InternetJeff Of course his lawyers not going to let him do all that.
Thats the key point - he had good lawyers, they would never let him sign or admit to anything until the plea deal and all of tis fine points were laid out on the table and agreed to. That is generally how plea deals always work. The prosecutors aren’t allowed to reneg on a plea deal and use the plea as evidence. That’s not a thing, never has been a thing, and never will be a thing, as it would 100% guarantee no one would ever take or sign a plea deal again. They are carefully negotiated without admitting guilt until the full deal is on the table and available and signed off by the prosecution.
Plea deals essentially work in “opposite” of how you framed it - the defense says “Prosecution, Show us a plea deal” - the prosecutors have to write up and agree to and sign off on what their deal is and they present that deal to the defense who then review it, talk over the ramifications with the defendant and talk about what the consequences of agreeing to that deal are, and then will go back to the prosecution with any possible asks or adjustments (in this case I think the only ask was the original one - “give us a plea deal with no capital punishment and we’ll present it to our defendant to discuss”). Essentially the defendant never says “I did it, I want a plea deal!” - they say “Show me a plea deal so I can decide if I want to continue to defend myself at trial or take your offer to avoid the trial”.