Charles Coleman
speaker
3,815 appearances
29 recordings
1 series
first heard Jul 2025
last heard 13 Aug
Charles Coleman’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 23 in all, peaking in Aug 2026 with 5.
Appearances
should be deemed as admissible or at least something that people will be fighting over and generally speaking whether you are the family of nolan wells or whether you are someone who has potential implications as a defendant in this case lawyers usually are going to advise you to keep your mouth shut for as long as possible for as long as you must and so
matched
I don't understand why anyone feels compelled to do public interviews at this point, particularly at the level that folks are doing it. It is very unusual. The only thing that I can say is that this may be a plea to the court of public opinion in as much as.
matched
There are a lot of folks who have made up their minds about what they believe they know about this case and what they believe may have happened to Nolan Wells. And this may either be an attempt to sort of further that or fight against it. But the fact that there could be a criminal proceeding in this matter means that the court of public opinion has to remain secondary to what we know may take place in the court of public opinion. And these interviews are not helping.
matched
Yeah, from a communication standpoint and from a legal standpoint, I can't figure out what's going on here. And, you know, I don't want to use the term amateur night. But what I will say is that I think that this may be a case, Donna, playing to the wrong audience. I do understand that the court of public opinion moves very, very quickly. You know, there are some other.
matched
sort of theories they get a little bit wonkier the more you know the more you go down the rabbit hole and as much as there may be people who believe well the folks giving the interviews may have an inside track on what is going to happen with any sort of potential criminal prosecution and so they they're they're moving with a certain level of confidence around being able to predict the future i'm not going that far as to say that they may be tipped off that the grand jury is not going anywhere i will say that even if they did have that inside knowledge
matched
even if that was something that someone had tipped them off to, you would still want to behave in such a way that doesn't give that away. Right now, everyone's scratching their heads. And to your point, there's nothing about what we're seeing right now with the volume of public interviews that
matched
suggest that these folks know what they're doing or actually have a real strategy. So it may just be trying to play to the wrong audience, in this case being the court of public opinion, rather than holding your cards close to the vest and allowing the criminal prosecution process to play itself out.
matched
I didn't quite get what his explanation was and, you know, his, yeah. I'm going to say a couple things here. The first and foremost, first and foremost is, you know, I am not going to ignore the platform upon which these gentlemen chose to go and give that interview.
matched
Obviously you have a choice in platform and that's fine, but there was something about that particular platform and I'll leave it to the viewers to ascertain for themselves why they would have felt comfortable giving that interview in that space. And what I will say is that this is likely a forum that they felt was going to be friendly and comfortable and non-confrontational. As a former prosecutor,
matched
without any sort of aspersion or conclusion around guilt or innocence. What I will tell you is this, Don, it is never a good sign when someone starts asking, why wouldn't I have done this? Or why wouldn't I have done that? Or why would I do this? And leaves you to speculate, as opposed to just affirmatively saying, we did this because, and we did not do this because,
matched
xyz that is always a telltale sign that someone is desperately trying to get you to believe what it is that they are saying because they want you to speculate in a way that would have made sense as as opposed to just saying i would not have done this because and it would not have made sense for me to do that because
matched
um we see it in everyday life in terms of storytelling and how people do if you ever listen to someone who tries to say like well why we're not done this there are a million and one things that anyone could do in response to a situation but coordinating a story and sitting there with potentially three other co-defendants as a means of putting this out to the court of public opinion may not necessarily be the smartest thing to do
matched
I am very much so looking at that attorney askance, which is one of my favorite words, because you are showing yourself as a bit of an amateur in terms of your chops from a PR perspective. Now, your trial chops may be a different conversation, but you are on basically a public platform testifying for your own clients before they've even been indicted.
matched
And I think that that's something that most attorneys are loathe to do, let alone letting their own clients get out here and tell their stories. Now, again, it could be that they know that no indictment is coming because they've been given that information from the inside. Or another thought that occurred as I was watching this, Don, is this is a case that's drawn quite a bit of public scrutiny. If you are a defendant...
matched
and you go into the grand jury, you are not guaranteed to be able to testify. You are not in control over what information the prosecution puts forward. So if you are trying to control the narrative before you get to the grand jury, this would be your opportunity to do so.
matched
I don't think it's a good way of doing it. I don't think it's a smart way of doing it in the long run. But that is to say that as people have been watching this all over the country, and as I'm sure that includes people who are in Mississippi, who are in Jackson County,
matched
this may be an opportunity to sort of poison the jury pool of grand jurors by getting your version out there just in case someone who's watching that interview ends up on that grand jury, just in case someone who's watching that interview ends up in that jury box. This is a means of trying to get your narrative out because you certainly won't do it in the grand jury because you're not in control of those proceedings. And then by the time you get to trial,
matched
who knows what other information you might be battling against. So from a PR perspective, it could be a preemptive strike for potential jurors or potential people in the jury pool. But it's still, for me, something that's ill-advised because all of this could be used against you in a court of law. So clearly, basically what you're saying, this is, as you said, this is a court of public opinion. This is a PR strategy. Is that what you're saying? Not a very good one, but that's what it is. Yes.
matched
We've been called out. We really don't want to talk about this. And so more than we need to. And so we're going to sit down with our attorneys and do an interview with a podcaster that has millions of subscribers, but we really don't want to talk about this. Okay. So let's talk because this is not, um, I don't think this is being critical of
matched
The substance of what we are listening to is less relevant than the style of what is being presented, especially if you consider the fact that
matched
Showing 121–140 of 3,815 · page 7 of 191
← Previous
Next →