:41

who participated in attempts to

13:41

settle the matter, told the

13:44

Daily News. "It's a very sad

13:44

situation. And I feel very badly

13:48

about it. It's too bad that

13:48

Chuck could have worked out his

13:51

problems but wasn't able to.

13:51

It's very tough for Marla. When

13:55

they found out it was Chuck. She

13:55

was devastated."

13:58

I just kept asking, why did you do this? Why did you do this?

14:01

So here goes

14:01

Trump, talking to the media and

14:04

just fixating himself right in

14:04

the middle again, of this whole

14:08

fiasco.

14:09

He is somebody

14:09

who was definitely in the middle

14:11

of this on the press side,

14:11

there's no doubt again, he was

14:14

not a witness to the case. Nor

14:14

has he been speaking to the

14:18

trial prosecutors or the

14:18

investigating prosecutors in any

14:20

way.

14:21

I think that we

14:21

should underscore at this point.

14:23

I don't know that we have this

14:23

was a situation that was causing

14:27

a lot of strife between Donald

14:27

and Marla and they already had a

14:31

very contemptuous relationship.

14:31

It's actually fascinating

14:35

because in all of these

14:35

articles, maybe upwards of 100

14:39

articles I've lost track, Marla

14:39

is almost never quoted. Marla

14:44

herself is almost never quoted.

14:44

If there's a suggestion of

14:47

anything that Marla said it's

14:47

through somebody else.

14:51

If you're the victim of a crime, don't talk to the press. There's no there's

14:52

nothing good that comes to that.

14:55

Well, she was devastated, Kevin.

14:56

That's what we

14:56

were told. I mean, Trisha, you

14:59

gotta admit If you put yourself

14:59

in Marla's position, she

15:02

would...

15:02

You mean in Marla's... put myself in Marla's...

15:04

Shoes!

15:05

Yes, yes. Yeah.

15:07

She had a

15:07

friend, colleague, somebody who

15:10

worked for her who was stealing

15:10

her fucking shoes.

15:13

For like a really long time!

15:15

How would you feel if one of your friends started stealing your shoes and

15:17

you find out that it's one of

15:19

your best friends....

15:23

Be that as it

15:23

may, Jennifer English, the

15:25

spokeswoman for the DA

15:25

Morgenthau at the time was

15:28

quoted as saying the case is

15:28

going forward. The arraignment

15:32

on the indictment is set for

15:32

next week. Yeah, tragic or not,

15:37

devastating or whatever.

15:39

This train was moving forward.

15:40

Choo choo. Next up, Lynne Jones throws her

15:44

two cents into the mix. Chuck's

15:49

wife speaks. Tell us how you

15:49

really feel Lynne, in the

15:53

headline, "Her husband indicted.

15:53

She's Marla's arch enemy." I

15:58

love this headline. Yesterday,

15:58

Lynne Jones was pretty verbal to

16:03

the press about the Donald and

16:03

Marla, saying "she's destroyed

16:08

one American family and she's

16:08

trying to destroy another and I

16:12

won't stand for it." So how was

16:12

she going to prevent it? Quote,

16:18

"however she has to starting

16:18

with the truth." Said a source

16:22

close to the Jones'. I think

16:22

this was Tom Fitzsimmons. If the

16:26

source, by the way.

16:27

A good friend.

16:28

And finally, the

16:28

article goes on to say, "rumors

16:32

were flying about Jones penning

16:32

his own version of the

16:36

Trump-Maple saga, and several

16:36

publishing houses have

16:38

approached him." Quote, "he

16:38

wasn't thinking about it before

16:42

but now, he feels he has no

16:42

obligation to them what-so-ever.

16:48

He feels they nailed him to the

16:48

wall."

16:53

Yeah, this is

16:53

all before the arraignment and

16:56

obviously again the press is

16:56

having a field day.

16:58

A new twist in

16:58

the Marla Maples shoe caper.

17:00

Maples' publicist Chuck Jones is

17:00

charged with stealing her high

17:03

heeled shoes. Now Jones' wife is

17:03

speaking out, she told The New

17:07

York Post that "Maples and

17:07

Donald Trump are publicity

17:09

seekers that they just want to

17:09

drum up interest for Marla's

17:12

Broadway opening."

17:14

What Lynne Jones said was pretty harsh. Right? You know, saying that Marla

17:16

ruined one family it was gonna

17:21

ruin another. Pretty on point

17:21

though, right? So I mean, I

17:24

gotta give it to her. She's, you

17:24

know, she's standing by her man.

17:26

That's cool. I get it. I get it.

17:29

And I love that

17:29

she's doing that publicly. But I

17:31

hope in private, Chuck is

17:31

sleeping on the couch cuddling a

17:34

pair of somebody else's shoes.

17:34

Because come on, man. This is

17:38

not cool.

17:39

Let me ask you this. What would you do? If you found that your man was stealing

17:41

some shoes?

17:43

My man can't

17:43

even get an email from another

17:45

bitch without getting in trouble. You know what I'm saying?

17:48

Do you? Do you

17:48

on occasion look in his closet

17:51

to see what he's got in there?

17:52

No, I don't

17:52

because this stupid idiot is

17:54

signed into my computer under

17:54

his email, like, Hello. I like

17:58

that. I like that.

18:00

And so the other thing I would say is this, though, what was a little bit

18:02

questionable was this idea that

18:07

he was gonna go write a book.

18:07

Right.

18:09

And that's not a Lynne Jones quote from this article read.

18:11

Correct.

18:12

That's an

18:12

unnamed source that is close to

18:14

the Jones'.

18:15

I do remember

18:15

there being a lot of talk that

18:17

in addition to him having the

18:17

nude photographs, in addition to

18:20

him having the diary, that he

18:20

was definitely penning a book.

18:24

And these are the types of

18:24

things that when you're a

18:26

prosecutor, you start worrying.

18:26

Is this going to make the victim

18:29

look bad? Is this guy putting

18:29

together a defense in which he's

18:33

going to try to trash the

18:33

victim? And, you know, back then

18:36

our job as prosecutors was to

18:36

present cases that we can prove

18:39

beyond a reasonable doubt. But

18:39

also, I always viewed our job as

18:42

protecting victims.

18:43

Yeah.

18:43

And so when you see these types of quotes in the newspaper, it makes you think

18:45

here we go again, right? This is

18:49

tragic on both sides. Marla is

18:49

going to have to deal with those

18:52

pictures. You know, I'm going to

18:52

be writing a book. I don't want

18:54

to hear this right. We're gonna try this case. We're gonna try this case, but don't be

18:56

threatening my victim through

18:59

the press.

19:00

Well, first I want to say babe, I'm sorry for calling you a stupid idiot. He's

19:02

a sweet guy. Second, could you

19:07

think of what Chuck would call

19:07

his book?

19:09

The title of the

19:09

book?

19:12

Yeah.

19:13

Um, how about

19:13

Heeled: The Curious Case of

19:16

Marla Trump's Shoes.

19:18

I love that.

19:18

What if it was the middleman? Me

19:22

and Marla's mules? All right,

19:22

because the book is gonna be all

19:29

about you know how he was

19:29

running interference for Trump

19:32

when he was married to Ivana

19:32

right, or Marla's you know,

19:35

sexcapades with Bolton and

19:35

Mohamed Hadid?

19:38

Well, when I was, when I was a criminal defense attorney, I used to say

19:39

that the best song for a

19:43

defendant was..."It wasn't me."

19:46

Shaggy. Our

19:46

Chuck is arraigned on the

19:54

indictment. So let's talk a

19:54

little bit about the arraignment

19:57

process generally and as it

19:57

relates to Chuck.

19:59

The arraignment

19:59

process is all about the

20:01

defendant being informed on what

20:01

charges the grand jury voted. Th

20:05

judge reads the charges, hands

20:05

copy of the indictment to th

20:08

defense attorney, and th

20:08

defendant is present and plead

20:11

guilty or not guilty.

20:12

Right.

20:13

In Chuck's case,

20:13

we were assigned Judge Richard

20:15

T. Andrias. He was part 63 in

20:15

the day.

20:18

Wow.

20:19

And Andrias'

20:19

courtroom was this pretty

20:22

cavernous place, right. There

20:22

was probably about 25 rows of

20:27

benches, in the courtroom. It

20:27

had gigantic ceilings, 25 foot

20:31

ceilings. It was a majestic

20:31

place. And it was in 100 Center

20:36

Street on the 13th floor. I do

20:36

remember that.

20:39

Lucky number 13.

20:41

For Chuck.So in

20:41

Chuck's arraignment, what

20:43

happened was the prosecution was

20:43

there. I was there. The defense

20:47

attorney was there, Sal Alosco.

20:47

And Chuck was there. And it was

20:52

packed. Right. So they were like

20:52

probably 30 people from the

20:55

press.

20:56

DA's office.

20:57

There were some

20:57

people looky loos from the DA's

21:00

office to see what was gonna go

21:00

on with this case. You know,

21:03

people from the defense bar were

21:03

there. Just average spectators,

21:06

right? Everybody knew that this was going down.

21:08

Well, also, he wasn't the only person being arraigned on that day. So

21:09

there's crying babies and baby

21:13

mama's and...

21:14

Other defen ants, the defense attornies, sur , but everyone was there to see

21:16

Chuck. Right. And it was the

21:18

irst time I met Chuck in pe

21:18

son. Right. So generally sp

21:22

aking, you do not have a conver

21:22

ation with the defendant when yo

21:26

are prosecuting a case. Thi

21:26

case, unlike any other ca

21:30

e that I was ever involve

21:30

in. I did have a conversation

21:33

Okay, tell us about that. with Chuck.

21:35

Well, I walked up to the bench to do the arraignment and...

21:37

You said nice shoes... (chuckles).

21:38

No, I did not

21:38

say anything. We I just looked

21:41

over at him. He caught my eye

21:41

and he's and he just said out

21:43

loud, "It's nice to finally meet

21:43

you. And I know that you're just

21:47

doing your job." And it struck

21:47

me as like, it made me feel like

21:52

he didn't really understand what was going on.

21:54

I am stuck like

21:54

Chuck right now like if you guys

21:57

can see me my mouth is really a

21:57

gape. He said to you, "I

22:00

understand that you're just

22:00

doing your job." What is he the

22:04

head of the Bonanno Crime Family?

22:06

It felt so

22:06

strange. And you know, I think

22:10

it was kind of like no hard

22:10

feelings type of comment. But I

22:13

mean, you have to remember I you

22:13

know, the first time I'm meeting

22:15

this guy, right? I had done a

22:15

bunch of investigation about

22:17

him. I knew all the weird,

22:17

creepy shit that we were saying

22:20

he did. And, you know, I just he

22:20

was taller than I like I thought

22:25

he was shorter. I think because

22:25

a lot of times you see him in

22:28

the newspapers, he's next to

22:28

Giannetta. Right. And Giannetta

22:31

was a big guy. Yeah, Chuck

22:31

looked a little bit shorter. But

22:33

like he, you know, he just had

22:33

this weird air about him.

22:38

Yeah, and this

22:38

is like vacillating between

22:41

delusions of grandeur of who he

22:41

is in the world or a thinly

22:45

veiled threat.

22:46

The other thing

22:46

is this, right? The newspapers

22:49

are there and you know, press

22:49

people are there and you know,

22:52

and they are like looking for

22:52

some angle. And so I'm standing

22:56

there thinking, if I say

22:56

anything to this guy is gonna

22:58

report it right. So all I do is

22:58

nod, right. And then

23:02

(Chuckels) you don't know what to say... You're like sure bruh!

23:05

And you know me Trisha. I'm not one not to know what to say.

23:08

For sure.

23:09

You know, people

23:09

say sometimes that I talk a

23:11

little bit too much.

23:12

Well, we're New Yorkers.

23:14

Yeah. Well,

23:14

look, when I'm on the set of the

23:16

television show, I got a lot to say.

23:18

Right.

23:18

Budda Budda

23:18

Budda. After he spoke to me,

23:21

then Judge Andrias came out. Let

23:21

me describe Andrias to you

23:24

because there is no more fair

23:24

judge sitting back then in the

23:28

90s then Judge Richard T Andrias.

23:30

I know, Mr. Hynes is going to oppose it, or he may, but I

23:31

don't need to hear it. I'll give

23:34

you the consideration I would

23:34

give anybody else.

23:37

Really good

23:37

dude. Liked to wear bow ties.

23:42

Umm, you know, would not be the

23:42

type to wear a robe, unless he

23:46

was on trial. So he'd come out

23:46

in his bow tie, right. And big,

23:49

big glasses. You know, just a

23:49

good dude. Right? Sometimes wear

23:54

cardigan like one of these guys. Right?

23:56

He kind of reminds you of Mr. Rogers.

23:58

Look, he was

23:58

very knowledgeable, also a ve

24:00

y smart judge. But general

24:00

y wanted the parties to get alo

24:04

g with did not like a lot

24:04

f adversary in his courtroo

24:05

Were there a lot

24:05

of the other defendants waiting

24:07

. Yeah, um, which was an iss

24:07

e with this case later, but al

24:12

o wanted business to get done.

24:12

f you could come to a resoluti

24:16

n of a case outside of a trial,

24:16

e wanted that to happen. No

24:20

, having said that, this is a b

24:20

g case. This is the big case

24:24

exception. And so everybody a

24:24

ted differently. The entire cour

24:27

room is filled with press, you

24:27

now, everybody's got their noteb

24:31

oks out. for arraignment well dressed?

24:34

No, I mean, look, it was the 90s right, though. I mean...

24:37

What was the difference with Chuck?

24:38

Chuck was in a

24:38

beautiful suit. I wore Brooks

24:41

Brothers. Right. Why? You know,

24:41

my father told me you're a

24:43

prosecutor, wear Brooks Brothers

24:43

suits. I mean, that's that's

24:45

what I did.

24:46

Did you only

24:46

wear black and pinstripe black

24:48

or...

24:49

I had a I had a

24:49

I had a summer suit. Yeah. It

24:52

was in olive.

24:53

But other than that, pretty much you stuck to your black.

24:55

Dark suits. Yeah. Dark suit.

24:57

That's how I was raised.

24:58

Look, dark suit,

24:58

red tie, white hat. We're the

25:00

good guys. Yeah, the

25:00

prosecution. So wingtip shoes is

25:04

what I would wear? Well, I don't

25:04

remember what Chuck wore. His

25:06

team was there, Heaphy was

25:06

there. You know, Fitzsimmons was

25:09

in the courtroom. I remember

25:09

Frederickson, you know, shiny

25:12

face Frederickson was there.

25:14

Ol, shiny face.

25:14

Hey shiny!!!

25:16

But I don't I don't want to take away the seriousness of the moment.

25:18

Right? It was a serious moment

25:21

because I was scared to death

25:21

that something was gonna happen.

25:23

And I was gonna watch my career go down the tubes, right?

25:25

You kind of made

25:25

a career out of prosecuting rich

25:28

guys, didn't you? Weren't you at

25:28

some point, promoted and put in

25:33

charge of the Robert Durst case

25:33

in Westchester County?

25:36

Yeah, that was later in life, though. At this point. I was just trying

25:38

anything that came my way.

25:40

Right.

25:40

So Chuck's arraigned.

25:42

So Chuck is arraigned. He's told the charges, the judge decides that

25:43

bail, which was $5,000 could be

25:47

continued. And then he put the

25:47

case down for motions, which is

25:50

very standard.

25:50

Just for the layman, what he means by the bail could be continued is that

25:52

he wouldn't be put in jail prior

25:55

to and during the trial.

25:58

Right, Judge Andrias then set a motion schedule. And what that means is

26:00

that the defense would make

26:02

certain motions which the

26:02

prosecution would have to

26:05

respond to, and then the judge

26:05

would make a decision on those

26:07

motions. Right, generally

26:07

speaking, and in this case,

26:10

motions that he put down were a

26:10

for map hearing and map hearing

26:15

is a is a hearing that the

26:15

defense would ask for, in this

26:19

case, to suppress the items

26:19

covered at the scene. Correct.

26:24

So the shoes the underwear, the

26:24

guns. They also were going to

26:29

ask for a Huntley hearing, which

26:29

is the statements right so

26:32

before Heaphy called and said,

26:32

don't talk to my client anymore.

26:36

Chuck had made a number of

26:36

spontaneous utterances like you

26:38

know, I shouldn't have done

26:38

this. I feel terrible. I'm

26:41

sorry, Marla, those were

26:41

statements that we want to get.

26:43

And also there was, as we talked

26:43

about before, inspection of the

26:47

grand jury minutes so the

26:47

defense would make a motion to

26:49

dismiss, under the theory that

26:49

the grand jury minutes were

26:52

insufficient to support the

26:52

crimes that the grand jury

26:56

charged. It was I will say this,

26:56

it was the strangest arraignment

27:00

that I had been to in my career

27:00

before and it's also the

27:03

strangest arraignment I've ever

27:03

been to since then.

27:12

When it came

27:12

time for the parties to engage

27:14

in typical pre trial motion

27:14

practice, Chuck Jones drops a

27:19

motion to dismiss bombshell.

27:19

Headline, "New sidestep for

27:27

Marla, she says fo isn't a

27:27

heel." Quote, "If you were

27:33

hoping for a long dragged out

27:33

trial and the Marla Maples Chuck

27:36

Jones shoe caper, brace

27:36

yourselves. Yesterday, Jones's

27:40

lawyer, Sal Alosco filed a

27:40

motion to dismiss the case in

27:45

the interest of justice. Now you

27:45

might say hey, well, fat chance,

27:50

after all the time, trouble,

27:50

taxpayer money and/or shoe

27:54

leather that went into that

27:54

case, it's simply not going to

27:58

happen. Unless by some miracle,

27:58

Maples herself would drop the

28:04

charges. Well, guess what? After

28:04

more than a year, Maples

28:09

submitted? Yes...and affidavit

28:09

supporting the dismissal of the

28:13

charges against Jones. Hard to

28:13

believe. But Maples has decided

28:18

that she wants the whole thing

28:18

behind her." End quote. Wow.

28:25

We, we had no

28:25

idea that this was happening.

28:28

Oh, really?

28:29

Yeah. No. When

28:29

we got the defense papers, we

28:31

obviously saw that attached as

28:31

an exhibit to the papers was an

28:34

affidavit from Marla joining in

28:34

the defendants motion to dismiss

28:38

in the interest of justice.

28:39

Why would she do that?

28:41

Well, there was stuff going on behind the scenes that we weren't privy to

28:43

certainly, and it was the first

28:46

time in a year and a half close

28:46

to two years of this case was

28:50

pending, that we felt that the

28:50

victim did not want to go

28:54

forward with it. It was a shock.

29:04

So let's talk

29:04

about exactly what this looks

29:08

like. So the defense files a

29:08

emotion. Attached to the motion

29:14

is an affidavit signed by your

29:14

victim, Marla Maples that says I

29:20

Marla support this motion. I

29:20

believe that justice would be

29:25

better served if this

29:25

prosecution were terminated and

29:29

you're telling me that nobody

29:29

from Camp Trump gave you even a

29:33

heads up that she filed this

29:33

affidavit? This is definitely

29:36

showboating one on one because

29:36

at the very least, whether Trump

29:40

is calling you or Marla. Sal

29:40

Alosco could have pick up the

29:43

phone and said, hey, we've got

29:43

this motion. And she signed an

29:46

affidavit in support and we're

29:46

filing it.

29:49

I think, to your point right at showboating this right? This is a case that was

29:50

tried in the press.

29:53

Unfortunately, from the

29:53

beginning, Chuck being a

29:56

publicist and the lawyers who

29:56

Chuck was working with decided

30:00

that this was not going to be

30:00

your standard negotiation.

30:02

Right? We had offered everything

30:02

we were going to offer in this

30:05

case. And we thought we had the

30:05

upper hand. It was shocking to

30:09

us that the victim in this case

30:09

at this point chose this

30:13

particular moment to sign an

30:13

affidavit in support of emotion

30:16

dismissed in the interest of

30:16

justice. We were acting in the

30:19

interest of justice, we were

30:19

prosecuting a case that not only

30:22

had to do with the stealing of

30:22

shoes and underwear, but also

30:26

had guns involved. Right. So

30:26

look, it was not the best day

30:31

for the prosecution, having said

30:31

that she never disavowed her

30:34

testimony. And I think that's

30:34

very important to remember. She

30:36

testified in the grand jury

30:36

underoath. And she told her

30:40

story to the grand jury, and

30:40

that is what led to the

30:42

indictment of Chuck. The

30:42

affidavit didn't say, I lied in

30:45

the grand jury.

30:46

She's not going

30:46

to get prosecuted for perjury

30:48

now is she?

30:49

All she did was

30:49

say that I've read the

30:52

defendants motion and I agree

30:52

that the prosecution should be

30:54

terminated in the interest of

30:54

justice. We had a different

30:57

opinion.

30:58

Well, she made

30:58

y'all look like shit.

31:00

I will say it

31:00

was not the best day for the

31:02

prosecution.

31:03

You take the

31:03

effort to go to the grand jury.

31:06

You get a true bail on all three

31:06

charges. You go to the

31:09

arraignment on the indictment.

31:09

You are freight training towards

31:13

a trial.

31:13

We as

31:13

prosecutors never want to walk

31:16

into court and tell the judge

31:16

"hey, Judge, you know, all that

31:18

work we did on the indictment,

31:18

all that work we did you know,

31:21

leading up to the indictment".

31:22

All the work in the grand jury.

31:24

All the work we

31:24

did at the grand jury all the

31:26

work you've done, Judge. Now to

31:26

get this case, ready reading

31:29

motions? Well, we'll just let it

31:29

go, just dismiss it. It's not

31:32

what the DA's office did. It did

31:32

not deter us from what we

31:36

thought was the just outcome of

31:36

the case, which was to move

31:40

forward. We were not going to

31:40

dismiss this case and allow

31:43

Chuck to claim victory.

31:45

I mean, I

31:45

personally think that here Marla

31:47

is getting extremely special

31:47

treatment for a witness because

31:52

any other witness that pulled

31:52

this shit, the hammer would have

31:55

come right down on them. At the

31:55

very least, the witness would

31:58

have been immediately reminded

31:58

that she gave sworn testimony

32:01

under oath at a grand jury. Now

32:01

I understand that you're saying

32:05

she didn't contradict her

32:05

testimony at the grand jury. But

32:08

she had signed a supporting

32:08

accusatory instrument that set

32:12

forth the crime, and that has

32:12

the weight and authority of New

32:16

York State behind it's not up to

32:16

Marla Maples and Donald Trump.

32:20

That's certainly

32:20

true. In any case, if the victim

32:23

refuses to testify, you can

32:23

subpoena the witness. If they

32:26

don't show up as a result of the

32:26

subpoena, you could put the

32:28

person in jail.

32:29

And if she does

32:29

take the stand, and she tries to

32:32

change her previous testimony in

32:32

any way, she could be prosecuted

32:36

for perjury. Did you guys tell her that?

32:37

I mean, look, we had serious conversations with the victim after we learned

32:39

about this affidavit.

32:42

And what was the

32:42

expectation on a Manhattan

32:45

prosecutor at the time if the

32:45

case went to indictment?

32:48

If you're going to the grand jury, you better make sure you have a serious

32:49

enough case to go forward. We

32:52

had a serious enough case the

32:52

victim had testified we knew

32:54

that he had guns. We knew that he had the shoes and the underwear. We were going

32:56

forward. The affidavit was a

32:59

setback. That's I will say that

32:59

I will admit the affidavit was a

33:02

setback. I was a prosecutor at

33:02

that point for four years. I had

33:05

tried everything from homicides,

33:05

rapes, robberies, you know.

33:09

But you were born and raised a prosecutor.

33:11

Look, I mean, I was in my father's business, right? I mean, he was a

33:13

prosecutor his entire career for

33:15

the most part, and I was I was

33:15

the first son. I was the first

33:19

child, you know, oldest of five.

33:19

It was not a great place to be

33:24

because I was given this case

33:24

that had really strange

33:31

participants. Um, and it was the

33:31

type of case where look, you

33:35

always think how can you career

33:35

blow up in your face? Right. And

33:38

you know, you have nightmares

33:38

about this stuff, right? Oh, no

33:41

multiple defending case, you

33:41

lose, right? Big Wall Street

33:44

case, you lose. Big mafia case,

33:44

you lose. You're the guy who

33:49

lost that big case. Huh? Kind of

33:49

sticks with you. Right. Trisha,

33:52

losing the shoe case? I mean,

33:52

I'm done. I'm finished. It's

33:56

over!

33:56

You didn't wanto

33:56

be known as the shoe case loser?

33:59

I didn't want to be known as the shoe case winner. But my hands were tied!

34:03

But right here in this moment in time was what we're talking about is this

34:05

snapshot, right? Is that as

34:08

Chuck filed this motion with

34:08

Marla's affidavit attached,

34:12

wasn't there a moment where you

34:12

said to yourself, I may be known

34:16

as the guy who goes down on the

34:16

shoe case?

34:19

I don't know if

34:19

I had that clear thought. I

34:22

mean, looking back on it now, I

34:22

will say I remember being

34:26

shocked and disappointed.

34:28

You're not you're telling me it never crossed your mind that this may

34:30

be the thing.

34:32

I knew that if

34:32

we lost the case on a motion to

34:34

dismiss in the interest of

34:34

justice, there would be a lot of

34:36

questions about hey, why did you

34:36

go there? Why did you go? Why

34:41

did you go this far? Why didn't

34:41

you you know, and look, I knew

34:45

we had done everything right

34:45

with the case. We had done

34:47

everything right.

34:48

I mean, wouldn't

34:48

you say this is a low point? Not

34:51

to rub salt in your wounds here.

34:51

But here's what Chuck said about

34:57

the DA's office at the time and

34:57

this is a Chuck quote. "I had a

35:01

long conversation with Marla the

35:01

other day. And she said, the DA

35:06

badgered, confused and pressured

35:06

her into testifying. She even

35:10

told me that they subpoenaed her

35:10

during a haircut at Frederic

35:14

Fekkai", end quote. Frederic

35:14

Fekkai was a very famous

35:17

hairdresser at the time, Kevin.

35:18

Yeah, I'll take your word for that.

35:20

So Jones told

35:20

us, "it's a happy note that two

35:24

people who've been friends for

35:24

seven years are trying to solve

35:28

their problems together. Two

35:28

people plus the DA's office

35:33

makes 70."

35:35

We never

35:35

badgered, confused or pressured

35:37

Marla Maples in anyway, that's

35:37

an outright lie. Not surprising

35:42

coming from Chuck's mouth,

35:42

because every time you open his

35:44

mouth, his fucking flap and

35:44

lies, right? Whether or not they

35:46

had some kind of conversation

35:46

about that I don't know? Look,

35:49

there's an old saying in

35:49

prosecution, right? No witness

35:52

no case. If Marla wasn't gonna

35:52

come forward, we were gonna have

35:56

problems.

35:57

So at this

35:57

point, it's safe to say that all

36:00

seems lost. And then, Chuck

36:00

begins a series of what one

36:06

would call, fuck ups.

36:16

Now, one would think that Chuck

36:16

right now has got the world by

36:21

the balls, or at the very least,

36:21

he's got the Manhattan DA's

36:24

office and the Trump Marla camp

36:24

by the balls. He got exactly

36:28

what he wants. Marla Maples has

36:28

finally moved the court to drop

36:33

the charges against him in the

36:33

interest of justice.

36:36

Yeah, I mean, if

36:36

I'm Alosco, I put Chuck in a

36:39

basement, you know, put cotton

36:39

in his mouth, you know, tell him

36:42

shut the fuck up and keep your

36:42

mouth shut. We're gonna win

36:44

And just wait

36:44

until Judge Andrias decides this

36:44

here. motion in his favor, but that's

36:47

not enough for Chuck. Chuck

36:50

starts accusing the cops of

36:50

misconduct and says that this

36:53

case is all about the pictures.

36:53

"Chuck Won't Duck Fight. DA Row

37:03

Over Marla Pix" with an "x" as

37:03

always. It's a very weird

37:07

headline. Quote, "last week,

37:07

while the whole world was

37:11

watching to see if the Donald

37:11

would really actually truly

37:14

marry his Marla, Chuck Jones was

37:14

quietly continuing his uphill

37:18

fight with the Manhattan

37:18

District Attorney's Office. In

37:21

court papers, Jones asserts that

37:21

when he was arrested last summer

37:24

at his office, the cops punched

37:24

him and threatened him." He says

37:28

in his papers that "detective

37:28

Lynch handcuffed him, brought

37:31

them into the bathroom and

37:31

demanded to know where the much

37:34

hinted at nude pictures were."

37:34

"When I denied knowing about the

37:38

pictures of Marla Maples," the

37:38

paper say "I was grabbed

37:42

forcefully by the lapel by

37:42

detective Lynch" and told "we're

37:45

not like the cops on TV, we're

37:45

much meaner. And if you don't

37:49

get those photos, you'll be

37:49

taken to Central booking and

37:52

let's see how you like that."

37:52

Jones alleges that the cops then

37:56

searched his Midtown office for

37:56

three hours without a search

38:00

warrant.

38:02

Yeah, this is your typical overreach. Right? I mean, he's got papers that he

38:04

that he put forward that he had

38:07

Marla's affidavit, you know,

38:07

he's he's got the upper hand at

38:10

this point. But then he overreached. Right. He started saying that Lynch did all these

38:12

crazy things. Look, I knew

38:14

William Lynch, right? These

38:14

quotes that they have that he's

38:17

like, "we're a bunch of mean

38:17

..." It's just it's just total

38:20

bullshit, right? William Lynch

38:20

is not that kind of detective.

38:22

He doesn't give a fuck about

38:22

where the pictures are. There's

38:25

no way that William Lynch ever

38:25

cared about where these pictures

38:28

are. But again, it's in Chuck's

38:28

mind and he's making these

38:30

accusations and it's really poor

38:30

strategy, because I think

38:34

Andrias reading those papers

38:34

interest of justice with Marla

38:37

st dropped the charges may be

38:37

enough. They may have one

38:40

motion, but again, Chuck

38:40

overreached. He decided to say

38:44

the cops did all these terrible

38:44

things. And that was poor

38:47

strategy in my view.

38:48

Saying the DA

38:48

badgered Marla is a problem.

38:51

Saying that the cops beat him up

38:51

when he couldn't produce the

38:54

nude photos. It's a problem.

38:54

Then, to make matters worse,

39:02

Chuck sues everyone for $700

39:02

million. That's right, you heard

39:09

correctly. Nobody is gonna put

39:09

Chucky in the corner, honey.

39:15

Chuck decides to poke the bear.

39:15

Headline "Jones Chuck's $700

39:22

million Suit at Trump, the New

39:22

York Post and the New York Daily

39:27

News." The article starts "Chuck

39:27

Jones is mad as hell and he's

39:32

not gonna take it anymore." The

39:32

article goes on to explain that

39:37

in July of 93, while his motion

39:37

to dismiss was being considered

39:43

Chuck filed a massive lawsuit

39:43

for libel, unlawful

39:47

imprisonment, violation of his

39:47

constitutional rights, slander,

39:51

verbal abuse, refusal of medical

39:51

care, illegal search and seizure

39:56

and the old fan favorite,

39:56

intentional infliction of

40:00

emotional distress. Which

40:00

sidebar, The Daily News calls

40:05

quote "rather nervy since he was

40:05

the one found with the pumps in

40:09

his closet in all." Who did he

40:09

file this lawsuit against? Well,

40:14

Donald Trump, the city of New

40:14

York, the NYPD, the Plaza Hotel,

40:19

the New York Post, the New York

40:19

Daily News, Trump's chief of

40:23

security, Matt Calamari, Dominic

40:23

Pezzo, Marla's Secretary, Janie

40:28

Elder Porco and Marla's mom Anne

40:28

Ogletree. Well, why not Marla

40:35

herself? You ask? Well, here's

40:35

Chuck quote on that. "She made a

40:39

commitment to me to try and get

40:39

this indictment dismissed." Talk

40:45

about a quid pro quo.

40:46

No pro quo quo.

40:49

Wait, but that

40:49

it is a quid pro quo, isn't it?

40:52

As a favor for favor, like

40:52

basically he's saying you

40:54

scratch my back, I'll scratch

40:54

yours or. So Trump has something

40:58

to say about being sued by Chuck

40:58

Jones too. "Chuck is a very

41:02

disturbed guy who's currently

41:02

under indictment, a very sad

41:05

man." And then there's Chuck's

41:05

civil lawyer, John Kelligrew,

41:09

who ended up on the trial team.

41:09

And he's also quoted in the

41:12

article he says "Trump is the

41:12

problem. The police department

41:17

was obviously brought in to do

41:17

Trump's bidding. The police were

41:21

brought in and then Trump

41:21

continued to libel and slander

41:25

Mr. Jones." I love this part.

41:25

Everyone was in the mood to

41:29

throw a little shade on that

41:29

day, because the Daily News

41:32

reporter goes on to say, quote,

41:32

"the only defendant getting off

41:36

relatively easily is the New

41:36

York Post, which was only sued

41:39

for 5 million. And that's

41:39

because they're bankrupt

41:42

anyway." Ouch.

41:44

He he should not

41:44

have done this because he

41:48

basically had the case exactly

41:48

where he wanted to be. The

41:51

victim signing an affidavit.

41:51

Then $700 million. I mean,

41:54

that's a lot of money.

41:55

That's a lot of money.

41:56

It's a lot of money now. And he's making all these wild accusations in the

41:58

civil papers. And I don't think

42:02

it was a good strategy. Trump

42:02

did say Chuck is a very

42:05

disturbed guy who is currently

42:05

under indictment, a very sad

42:09

man. I don't like to say there's

42:09

a lot but I agree with Trump

42:12

with that one.

42:13

I even I would

42:13

have to agree with Trump.

42:15

Yeah. And I

42:15

think if he had if he had done

42:18

what his lawyers probably told him to keep your mouth shut, stay out of the press, stop

42:20

suing people, this case may have

42:23

had a different outcome. But in reality it didn't.

42:25

I love that you

42:25

brought up this number that he

42:27

picks the $700 million. Because

42:27

in a civil suit, you have to

42:30

justify the monetary value that

42:30

you attach to the case, you

42:35

know, people say, oh, I broke my

42:35

finger, I'm gonna sue for a

42:38

million dollars. But in reality,

42:38

the reality is, that fingers

42:43

have a price. There's a price

42:43

for an arm, there's a price for

42:46

a leg. And so where is he coming

42:46

up with this number?

42:48

And here's where

42:48

I've been trying to say to you

42:51

from the beginning. This case

42:51

was all about what makes the

42:54

splashiest headline, right? $700

42:54

million dollars. I mean, why not

42:59

a billion? I think 700 is a cool

42:59

number.

43:04

Right?

43:05

So they came up

43:05

with that. You have to remember,

43:07

they're sitting around, you

43:07

know, in some office some place

43:10

making these decisions. What,

43:10

what can we make a great

43:12

headline. $700 million dollars.

43:12

It's fucking ridiculous. And

43:16

guess what? It wasn't a smart

43:16

move. And it backfired.

43:20

Just a little foreshadowing for Chuck's future. Chuck will eventually by

43:21

the time this whole thing is

43:25

over, file so many lawsuits, the

43:25

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

43:29

will eventually enjoin him from

43:29

filing any lawsuits at all

43:34

against anyone without prior

43:34

leave of the court.

43:38

Yeah, I mean, he

43:38

went lawsuit crazy. Absolutely.

43:42

And this is when Chuck decided

43:42

he was going to be in charge of

43:47

everything. And you know, I am

43:47

sure that the lawyers were not

43:51

down with this. In fact, Alosco

43:51

had said pretty much the same

43:54

thing.

43:54

And because

43:54

batshit comes in threes, Chuck

43:58

tries to file criminal charges

43:58

against Marla Maples. So he

44:02

decides to leave her out of the

44:02

civil case and then

44:06

subsequently, he wakes up one

44:06

morning decides, you know what,

44:10

I'm going to march my ass into

44:10

the Metro North precinct and

44:16

filed charges against, criminal

44:16

charges, against Marla.

44:21

This is just so

44:21

stupid on his part. Alleging

44:24

criminal charges against the

44:24

victim of the case. It just

44:27

borders on insane. I've never

44:27

really seen that and you know,

44:31

it definitely backfired.

44:33

Even Chuck's

44:33

criminal lawyer does not support

44:36

the move, quote, "last night,

44:36

Marla's former publicist dropped

44:40

the criminal charges bombshell

44:40

on us between bites of chicken

44:44

teriyaki at the fifth

44:44

anniversary party for Mickey

44:48

Mantle's restaurant. When

44:48

pressed. Jones's lawyer who was

44:52

also at the party told us he did

44:52

not, in fact, advise Jones to

44:57

proceed with the criminal

44:57

charges, but said I told chuck

45:01

it was my belief that he should

45:01

continue with a civil suit only.

45:05

He felt that as a matter of

45:05

principle, it was necessary to

45:08

stand up for what he believes."

45:08

And he did. So.

45:11

Yeah he looks

45:11

obsessed this point, right? It's

45:14

bad, bad legal decisions. His

45:14

lawyer's saying it's a bad legal

45:18

decision. Obviously, he's the

45:18

one calling the shots.

45:20

It has to be

45:20

Chuck is not willing to let go

45:23

of Marla. He had everything

45:23

aligned, ready to go. And he

45:27

just keeps cooking up schemes to

45:27

make sure that he is rooted in

45:32

her life.

45:33

Yeah, I mean, just to say some Trish, I've said to you before, like, oh,

45:35

don't get good. "Don't get into

45:37

Chuck's mind. And it's a

45:37

dangerous place." It's a scary

45:40

place. You know, I thought about

45:40

a lot. I gotta say, um, I got

45:44

this vision of like, Chuck

45:44

sitting in his house in his

45:46

mansion in Connecticut, thinking

45:46

to himself, wow, I'm gonna win

45:50

the motion to dismiss this is

45:50

great. The case will be over,

45:53

I'll never have to worry about

45:53

them again. But wait, then I

45:57

won't get to see her, then I

45:57

won't get to talk to her, then I

46:00

won't get to do anything having

46:00

to do with her. What am I gonna

46:03

do? I'm gonna file a civil case,

46:03

because civil cases takes seven

46:07

years to resolve. Yeah, I'm

46:07

gonna file criminal charges. You

46:09

can see that there is this

46:09

obsession you said, you know,

46:12

rooted in his mind. I do. I

46:12

gotta say, like, what, there is

46:16

no other explanation out there

46:16

that the guy's got some sort of

46:19

obsession for her. And he's not

46:19

going to let it go. And he knows

46:23

that he's on the winning side on

46:23

the criminal charges. So let's

46:26

go on the offensive. It ends up

46:26

being the worst possible move

46:29

this guy could make. But sitting

46:29

in his bathroom in Connecticut,

46:33

wondering and thinking about

46:33

Marla and her feet. I kind of

46:36

understand maybe where he's coming from.

46:38

Well, here's the

46:38

thing. I think Chuck would say,

46:40

"they deserved it. I was there

46:40

for her. I rescued her. You

46:44

know, she cried on my shoulder.

46:44

Trump treated her like dirt. I

46:48

resurrected her reputation and

46:48

career and I let the world know

46:53

that she was you know, not a

46:53

bimbo. She deserves this. She

46:56

deserves us for the way she

46:56

treated me." The truth of the

46:59

matter is, it all comes down to

46:59

obsession. Speaking of this

47:07

obsession for Marla's shoes, let

47:07

me tell you a little bit about

47:11

how the papers reporting on

47:11

fetishes back in the early

47:15

1990s. And specifically the

47:15

psychology behind shoe fetishes.

47:21

The aspect of Chuck's obsession

47:21

that got him charged in the

47:24

first place. "He wanted more

47:24

than her pumps." The Daily News

47:31

interviewed doctors and

47:31

psychologists from all over the

47:34

tri state area to have them

47:34

comment on why Chuck would have

47:37

stolen Marla's shoes. Quote,

47:37

"for Chuck Jones, Marla Maples'

47:42

high heeled shoes were a stand

47:42

in for the real thing. A woman

47:45

he apparently lusted after for

47:45

years," psychologists and

47:49

experts told The Post last

47:49

night. "I think symbolically the

47:53

shoe became Marla Maples for

47:53

him," said Dr. JOHN O'CONNOR of

47:58

the psychiatry department at

47:58

Columbia Presbyterian Medical

48:01

Center. O'Connor said "fetishes

48:01

can range from minor non sexual

48:06

habits like carrying a rabbit's

48:06

foot to full blown erotic ones

48:11

like collecting shoes or

48:11

articles of clothing." In the

48:15

next article, "Heel stealers are

48:15

harmless." The Daily News

48:20

reported. "Even Freud tried to

48:20

come up with an explanation for

48:24

the shoe fetish, a not uncommon

48:24

sexual disorder that can be

48:28

repressed by drugs or therapy

48:28

and usually presents no danger

48:33

to the practicer. Freud tackled

48:33

the subject in his 1927

48:38

dissertation, saying that boys

48:38

looked at a woman's shoe as a

48:42

substitution for her missing

48:42

penis." According to Cornell

48:46

University Professor John Ross,

48:46

Fuck Freud, okay. For those of

48:51

you who aren't aware, Freud was

48:51

a drug addicted asshole, a

48:55

misogynist who defended child

48:55

molesters and believed that he

48:58

was superior to the rest of

48:58

society because he was able to,

49:02

quote, "overcome his

49:02

homosexuality." So just no, no,

49:06

thank you, Freud. Finally, Dr.

49:06

Leslie Lochstein, Director of

49:12

psychology at the Institute of

49:12

living in Connecticut said, "A

49:16

shoe fetish isn't usually

49:16

dangerous to himself or the

49:20

person whose shoes are being

49:20

stolen. It's more of a public

49:23

nuisance. Jones's problem if it

49:23

is a fetish, may have been the

49:28

only way he could act out the

49:28

sexual attraction he had for

49:33

Maples." Turns out we're not the

49:33

only people thinking that way.

49:38

In the article "Chuck Jones

49:38

pressing charges against Marla,"

49:42

a source very close to Marla

49:42

told the Daily News, "Chuck will

49:47

take any relationship with her

49:47

even adversarial. If he resolves

49:53

the criminal case, it's over. He

49:53

can't let it go. Even though

49:57

it's destroying his family. It's

49:57

contact. Contact with Marla."

50:04

You want to call a contact, you want to call it an obsession. You want know what

50:05

I think I would love it. I think

50:08

he's obsessed with her. I think

50:08

at some point in their

50:11

relationship, he becomes

50:11

obsessed with her. She's a

50:13

beautiful woman. She's a smart

50:13

woman, you know, he becomes

50:17

obsessed. And then that

50:17

obsession, for some reason,

50:20

evolves into an obsession with

50:20

her shoes. And then he becomes

50:23

obsessed with the idea of having

50:23

that piece of her. And then he

50:26

goes out and he takes that piece

50:26

of her. And once he started

50:29

taking those shoes, he couldn't

50:29

stop and he took her shoes, he

50:31

took her underwear. He took her

50:31

panties, he took her bras, and

50:34

he kept taking and taking and

50:34

taking the dude who is obsessed.

50:40

Back to the

50:40

pithy headlines in "Marla, Not

50:44

So Shoe Heist Victim," the

50:44

papers addressed the DA's

50:49

response to Chuck's motion to

50:49

dismiss, and it looks like the

50:53

DA was not playing. The article

50:53

claimed that the DA's opposition

50:58

to Chuck's motion alleges number

50:58

one: that Marla's affidavit in

51:03

support of Chuck's motion should

51:03

be disregarded because it was

51:08

signed under duress. And the

51:08

DA'S office has a new affidavit

51:12

from Marla, to that effect.

51:12

Number two, that in addition to

51:16

Marla's shoes, a bag full of

51:16

other women's shoes and boots

51:20

were discovered in the search of

51:20

Chuck Jones office that did not

51:25

belong to Marla because they

51:25

were not her size. And that when

51:29

asked, Jones could not recall

51:29

who shoes they were. Number

51:34

three. The document indicates

51:34

that Jones's fetish and

51:39

obsession with the beautiful

51:39

woman he represented for six

51:42

years led to strange demands

51:42

during private talks aimed at

51:46

settling the case out of court.

51:46

And at one point, Jones

51:50

allegedly made the return of the

51:50

pilfered pumps, a condition of

51:55

settling the case without trial.

51:58

Chuck Jones says he will cooperate with prosecutors when one condition

51:59

he wants to choose back.

52:02

He's playing a

52:02

very dangerous game,Chuck Jones

52:04

right. He filed a motion, which

52:04

is his right but somehow we got

52:07

Marla to sign an affidavit

52:07

right. He then sued everybody

52:11

$700 million, and he's

52:11

threatening to write a book he's

52:13

saying he's got these pictures,

52:13

possibly the diary. Let me just

52:16

tell you one thing. You do not

52:16

mess with the DA's office. You

52:19

do not mess with the Manhattan

52:19

DA's office. The preeminent DA's

52:22

office in the country. He says

52:22

in an affidavit a sworn

52:25

affidavit that the DA's office

52:25

badgered Marla into testifying

52:27

in front of the grand jury. This

52:27

is not something we do. This is

52:30

not something we ever did. He

52:30

was trying to make us look bad.

52:33

You know what he's playing a

52:33

very dangerous game of chicken

52:35

because the Manhattan DA's

52:35

office did not stand for that we

52:38

would not be bullied we would

52:38

not be pushed around. There's an

52:40

old saying Trisha, don't mess

52:40

with the bull because you're

52:43

going to get the horns and that's what he got.

52:47

And how to chuck take all that?

52:48

Chuck? He had a

52:48

heart attack. Literally.

52:54

Next time, on Heeled...

52:56

He has decided,

52:56

this entire case, this entire

53:00

city, this entire nation is

53:00

waiting for the Chuck Jones

53:04

trial.

53:05

There was

53:05

a big investigation over why

53:07

this case was even brought

53:07

because at the time Trump was

53:09

friends with Morgenthau.

53:11

Chuck insisted

53:11

that he and Marla had recently

53:14

walked hand in hand down Fifth

53:14

Avenue.

53:17

If Marla was walking down Fifth Avenue with Chuck, I mean when done. We get

53:19

this package and I open it up

53:22

and inside is this this picture

53:22

of Marla Maples naked.

53:26

I have never faxed anything to Donald Trump and Marla Maples, uhh

53:28

regarding Marla Maples' nude

53:31

photographs.

53:33

They were like "what do you think this is?" They pointed inside the shoe and

53:34

when I looked inside, I saw a

53:38

stain.

53:40

Heeled is a

53:40

Justkill Production produced by

53:43

Tandace Khorrami, Luke Groneman

53:43

and Tyler Patrick Jones. It's

53:47

written by Kevin J. Hynes and

53:47

myself Trisha LaFache. The

53:50

Heeled music was written by Chad

53:50

Crouch. Additional shout out to

53:54

Mike Shafranak, our editing

53:54

wizard, our sound engineer Kyle

53:57

Raps and to Max Alcabez, the

53:57

owner of Pink Cloud Studios in

54:01

Los Angeles where we record

54:01

these shoescapades. Follow us on

54:05

our Instagram at heeled.podcast

54:05

or check us out on our website

54:09

heeledpodcast.com. Tune in next

54:09

week for another exciting

54:13

episode of Heeled.