Heeled: The Curious Case of Marla Trump's Shoes
Heeled: The Curious Case of Marla Trump's Shoes
Chapter Four | Freudian Slip
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
When Chuck Jones refuses all plea offers, the prosecution gears up for a grand jury presentation which leads to the indictment of the Shoe Bandit...
Previously on Heeled,
Kevin J. Hynes:Here comes Chuck Jones stealing shoes from Donald Trump's girlfriend. Yeah, I mean the press went crazy.
Trisha LaFache:He starts making outrageous demands.
TV News Reporter:Chuck Jones says he will cooperate with prosecutors on one condition, he wants the shoes back.
Kevin J. Hynes:We at the DA's office wanted the case to go with Donald and Marla wanted the case to go away. Now, Chuck, not so much.
Trisha LaFache:Jones may in fact be concerned because he's hired criminal defense attorney Sal Alosco to replace his first attorney, Herold Price Fahringer.
Kevin J. Hynes:We looked at the charges and we decided, you know what, we're gonna offer this guy a deal of a lifetime. Chuck Jones reappears and he walks back to the door. And very importantly, he looks out the peep hole.
Trisha LaFache:Donald is calling off the wedding, Marla is destined to be a baby mama and not the second Mrs. Trump.
Marla Maples Recording:It's destroying my reputation again here. And now not to be married before we have the baby. Oh my god.
Kevin J. Hynes:It's like one of those movies, right where people are on this raft. And there's a raging river and like you had you know, this is a huge waterfall, right? Everybody knows it's coming. But you can't stop it.
Trisha LaFache:I'm your host, Tricia LaFache, and this is
"Heeled:The Curious Case of Marla Trump's Shoes." Good morning.
Kevin J. Hynes:Hi.
Trisha LaFache:How are you?
Kevin J. Hynes:Oh, I'm great.
Trisha LaFache:Good. Glad to have you here.
Kevin J. Hynes:Thank you.
Trisha LaFache:Last time, we were talking about Chuck's decision to not accept the ACD the DA's office was going to head towards a grand jury. And you described it kind of as a raging river rapids where everybody's headed towards the waterfall and they see the waterfall coming, but there's nothing else they can do. And what did you mean by that?
Kevin J. Hynes:You try to do the right thing. And the right thing doesn't happen. We had hoped that the case would go away. We thought we made a very, very legitimate offer to him. It didn't go away. They turned it down. And so yes, the next step was us to proceed towards the grand jury.
Trisha LaFache:It boggles my mind that Chuck just didn't want to take this plea and continue his profession. So what do you think Sal Alosco was thinking at the time?
Kevin J. Hynes:I think Chuck's lawyer was probably disappointed to get an ACD off of felony is an amazing job as a criminal defense attorney, right? I talked about why we made those offers, and his client was refusing that and he wasn't going to go. Second thing, he's probably thinking is well, alright, my clients not going to take the ACD, maybe we put the DA's office up against the wall. After I was a prosecutor in New York for five years in the Manhattan DA's office, I was a criminal defense attorney for 10 years. And sometimes you will stare down the prosecution and say, go ahead indict it.
Trisha LaFache:And that does not happen in federal court.
Kevin J. Hynes:That's a little bit different. But it's a court because we had such a clogged system and there were so many different cases to prosecute, that we would make decisions based on you know, do we really want to move forward with this case?
Trisha LaFache:So he's flexing?
Kevin J. Hynes:I don't know if he's flexing, you know, I think he's disappointed. I think he's hoping. It's what he's doing.
Trisha LaFache:And that is not what happened here.
Kevin J. Hynes:No, no, that's not what happened. We went to the grand jury.
Trisha LaFache:Okay, so Kevin, talk to us about the grand jury process in New York.
Kevin J. Hynes:Sure. I mean, the grand jury process is something that a lot of listeners probably don't really know about. There's between 16 and 23 people sitting in a room. And if you think about the room, it's kind of like a college classroom, right? There's stack layers of people sitting in desk chairs, like you would get in high school or, you know, even some colleges. 16 to 23 people would sit in this room, and they would hear cases all day from the prosecutor in New York County. It's just the prosecutor, a stenographer and the grand jurors and the witnesses.
Trisha LaFache:No judge.
Kevin J. Hynes:No, judge.
Trisha LaFache:That is wild. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the grand jury, unlike trial, hearsay is admissible.
Kevin J. Hynes:That's correct.
Trisha LaFache:For those of you who don't know what hearsay is, the legal definition of hearsay is an out of court statement, which is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. So when something is he said, she said, but then after it, you say facts.
Kevin J. Hynes:Correct. It's done that way soo you can basically move through the process quickly.
Trisha LaFache:Right. So you can basically say whatever you want.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, I mean, look, you're under oath, the witnesses are underoath. So that's important. The judge will read the grand jury minutes at some point. So the judge will make a decision whether or not there was probable cause that the defendant committed the crime.
Trisha LaFache:So tell tell the listeners what what's the standard for probable cause?
Kevin J. Hynes:Well, layman's terms, it's, you know, more likely than not.
Trisha LaFache:More likely than not right.
Kevin J. Hynes:People have said that it's very easy to indict somebody in New York State. And in fact, that is true.
Trisha LaFache:The standard is so low, that there is a famous legal phrase.
Kevin J. Hynes:There was a judge named Sol Wachtler, who was the chief judge of the Court of Appeals in New York State and what he had said was any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
Various TV News Reporters:You can indict a ham sandwich. Ham sandwich. Ham sandwich. Ham sandwich indictment. Grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
Trisha LaFache:Wachtler's career as the chief judge did not end on a high note. No, it did not. He was forced to resign after he
Kevin J. Hynes:No, it didn't. was arrested and charged with stalking, extortion, racketeering and blackmail. Stemming from the plot to stop his mistress, Joy Silverman, from leaving him. He eventually pled guilty to the stalking and to harassment and to threatening to kidnap Silverman's daughter. He served 13 months in prison for his crimes. Ouch. But he will always be known as the man who created one of the most commonly used phrases in legal discussions that a prosecutor has the power to indict a ham sandwich. Okay, back to Chuck. So we're going to talk specifically a little bit about the grand jury proceedings and the people for Chuck Jones. Yeah.
Trisha LaFache:So you have Marla Maples testifying before the grand jury?
Kevin J. Hynes:Yes. Is the victim she she does fight. Yes.
Trisha LaFache:Okay. In the article under the headline, Marla laces shoe case, it's reported that Marla testified for over three and a half hours.
Kevin J. Hynes:It's a total exaggeration. She did not testify for three and a half hours, the whole case probably took 40 minutes to present.
Trisha LaFache:While the article says that it came from an informed source.
Kevin J. Hynes:Okay, these newspapers wrote anything they want to write. Right and then they say sources close to the investigation or.
Trisha LaFache:Why do you think that they would say three and a half hours if if it was undetermined?
Kevin J. Hynes:It's it's a sexier headline, right? It's a sexier thing to say in the papers like she was there.
Trisha LaFache:Poor Marla. Poor Marla.
Kevin J. Hynes:I mean, look, I can't sit still for 20 minutes before getting bored. I'm not gonna have the grand jury sit there for three and a half hours listening to her babble on about her shoes.
Trisha LaFache:Right. So this is also from the same article under the headline Marla laces shoe case. The testimony followed a face to face meeting over the Easter weekend, during which Maples and Trump pleaded with Jones to enter counseling rather than face what would undoubtedly be a public and sorted trial. These guys were still meeting with Chuck, the weekend before the scheduled her scheduled grand jury testimony.
Kevin J. Hynes:I mean, look, this case was very unusual. Um, I obviously was not involved with that meeting, nor were any of my colleagues. Did it happen? I mean, probably something like that happened. They'd always made the point, Donald and Marla that they want to Chuck to get some counseling. So were they meeting with him? Maybe? Look, it's not the best thing that you want in a case you don't want your victim meeting with the defendant.
Trisha LaFache:So she showed up to the grand jury, regardless of the Easter weekend summit. And she testified.
Kevin J. Hynes:She did.
Trisha LaFache:And what did she testify to for all that time?
Kevin J. Hynes:Well, I mean, first of all, it wasn't a lot of time. Secondly, it was...uhh
Trisha LaFache:Nothing gets past you Kevin J. Hynes.
Kevin J. Hynes:I can't tell you exactly what she testified to. Because in New York State, the grand jury testimony is secret.
Trisha LaFache:Oh, come on to get your tell us something...
Kevin J. Hynes:Generally...Yeah. she testified that she knew the defendant that they had a business relationship. She testified that she did not give him permission and authority to be in her apartment. She testified that she did not give him permission and authority to take her shoes and underwear, stockings and whatever else. And then she also testified to the fact that she was present during the search of his office and that she was able to identify her shoes underwear and other stuff.
Trisha LaFache:Did you happen to notice what shoes she had on the day of the grand jury?
Kevin J. Hynes:Come on now. Are you out of your mind?
Trisha LaFache:That actually think that the papers report on them that they were a brand new pair of metallic gold Charles Jourdan.
Kevin J. Hynes:I mean, look, you know....
Trisha LaFache:Ballet falts I believe.
Kevin J. Hynes:You know me a long time Trisha. I don't even know what tennis shoes I'm wearing.
Trisha LaFache:They're, Jordan's. Okay, so who else testified?
Kevin J. Hynes:Giannetta and Higgins the two cops. You know, Detective William Lynch.
Trisha LaFache:Okay.
Kevin J. Hynes:Testified.
Trisha LaFache:William Lynch.
Kevin J. Hynes:William Lynch. They testified about what they knew about the case. They were called to the scene they had conversations with Chuck as a result, Chuck decided to give them permission to search the office and all the things they recovered the the shoes. The over 30 pairs of shoes that Marla identified as hers, her her underwear, her bra, panties, frilly. Oh, and the guns and the guns and Spike Magazine.
Trisha LaFache:Spike Magazine. So what was the result of the district attorney's presentation to the grand jury?
Kevin J. Hynes:So we presented all the evidence we charged them on the law. We told them we'd like you consider burglary and criminal possession of stolen property. Weapons. Those are the charges we then step out of the room, the door closes they vote. And in this case, you then come back in you say did you vote they say yes. And they tell you vote.
Trisha LaFache:Did you vote?
Kevin J. Hynes:Did you vote? And then they tell us, you know whether or not there's a true bill and what a true bill means whether or not 12 jurors, at least 12 jurors had voted to indict meaning that there was probable cause that these crimes were committed.
Trisha LaFache:Did you get the true bill?
Kevin J. Hynes:We did get the true bill.
Trisha LaFache:And on all three charges?
Kevin J. Hynes:On all three charges because as Sol Wachtler would say, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
Various TV News Reporters:Ham sandwich, ham sandwich, that ham sandwich is guilty.
Trisha LaFache:Okay, so what happens next? Because there's always somebody willing to talk to the press, especially in Chuck's case, the indictment is leaked to the press.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah. I don't know how that happened because it's not supposed to happen. Indictments are sealed until the the arraignment, the Supreme Court arraignment.
Trisha LaFache:Okay.
Kevin J. Hynes:And in this case, just like any other case, what that means is that they're secret, right. You're not supposed to tell anybody whether or not an indictment was voted. In the old days, it used to be they would take the indictment, they would type it up, and then they put it in an envelope and seal it.
Trisha LaFache:Okay. So it's a literal seal.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah. And I mean, you would not unseal it until you're in the arraignment a couple weeks later, when the judge would actually open the envelope.
Trisha LaFache:Stop. So it was a surprise to everybody.
Kevin J. Hynes:If you're in Supreme Court, you know that you've got to be reined. Right? Yeah. leaking to the press about unsealed indictments is a crime in New York. Having said that, back then it always happened. There was some sort of leak and those leaks came from different places. They came from the defense side, because you'd have to tell the defendant, you have to be in court for your arraignment. They would come from the cops sometimes, in my experience, never came from the DA's office, but probably happened also.
Trisha LaFache:But what's interesting about you saying that is in the article under the headline, "Marla's Ex-Soulmate Indicted", the first line is"New Yorkers have another sorted celebrity trial to look forward to." This article came out before Chuck was arraigned on the indictment. So as you're saying it is a true leak.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, this is a leak this there was no arraignment yet. So obviously, you know, we knew that the case was indicted, the defense knew because we called them up and said, hey, you know, you've been indicted and you can.
Trisha LaFache:Produce Chuck.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah. But you know, the newspapers are not supposed to know, having said that. Newspapers always find out.
Trisha LaFache:In the article,"Sal Alosco, Chuck's lawyer," is quoted as saying of the indictment, "Chuck is upset. It's affecting his life, his family. These two have been friends for years. This matter should have been resolved between themselves. Now it has to go through a whole trial. And it's tragic. It's tragic on both sides."
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, there's a couple things there. Right. So it's not tragic, right? First of all, it's not tragic. There are tragic shit going on.
Trisha LaFache:There's a lot of tragic things in the world. I would not. I would not call Chuck turning down an ACD and forcing the DA to indict him. Tragic
Kevin J. Hynes:And to your point, I mean, Chuck can be upset. But I mean, we we gave Chuck every opportunity not to be in this mess that he was in.
Trisha LaFache:Oh, he poked the bear.
Unknown:He poked the bear. And the other thing that's really important about what Alosco said at that point, he said it's tragic on both sides.
Trisha LaFache:Yeah.
Kevin J. Hynes:And again, as a prosecutor prosecuting a case and worrying about your victim.
Trisha LaFache:Yeah.
Kevin J. Hynes:And worrying about the case, possibly having to go to trial. That type of talk in my view was incendiary. Right? Basically, it was a floater of, you know, yeah, it may be bad for my guy, but it's gonna be bad for your guys, too.
Trisha LaFache:Yeah.
Kevin J. Hynes:And, you know, that's not the type of negotiations that should be going on at that point. Right.
Trisha LaFache:Did you see a lot of defense attorneys in your ten year of being in the DA's office function this way?
Kevin J. Hynes:I mean, look, there was always this, you know, you put up your guys, I'll put up mine. Let's see what happened.
Trisha LaFache:Right.
Kevin J. Hynes:Um, you know, as a defense attorney, you always want to look strong. But in this particular case, those types of comments to the press made me feel like, this, this thing may end up at trial.
Trisha LaFache:Yeah. The article goes on to say, Trump, who participated in attempts to settle the matter, told the Daily News. "It's a very sad situation. And I feel very badly about it. It's too bad that Chuck could have worked out his problems but wasn't able to. It's very tough for Marla. When they found out it was Chuck. She was devastated."
Marla Maples Recording:I just kept asking, why did you do this? Why did you do this?
Trisha LaFache:So here goes Trump, talking to the media and just fixating himself right in the middle again, of this whole fiasco.
Kevin J. Hynes:He is somebody who was definitely in the middle of this on the press side, there's no doubt again, he was not a witness to the case. Nor has he been speaking to the trial prosecutors or the investigating prosecutors in any way.
Trisha LaFache:I think that we should underscore at this point. I don't know that we have this was a situation that was causing a lot of strife between Donald and Marla and they already had a very contemptuous relationship. It's actually fascinating because in all of these articles, maybe upwards of 100 articles I've lost track, Marla is almost never quoted. Marla herself is almost never quoted. If there's a suggestion of anything that Marla said it's through somebody else.
Kevin J. Hynes:If you're the victim of a crime, don't talk to the press. There's no there's nothing good that comes to that.
Trisha LaFache:Well, she was devastated, Kevin.
Kevin J. Hynes:That's what we were told. I mean, Trisha, you gotta admit If you put yourself in Marla's position, she would...
Trisha LaFache:You mean in Marla's... put myself in Marla's...
Kevin J. Hynes:Shoes!
Trisha LaFache:Yes, yes. Yeah.
Kevin J. Hynes:She had a friend, colleague, somebody who worked for her who was stealing her fucking shoes.
Trisha LaFache:For like a really long time!
Kevin J. Hynes:How would you feel if one of your friends started stealing your shoes and you find out that it's one of your best friends....
Trisha LaFache:Be that as it may, Jennifer English, the spokeswoman for the DA Morgenthau at the time was quoted as saying the case is going forward. The arraignment on the indictment is set for next week. Yeah, tragic or not, devastating or whatever.
Kevin J. Hynes:This train was moving forward.
Trisha LaFache:Choo choo. Next up, Lynne Jones throws her two cents into the mix. Chuck's wife speaks. Tell us how you really feel Lynne, in the headline, "Her husband indicted. She's Marla's arch enemy." I love this headline. Yesterday, Lynne Jones was pretty verbal to the press about the Donald and Marla, saying "she's destroyed one American family and she's trying to destroy another and I won't stand for it." So how was she going to prevent it? Quote,"however she has to starting with the truth." Said a source close to the Jones'. I think this was Tom Fitzsimmons. If the source, by the way.
Kevin J. Hynes:A good friend.
Trisha LaFache:And finally, the article goes on to say, "rumors were flying about Jones penning his own version of the Trump-Maple saga, and several publishing houses have approached him." Quote, "he wasn't thinking about it before but now, he feels he has no obligation to them what-so-ever. He feels they nailed him to the wall."
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, this is all before the arraignment and obviously again the press is having a field day.
TV News Reporter:A new twist in the Marla Maples shoe caper. Maples' publicist Chuck Jones is charged with stealing her high heeled shoes. Now Jones' wife is speaking out, she told The New York Post that "Maples and Donald Trump are publicity seekers that they just want to drum up interest for Marla's Broadway opening."
Kevin J. Hynes:What Lynne Jones said was pretty harsh. Right? You know, saying that Marla ruined one family it was gonna ruin another. Pretty on point though, right? So I mean, I gotta give it to her. She's, you know, she's standing by her man. That's cool. I get it. I get it.
Trisha LaFache:And I love that she's doing that publicly. But I hope in private, Chuck is sleeping on the couch cuddling a pair of somebody else's shoes. Because come on, man. This is not cool.
Kevin J. Hynes:Let me ask you this. What would you do? If you found that your man was stealing some shoes?
Trisha LaFache:My man can't even get an email from another bitch without getting in trouble. You know what I'm saying?
Kevin J. Hynes:Do you? Do you on occasion look in his closet to see what he's got in there?
Trisha LaFache:No, I don't because this stupid idiot is signed into my computer under his email, like, Hello. I like that. I like that.
Kevin J. Hynes:And so the other thing I would say is this, though, what was a little bit questionable was this idea that he was gonna go write a book. Right.
Trisha LaFache:And that's not a Lynne Jones quote from this article read.
Kevin J. Hynes:Correct.
Trisha LaFache:That's an unnamed source that is close to the Jones'.
Kevin J. Hynes:I do remember there being a lot of talk that in addition to him having the nude photographs, in addition to him having the diary, that he was definitely penning a book. And these are the types of things that when you're a prosecutor, you start worrying. Is this going to make the victim look bad? Is this guy putting together a defense in which he's going to try to trash the victim? And, you know, back then our job as prosecutors was to present cases that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But also, I always viewed our job as protecting victims.
Trisha LaFache:Yeah.
Kevin J. Hynes:And so when you see these types of quotes in the newspaper, it makes you think here we go again, right? This is tragic on both sides. Marla is going to have to deal with those pictures. You know, I'm going to be writing a book. I don't want to hear this right. We're gonna try this case. We're gonna try this case, but don't be threatening my victim through the press.
Trisha LaFache:Well, first I want to say babe, I'm sorry for calling you a stupid idiot. He's a sweet guy. Second, could you think of what Chuck would call his book?
Kevin J. Hynes:The title of the book?
Trisha LaFache:Yeah.
Kevin J. Hynes:Um, how about Heeled: The Curious Case of Marla Trump's Shoes.
Trisha LaFache:I love that. What if it was the middleman? Me and Marla's mules? All right, because the book is gonna be all about you know how he was running interference for Trump when he was married to Ivana right, or Marla's you know, sexcapades with Bolton and Mohamed Hadid?
Kevin J. Hynes:Well, when I was, when I was a criminal defense attorney, I used to say that the best song for a defendant was..."It wasn't me."
Trisha LaFache:Shaggy. Our Chuck is arraigned on the indictment. So let's talk a little bit about the arraignment process generally and as it relates to Chuck.
Kevin J. Hynes:The arraignment process is all about the defendant being informed on what charges the grand jury voted. Th judge reads the charges, hands copy of the indictment to th defense attorney, and th defendant is present and plead guilty or not guilty.
Trisha LaFache:Right.
Kevin J. Hynes:In Chuck's case, we were assigned Judge Richard T. Andrias. He was part 63 in the day.
Trisha LaFache:Wow.
Kevin J. Hynes:And Andrias' courtroom was this pretty cavernous place, right. There was probably about 25 rows of benches, in the courtroom. It had gigantic ceilings, 25 foot ceilings. It was a majestic place. And it was in 100 Center Street on the 13th floor. I do remember that.
Trisha LaFache:Lucky number 13.
Kevin J. Hynes:For Chuck.So in Chuck's arraignment, what happened was the prosecution was there. I was there. The defense attorney was there, Sal Alosco. And Chuck was there. And it was packed. Right. So they were like probably 30 people from the press.
Trisha LaFache:DA's office.
Kevin J. Hynes:There were some people looky loos from the DA's office to see what was gonna go on with this case. You know, people from the defense bar were there. Just average spectators, right? Everybody knew that this was going down.
Trisha LaFache:Well, also, he wasn't the only person being arraigned on that day. So there's crying babies and baby mama's and...
Kevin J. Hynes:Other defen ants, the defense attornies, sur, but everyone was there to see Chuck. Right. And it was the irst time I met Chuck in pe son. Right. So generally sp aking, you do not have a conver ation with the defendant when yo are prosecuting a case. Thi case, unlike any other ca e that I was ever involve in. I did have a conversation
Trisha LaFache:Okay, tell us about that. with Chuck.
Kevin J. Hynes:Well, I walked up to the bench to do the arraignment and...
Trisha LaFache:You said nice shoes... (chuckles).
Kevin J. Hynes:No, I did not say anything. We I just looked over at him. He caught my eye and he's and he just said out loud, "It's nice to finally meet you. And I know that you're just doing your job." And it struck me as like, it made me feel like he didn't really understand what was going on.
Trisha LaFache:I am stuck like Chuck right now like if you guys can see me my mouth is really a gape. He said to you, "I understand that you're just doing your job." What is he the head of the Bonanno Crime Family?
Kevin J. Hynes:It felt so strange. And you know, I think it was kind of like no hard feelings type of comment. But I mean, you have to remember I you know, the first time I'm meeting this guy, right? I had done a bunch of investigation about him. I knew all the weird, creepy shit that we were saying he did. And, you know, I just he was taller than I like I thought he was shorter. I think because a lot of times you see him in the newspapers, he's next to Giannetta. Right. And Giannetta was a big guy. Yeah, Chuck looked a little bit shorter. But like he, you know, he just had this weird air about him.
Trisha LaFache:Yeah, and this is like vacillating between delusions of grandeur of who he is in the world or a thinly veiled threat.
Kevin J. Hynes:The other thing is this, right? The newspapers are there and you know, press people are there and you know, and they are like looking for some angle. And so I'm standing there thinking, if I say anything to this guy is gonna report it right. So all I do is nod, right. And then
Trisha LaFache:(Chuckels) you don't know what to say... You're like sure bruh!
Kevin J. Hynes:And you know me Trisha. I'm not one not to know what to say.
Trisha LaFache:For sure.
Kevin J. Hynes:You know, people say sometimes that I talk a little bit too much.
Trisha LaFache:Well, we're New Yorkers.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah. Well, look, when I'm on the set of the television show, I got a lot to say.
Trisha LaFache:Right.
Kevin J. Hynes:Budda Budda Budda. After he spoke to me, then Judge Andrias came out. Let me describe Andrias to you because there is no more fair judge sitting back then in the 90s then Judge Richard T Andrias.
Judge Richard T. Andrias Recording:I know, Mr. Hynes is going to oppose it, or he may, but I don't need to hear it. I'll give you the consideration I would give anybody else.
Kevin J. Hynes:Really good dude. Liked to wear bow ties. Umm, you know, would not be the type to wear a robe, unless he was on trial. So he'd come out in his bow tie, right. And big, big glasses. You know, just a good dude. Right? Sometimes wear cardigan like one of these guys. Right?
Trisha LaFache:He kind of reminds you of Mr. Rogers.
Kevin J. Hynes:Look, he was very knowledgeable, also a ve y smart judge. But general y wanted the parties to get alo g with did not like a lot f adversary in his courtroo
Trisha LaFache:Were there a lot of the other defendants waiting. Yeah, um, which was an iss e with this case later, but al o wanted business to get done. f you could come to a resoluti n of a case outside of a trial, e wanted that to happen. No, having said that, this is a b g case. This is the big case exception. And so everybody a ted differently. The entire cour room is filled with press, you now, everybody's got their noteb oks out. for arraignment well dressed?
Kevin J. Hynes:No, I mean, look, it was the 90s right, though. I mean...
Trisha LaFache:What was the difference with Chuck?
Kevin J. Hynes:Chuck was in a beautiful suit. I wore Brooks Brothers. Right. Why? You know, my father told me you're a prosecutor, wear Brooks Brothers suits. I mean, that's that's what I did.
Trisha LaFache:Did you only wear black and pinstripe black or...
Kevin J. Hynes:I had a I had a I had a summer suit. Yeah. It was in olive.
Trisha LaFache:But other than that, pretty much you stuck to your black.
Kevin J. Hynes:Dark suits. Yeah. Dark suit.
Trisha LaFache:That's how I was raised.
Kevin J. Hynes:Look, dark suit, red tie, white hat. We're the good guys. Yeah, the prosecution. So wingtip shoes is what I would wear? Well, I don't remember what Chuck wore. His team was there, Heaphy was there. You know, Fitzsimmons was in the courtroom. I remember Frederickson, you know, shiny face Frederickson was there.
Trisha LaFache:Ol, shiny face. Hey shiny!!!
Kevin J. Hynes:But I don't I don't want to take away the seriousness of the moment. Right? It was a serious moment because I was scared to death that something was gonna happen. And I was gonna watch my career go down the tubes, right?
Trisha LaFache:You kind of made a career out of prosecuting rich guys, didn't you? Weren't you at some point, promoted and put in charge of the Robert Durst case in Westchester County?
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, that was later in life, though. At this point. I was just trying anything that came my way. Right.
Trisha LaFache:So Chuck's arraigned.
Kevin J. Hynes:So Chuck is arraigned. He's told the charges, the judge decides that bail, which was $5,000 could be continued. And then he put the case down for motions, which is very standard.
Trisha LaFache:Just for the layman, what he means by the bail could be continued is that he wouldn't be put in jail prior to and during the trial.
Kevin J. Hynes:Right, Judge Andrias then set a motion schedule. And what that means is that the defense would make certain motions which the prosecution would have to respond to, and then the judge would make a decision on those motions. Right, generally speaking, and in this case, motions that he put down were a for map hearing and map hearing is a is a hearing that the defense would ask for, in this case, to suppress the items covered at the scene. Correct. So the shoes the underwear, the guns. They also were going to ask for a Huntley hearing, which is the statements right so before Heaphy called and said, don't talk to my client anymore. Chuck had made a number of spontaneous utterances like you know, I shouldn't have done this. I feel terrible. I'm sorry, Marla, those were statements that we want to get. And also there was, as we talked about before, inspection of the grand jury minutes so the defense would make a motion to dismiss, under the theory that the grand jury minutes were insufficient to support the crimes that the grand jury charged. It was I will say this, it was the strangest arraignment that I had been to in my career before and it's also the strangest arraignment I've ever been to since then.
Trisha LaFache:When it came time for the parties to engage in typical pre trial motion practice, Chuck Jones drops a motion to dismiss bombshell. Headline, "New sidestep for Marla, she says fo isn't a heel." Quote, "If you were hoping for a long dragged out trial and the Marla Maples Chuck Jones shoe caper, brace yourselves. Yesterday, Jones's lawyer, Sal Alosco filed a motion to dismiss the case in the interest of justice. Now you might say hey, well, fat chance, after all the time, trouble, taxpayer money and/or shoe leather that went into that case, it's simply not going to happen. Unless by some miracle, Maples herself would drop the charges. Well, guess what? After more than a year, Maples submitted? Yes...and affidavit supporting the dismissal of the charges against Jones. Hard to believe. But Maples has decided that she wants the whole thing behind her." End quote. Wow.
Kevin J. Hynes:We, we had no idea that this was happening.
Trisha LaFache:Oh, really?
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah. No. When we got the defense papers, we obviously saw that attached as an exhibit to the papers was an affidavit from Marla joining in the defendants motion to dismiss in the interest of justice.
Trisha LaFache:Why would she do that?
Kevin J. Hynes:Well, there was stuff going on behind the scenes that we weren't privy to certainly, and it was the first time in a year and a half close to two years of this case was pending, that we felt that the victim did not want to go forward with it. It was a shock.
Trisha LaFache:So let's talk about exactly what this looks like. So the defense files a emotion. Attached to the motion is an affidavit signed by your victim, Marla Maples that says I Marla support this motion. I believe that justice would be better served if this prosecution were terminated and you're telling me that nobody from Camp Trump gave you even a heads up that she filed this affidavit? This is definitely showboating one on one because at the very least, whether Trump is calling you or Marla. Sal Alosco could have pick up the phone and said, hey, we've got this motion. And she signed an affidavit in support and we're filing it.
Kevin J. Hynes:I think, to your point right at showboating this right? This is a case that was tried in the press. Unfortunately, from the beginning, Chuck being a publicist and the lawyers who Chuck was working with decided that this was not going to be your standard negotiation. Right? We had offered everything we were going to offer in this case. And we thought we had the upper hand. It was shocking to us that the victim in this case at this point chose this particular moment to sign an affidavit in support of emotion dismissed in the interest of justice. We were acting in the interest of justice, we were prosecuting a case that not only had to do with the stealing of shoes and underwear, but also had guns involved. Right. So look, it was not the best day for the prosecution, having said that she never disavowed her testimony. And I think that's very important to remember. She testified in the grand jury underoath. And she told her story to the grand jury, and that is what led to the indictment of Chuck. The affidavit didn't say, I lied in the grand jury.
Trisha LaFache:She's not going to get prosecuted for perjury now is she?
Kevin J. Hynes:All she did was say that I've read the defendants motion and I agree that the prosecution should be terminated in the interest of justice. We had a different opinion.
Trisha LaFache:Well, she made y'all look like shit.
Kevin J. Hynes:I will say it was not the best day for the prosecution.
Trisha LaFache:You take the effort to go to the grand jury. You get a true bail on all three charges. You go to the arraignment on the indictment. You are freight training towards a trial.
Kevin J. Hynes:We as prosecutors never want to walk into court and tell the judge"hey, Judge, you know, all that work we did on the indictment, all that work we did you know, leading up to the indictment".
Trisha LaFache:All the work in the grand jury.
Kevin J. Hynes:All the work we did at the grand jury all the work you've done, Judge. Now to get this case, ready reading motions? Well, we'll just let it go, just dismiss it. It's not what the DA's office did. It did not deter us from what we thought was the just outcome of the case, which was to move forward. We were not going to dismiss this case and allow Chuck to claim victory.
Trisha LaFache:I mean, I personally think that here Marla is getting extremely special treatment for a witness because any other witness that pulled this shit, the hammer would have come right down on them. At the very least, the witness would have been immediately reminded that she gave sworn testimony under oath at a grand jury. Now I understand that you're saying she didn't contradict her testimony at the grand jury. But she had signed a supporting accusatory instrument that set forth the crime, and that has the weight and authority of New York State behind it's not up to Marla Maples and Donald Trump.
Kevin J. Hynes:That's certainly true. In any case, if the victim refuses to testify, you can subpoena the witness. If they don't show up as a result of the subpoena, you could put the person in jail.
Trisha LaFache:And if she does take the stand, and she tries to change her previous testimony in any way, she could be prosecuted for perjury. Did you guys tell her that?
Kevin J. Hynes:I mean, look, we had serious conversations with the victim after we learned about this affidavit.
Trisha LaFache:And what was the expectation on a Manhattan prosecutor at the time if the case went to indictment?
Kevin J. Hynes:If you're going to the grand jury, you better make sure you have a serious enough case to go forward. We had a serious enough case the victim had testified we knew that he had guns. We knew that he had the shoes and the underwear. We were going forward. The affidavit was a setback. That's I will say that I will admit the affidavit was a setback. I was a prosecutor at that point for four years. I had tried everything from homicides, rapes, robberies, you know.
Trisha LaFache:But you were born and raised a prosecutor.
Kevin J. Hynes:Look, I mean, I was in my father's business, right? I mean, he was a prosecutor his entire career for the most part, and I was I was the first son. I was the first child, you know, oldest of five. It was not a great place to be because I was given this case that had really strange participants. Um, and it was the type of case where look, you always think how can you career blow up in your face? Right. And you know, you have nightmares about this stuff, right? Oh, no multiple defending case, you lose, right? Big Wall Street case, you lose. Big mafia case, you lose. You're the guy who lost that big case. Huh? Kind of sticks with you. Right. Trisha, losing the shoe case? I mean, I'm done. I'm finished. It's over!
Trisha LaFache:You didn't wanto be known as the shoe case loser?
Kevin J. Hynes:I didn't want to be known as the shoe case winner. But my hands were tied!
Trisha LaFache:But right here in this moment in time was what we're talking about is this snapshot, right? Is that as Chuck filed this motion with Marla's affidavit attached, wasn't there a moment where you said to yourself, I may be known as the guy who goes down on the shoe case?
Kevin J. Hynes:I don't know if I had that clear thought. I mean, looking back on it now, I will say I remember being shocked and disappointed.
Trisha LaFache:You're not you're telling me it never crossed your mind that this may be the thing.
Kevin J. Hynes:I knew that if we lost the case on a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice, there would be a lot of questions about hey, why did you go there? Why did you go? Why did you go this far? Why didn't you you know, and look, I knew we had done everything right with the case. We had done everything right.
Trisha LaFache:I mean, wouldn't you say this is a low point? Not to rub salt in your wounds here. But here's what Chuck said about the DA's office at the time and this is a Chuck quote. "I had a long conversation with Marla the other day. And she said, the DA badgered, confused and pressured her into testifying. She even told me that they subpoenaed her during a haircut at Frederic Fekkai", end quote. Frederic Fekkai was a very famous hairdresser at the time, Kevin.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, I'll take your word for that.
Trisha LaFache:So Jones told us, "it's a happy note that two people who've been friends for seven years are trying to solve their problems together. Two people plus the DA's office makes 70."
Kevin J. Hynes:We never badgered, confused or pressured Marla Maples in anyway, that's an outright lie. Not surprising coming from Chuck's mouth, because every time you open his mouth, his fucking flap and lies, right? Whether or not they had some kind of conversation about that I don't know? Look, there's an old saying in prosecution, right? No witness no case. If Marla wasn't gonna come forward, we were gonna have problems.
Trisha LaFache:So at this point, it's safe to say that all seems lost. And then, Chuck begins a series of what one would call, fuck ups. Now, one would think that Chuck right now has got the world by the balls, or at the very least, he's got the Manhattan DA's office and the Trump Marla camp by the balls. He got exactly what he wants. Marla Maples has finally moved the court to drop the charges against him in the interest of justice.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, I mean, if I'm Alosco, I put Chuck in a basement, you know, put cotton in his mouth, you know, tell him shut the fuck up and keep your mouth shut. We're gonna win
Trisha LaFache:And just wait until Judge Andrias decides this here. motion in his favor, but that's not enough for Chuck. Chuck starts accusing the cops of misconduct and says that this case is all about the pictures."Chuck Won't Duck Fight. DA Row Over Marla Pix" with an "x" as always. It's a very weird headline. Quote, "last week, while the whole world was watching to see if the Donald would really actually truly marry his Marla, Chuck Jones was quietly continuing his uphill fight with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. In court papers, Jones asserts that when he was arrested last summer at his office, the cops punched him and threatened him." He says in his papers that "detective Lynch handcuffed him, brought them into the bathroom and demanded to know where the much hinted at nude pictures were.""When I denied knowing about the pictures of Marla Maples," the paper say "I was grabbed forcefully by the lapel by detective Lynch" and told "we're not like the cops on TV, we're much meaner. And if you don't get those photos, you'll be taken to Central booking and let's see how you like that." Jones alleges that the cops then searched his Midtown office for three hours without a search warrant.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, this is your typical overreach. Right? I mean, he's got papers that he that he put forward that he had Marla's affidavit, you know, he's he's got the upper hand at this point. But then he overreached. Right. He started saying that Lynch did all these crazy things. Look, I knew William Lynch, right? These quotes that they have that he's like, "we're a bunch of mean..." It's just it's just total bullshit, right? William Lynch is not that kind of detective. He doesn't give a fuck about where the pictures are. There's no way that William Lynch ever cared about where these pictures are. But again, it's in Chuck's mind and he's making these accusations and it's really poor strategy, because I think Andrias reading those papers interest of justice with Marla st dropped the charges may be enough. They may have one motion, but again, Chuck overreached. He decided to say the cops did all these terrible things. And that was poor strategy in my view.
Trisha LaFache:Saying the DA badgered Marla is a problem. Saying that the cops beat him up when he couldn't produce the nude photos. It's a problem. Then, to make matters worse, Chuck sues everyone for $700 million. That's right, you heard correctly. Nobody is gonna put Chucky in the corner, honey. Chuck decides to poke the bear. Headline "Jones Chuck's $700 million Suit at Trump, the New York Post and the New York Daily News." The article starts "Chuck Jones is mad as hell and he's not gonna take it anymore." The article goes on to explain that in July of 93, while his motion to dismiss was being considered Chuck filed a massive lawsuit for libel, unlawful imprisonment, violation of his constitutional rights, slander, verbal abuse, refusal of medical care, illegal search and seizure and the old fan favorite, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Which sidebar, The Daily News calls quote "rather nervy since he was the one found with the pumps in his closet in all." Who did he file this lawsuit against? Well, Donald Trump, the city of New York, the NYPD, the Plaza Hotel, the New York Post, the New York Daily News, Trump's chief of security, Matt Calamari, Dominic Pezzo, Marla's Secretary, Janie Elder Porco and Marla's mom Anne Ogletree. Well, why not Marla herself? You ask? Well, here's Chuck quote on that. "She made a commitment to me to try and get this indictment dismissed." Talk about a quid pro quo.
Kevin J. Hynes:No pro quo quo.
Trisha LaFache:Wait, but that it is a quid pro quo, isn't it? As a favor for favor, like basically he's saying you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours or. So Trump has something to say about being sued by Chuck Jones too. "Chuck is a very disturbed guy who's currently under indictment, a very sad man." And then there's Chuck's civil lawyer, John Kelligrew, who ended up on the trial team. And he's also quoted in the article he says "Trump is the problem. The police department was obviously brought in to do Trump's bidding. The police were brought in and then Trump continued to libel and slander Mr. Jones." I love this part. Everyone was in the mood to throw a little shade on that day, because the Daily News reporter goes on to say, quote,"the only defendant getting off relatively easily is the New York Post, which was only sued for 5 million. And that's because they're bankrupt anyway." Ouch.
Kevin J. Hynes:He he should not have done this because he basically had the case exactly where he wanted to be. The victim signing an affidavit. Then $700 million. I mean, that's a lot of money.
Trisha LaFache:That's a lot of money.
Kevin J. Hynes:It's a lot of money now. And he's making all these wild accusations in the civil papers. And I don't think it was a good strategy. Trump did say Chuck is a very disturbed guy who is currently under indictment, a very sad man. I don't like to say there's a lot but I agree with Trump with that one.
Trisha LaFache:I even I would have to agree with Trump.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah. And I think if he had if he had done what his lawyers probably told him to keep your mouth shut, stay out of the press, stop suing people, this case may have had a different outcome. But in reality it didn't.
Trisha LaFache:I love that you brought up this number that he picks the $700 million. Because in a civil suit, you have to justify the monetary value that you attach to the case, you know, people say, oh, I broke my finger, I'm gonna sue for a million dollars. But in reality, the reality is, that fingers have a price. There's a price for an arm, there's a price for a leg. And so where is he coming up with this number?
Kevin J. Hynes:And here's where I've been trying to say to you from the beginning. This case was all about what makes the splashiest headline, right? $700 million dollars. I mean, why not a billion? I think 700 is a cool number.
Trisha LaFache:Right?
Kevin J. Hynes:So they came up with that. You have to remember, they're sitting around, you know, in some office some place making these decisions. What, what can we make a great headline. $700 million dollars. It's fucking ridiculous. And guess what? It wasn't a smart move. And it backfired.
Trisha LaFache:Just a little foreshadowing for Chuck's future. Chuck will eventually by the time this whole thing is over, file so many lawsuits, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually enjoin him from filing any lawsuits at all against anyone without prior leave of the court.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, I mean, he went lawsuit crazy. Absolutely. And this is when Chuck decided he was going to be in charge of everything. And you know, I am sure that the lawyers were not down with this. In fact, Alosco had said pretty much the same thing.
Trisha LaFache:And because batshit comes in threes, Chuck tries to file criminal charges against Marla Maples. So he decides to leave her out of the civil case and then subsequently, he wakes up one morning decides, you know what, I'm going to march my ass into the Metro North precinct and filed charges against, criminal charges, against Marla.
Kevin J. Hynes:This is just so stupid on his part. Alleging criminal charges against the victim of the case. It just borders on insane. I've never really seen that and you know, it definitely backfired.
Trisha LaFache:Even Chuck's criminal lawyer does not support the move, quote, "last night, Marla's former publicist dropped the criminal charges bombshell on us between bites of chicken teriyaki at the fifth anniversary party for Mickey Mantle's restaurant. When pressed. Jones's lawyer who was also at the party told us he did not, in fact, advise Jones to proceed with the criminal charges, but said I told chuck it was my belief that he should continue with a civil suit only. He felt that as a matter of principle, it was necessary to stand up for what he believes." And he did. So.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah he looks obsessed this point, right? It's bad, bad legal decisions. His lawyer's saying it's a bad legal decision. Obviously, he's the one calling the shots.
Trisha LaFache:It has to be Chuck is not willing to let go of Marla. He had everything aligned, ready to go. And he just keeps cooking up schemes to make sure that he is rooted in her life.
Kevin J. Hynes:Yeah, I mean, just to say some Trish, I've said to you before, like, oh, don't get good. "Don't get into Chuck's mind. And it's a dangerous place." It's a scary place. You know, I thought about a lot. I gotta say, um, I got this vision of like, Chuck sitting in his house in his mansion in Connecticut, thinking to himself, wow, I'm gonna win the motion to dismiss this is great. The case will be over, I'll never have to worry about them again. But wait, then I won't get to see her, then I won't get to talk to her, then I won't get to do anything having to do with her. What am I gonna do? I'm gonna file a civil case, because civil cases takes seven years to resolve. Yeah, I'm gonna file criminal charges. You can see that there is this obsession you said, you know, rooted in his mind. I do. I gotta say, like, what, there is no other explanation out there that the guy's got some sort of obsession for her. And he's not going to let it go. And he knows that he's on the winning side on the criminal charges. So let's go on the offensive. It ends up being the worst possible move this guy could make. But sitting in his bathroom in Connecticut, wondering and thinking about Marla and her feet. I kind of understand maybe where he's coming from.
Trisha LaFache:Well, here's the thing. I think Chuck would say,"they deserved it. I was there for her. I rescued her. You know, she cried on my shoulder. Trump treated her like dirt. I resurrected her reputation and career and I let the world know that she was you know, not a bimbo. She deserves this. She deserves us for the way she treated me." The truth of the matter is, it all comes down to obsession. Speaking of this obsession for Marla's shoes, let me tell you a little bit about how the papers reporting on fetishes back in the early 1990s. And specifically the psychology behind shoe fetishes. The aspect of Chuck's obsession that got him charged in the first place. "He wanted more than her pumps." The Daily News interviewed doctors and psychologists from all over the tri state area to have them comment on why Chuck would have stolen Marla's shoes. Quote,"for Chuck Jones, Marla Maples' high heeled shoes were a stand in for the real thing. A woman he apparently lusted after for years," psychologists and experts told The Post last night. "I think symbolically the shoe became Marla Maples for him," said Dr. JOHN O'CONNOR of the psychiatry department at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. O'Connor said "fetishes can range from minor non sexual habits like carrying a rabbit's foot to full blown erotic ones like collecting shoes or articles of clothing." In the next article, "Heel stealers are harmless." The Daily News reported. "Even Freud tried to come up with an explanation for the shoe fetish, a not uncommon sexual disorder that can be repressed by drugs or therapy and usually presents no danger to the practicer. Freud tackled the subject in his 1927 dissertation, saying that boys looked at a woman's shoe as a substitution for her missing penis." According to Cornell University Professor John Ross, Fuck Freud, okay. For those of you who aren't aware, Freud was a drug addicted asshole, a misogynist who defended child molesters and believed that he was superior to the rest of society because he was able to, quote, "overcome his homosexuality." So just no, no, thank you, Freud. Finally, Dr. Leslie Lochstein, Director of psychology at the Institute of living in Connecticut said, "A shoe fetish isn't usually dangerous to himself or the person whose shoes are being stolen. It's more of a public nuisance. Jones's problem if it is a fetish, may have been the only way he could act out the sexual attraction he had for Maples." Turns out we're not the only people thinking that way. In the article "Chuck Jones pressing charges against Marla," a source very close to Marla told the Daily News, "Chuck will take any relationship with her even adversarial. If he resolves the criminal case, it's over. He can't let it go. Even though it's destroying his family. It's contact. Contact with Marla."
Kevin J. Hynes:You want to call a contact, you want to call it an obsession. You want know what I think I would love it. I think he's obsessed with her. I think at some point in their relationship, he becomes obsessed with her. She's a beautiful woman. She's a smart woman, you know, he becomes obsessed. And then that obsession, for some reason, evolves into an obsession with her shoes. And then he becomes obsessed with the idea of having that piece of her. And then he goes out and he takes that piece of her. And once he started taking those shoes, he couldn't stop and he took her shoes, he took her underwear. He took her panties, he took her bras, and he kept taking and taking and taking the dude who is obsessed.
Trisha LaFache:Back to the pithy headlines in "Marla, Not So Shoe Heist Victim," the papers addressed the DA's response to Chuck's motion to dismiss, and it looks like the DA was not playing. The article claimed that the DA's opposition to Chuck's motion alleges number one: that Marla's affidavit in support of Chuck's motion should be disregarded because it was signed under duress. And the DA'S office has a new affidavit from Marla, to that effect. Number two, that in addition to Marla's shoes, a bag full of other women's shoes and boots were discovered in the search of Chuck Jones office that did not belong to Marla because they were not her size. And that when asked, Jones could not recall who shoes they were. Number three. The document indicates that Jones's fetish and obsession with the beautiful woman he represented for six years led to strange demands during private talks aimed at settling the case out of court. And at one point, Jones allegedly made the return of the pilfered pumps, a condition of settling the case without trial.
TV News Reporter:Chuck Jones says he will cooperate with prosecutors when one condition he wants to choose back.
Kevin J. Hynes:He's playing a very dangerous game,Chuck Jones right. He filed a motion, which is his right but somehow we got Marla to sign an affidavit right. He then sued everybody$700 million, and he's threatening to write a book he's saying he's got these pictures, possibly the diary. Let me just tell you one thing. You do not mess with the DA's office. You do not mess with the Manhattan DA's office. The preeminent DA's office in the country. He says in an affidavit a sworn affidavit that the DA's office badgered Marla into testifying in front of the grand jury. This is not something we do. This is not something we ever did. He was trying to make us look bad. You know what he's playing a very dangerous game of chicken because the Manhattan DA's office did not stand for that we would not be bullied we would not be pushed around. There's an old saying Trisha, don't mess with the bull because you're going to get the horns and that's what he got.
Trisha LaFache:And how to chuck take all that?
Kevin J. Hynes:Chuck? He had a heart attack. Literally.
Trisha LaFache:Next time, on Heeled...
Kevin J. Hynes:He has decided, this entire case, this entire city, this entire nation is waiting for the Chuck Jones trial.
Chuck Jones Recording:There was a big investigation over why this case was even brought because at the time Trump was friends with Morgenthau.
Trisha LaFache:Chuck insisted that he and Marla had recently walked hand in hand down Fifth Avenue.
Kevin J. Hynes:If Marla was walking down Fifth Avenue with Chuck, I mean when done. We get this package and I open it up and inside is this this picture of Marla Maples naked.
Chuck Jones Recording:I have never faxed anything to Donald Trump and Marla Maples, uhh regarding Marla Maples' nude photographs.
Kevin J. Hynes:They were like"what do you think this is?" They pointed inside the shoe and when I looked inside, I saw a stain.
Trisha LaFache:Heeled is a Justkill Production produced by Tandace Khorrami, Luke Groneman and Tyler Patrick Jones. It's written by Kevin J. Hynes and myself Trisha LaFache. The Heeled music was written by Chad Crouch. Additional shout out to Mike Shafranak, our editing wizard, our sound engineer Kyle Raps and to Max Alcabez, the owner of Pink Cloud Studios in Los Angeles where we record these shoescapades. Follow us on our Instagram at heeled.podcast or check us out on our website heeledpodcast.com. Tune in next week for another exciting episode of Heeled.