FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #15

[Blue Shakehead]

Tim Jansen and John Singer were on STS tonight and said to be prepared for a very slick Charlie tomorrow, especially during direct examination. He‘s had 7 years to concoct this story, and memorize an answer and explanation for everything. They even said he might hold up under cross examination. Charlie has practised it for hours and has had hours of mock cross examinations. But in the end, it’s all a house of cards that will fall apart in closing arguments because his story will make absolutely zero sense to any reasonable person. It’s beyond belief.

 

[flay012995]

Same. I think that’s her minimizing it to LE because she KNOWS what she did is beyond despicable and that she is truly a horrible person and doesn’t want to admit it to anyone - including herself.

I feel sorry for her children. Did she ever think how this could impact them in the event she got caught? Did she ever think of Dan’s little boys? Never. Not once.

During the direct, I wonder why the prosecutor never asked her about Rivera's "I know" statement.

 

[Snoopster]

anyone here who wants to give Charlie benefit of the doubt and see how he testifies tomorrow? It seems to me everyone here screams Charlie is guilty even without his testimony

Thank you for raising this point.

I think he's testifying only because the evidence stacked against him is huge. And that's why people believe his is guilty. Because the mountain of evidence is so significant.

He deserves his day in court and that will be tomorrow. Let's see if he can convince everyday people of his innocence. I suspect he won't, but I'll wait to see.

 

[Seattle1]

anyone here who wants to give Charlie benefit of the doubt and see how he testifies tomorrow? It seems to me everyone here screams Charlie is guilty even without his testimony

^^bbm

Welcome to WS and this thread @flay012995. Respectfully, I disagree that anybody here opining that CA is guilty, even before his testimony, is doing so without merit.

Considering many here have been taking in the evidence beginning in 2019, 2022, and again in 2023, I'd say it's quite the contrary.

IMO, whether or not the defendant exercises his Constitutional right tomorrow to testify or remain silent, it's not going to eliminate the long admitted, factual evidence that got CA indicted and charged with Dan's murder. And to be clear, I don't think CA is the lone Adelson guilty of murder as defined in the Florida Statutes. I agree it's difficult to see only one individual shoulder the blame and punishment.

Since CA's already admitted to the facts in evidence, unless CA plans on producing an alternate mastermind who used and extorted him, then I think CA's going to be joining his already convicted co-defendants real soon. JMO

 

[userunnamed]

Deep Dive True Crime (Mentor Lawyer) said he was going to publish the profors tonight (I believe KM's). Does anyone know if he has a 2nd channel? I don't see them yet.

 

[minusfour]

anyone here who wants to give Charlie benefit of the doubt and see how he testifies tomorrow? It seems to me everyone here screams Charlie is guilty even without his testimony

It doesn’t really matter if we do or don’t give him the benefit of the doubt, as long as the jury does.
He has enjoyed many years of freedom since the crime.
The evidence is compelling.
I’m interested in what he has to say

 

[clearskies1]

Deep Dive True Crime (Mentor Lawyer) said he was going to publish the profors tonight (I believe KM's). Does anyone know if he has a 2nd channel? I don't see them yet.

One proffer is up on Deep Dive. It seems he works on them/edits them before posting so the other 2 many not be up right away. I did hear him say his goal was to get all 3 up tonight.

 

[Niner]

Thursday, November 2nd:
*Trial continues (Day 6) (@ 9am ET) - FL – Daniel Eric Markel (41) (shot to death July 18, 2014, Tallahassee) - *Charles Jay Adelson (37 @ time of crime/45/now 46) was indicted (4/20/22), arrested & charged (4/21/22) & booked (in Leon County 4/25/22) with 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder & solicitation to commit murder. No bond (denied bond 4/26/22). Bond release denied (9/9/22).
Jury selection set to begin on 10/23/23 & ended on 10/25/23. 12 Jurors & 3 alternates (8 men & 7 women; 7 white men, 1 Black man, 2 white women & 5 Black women)
Trial began on 10/26/23. (thru 11/9/23). State rested their case on 11/1/23. Defense began on 11/1/23. From 9am 5:30pm except Wednesdays from 9am-5pm/5:15pm
Circuit Judge Stephen Everett presiding. Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman. Defense attorney Daniel Rashbaum & Kate Meyers.
Court info from 4/21/22 thru 10/23/23 & Jury Selection Day 1-3 (10/23-10/25/23) & Trial Day 1-4 (10/26-10/31/23) reference post #818 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...murdered-by-hitmen-3-guilty-15.694569/page-41
11/1/23 Wednesday, Trial Day 5: State witnesses: Undercover FBI Agent. The state is reviewing calls recorded between Donna Adelson, Charlie Adelson, Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia after “the bump” in April 2016. FBI agent Pat Sanford.
State rested their case. After the state concluded, defense attorney Kate Meyers asked the judge to acquit her defendant. Ultimately, the judge denied the motion.
Defense witness: Wendi’s divorce attorney, Kristin Adamson.
Charlie Adelson stood up Wednesday afternoon & addressed the judge. He was sworn in & told Everett he will testify in his own defense. After a brief meeting between the attorneys & the judge, Everett sent the jury home early & announced testimony will resume tomorrow.
For more info see posts #1044 & 1045 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...murdered-by-hitmen-3-guilty-15.694569/page-53
Trial continues on Thursday, 11/2/23.

 

[cottonweaver]

Tim Jansen and John Singer were on STS tonight and said to be prepared for a very slick Charlie tomorrow, especially during direct examination. He‘s had 7 years to concoct this story, and memorize an answer and explanation for everything. They even said he might hold up under cross examination. Charlie has practised it for hours and has had hours of mock cross examinations. But in the end, it’s all a house of cards that will fall apart in closing arguments because his story will make absolutely zero sense to any reasonable person. It’s beyond belief.

That was really helpful advice from Singer. He said we're going to be outraged in the morning but by cross & then later through summation the state will tie it all up perfectly.
I must admit I am nervous & hope whoever is crossing CA is on their A game.

I was also pleased that Singer acknowledged the concerns we'd had about insufficient objections by the state re Rashbaum stating facts not in evidence/ mischaracterising the evidence.

 

[cottonweaver]

It doesn’t really matter if we do or don’t give him the benefit of the doubt, as long as the jury does.
He has enjoyed many years of freedom since the crime.
The evidence is compelling.
I’m interested in what he has to say

Forgot to add your posts as a dentist are fascinating - especially the reality check post you made about being a ' travelling periodontist' as Rashbaum called him. That this is not a great way to work. ( One of the Youtube commentators has material on their channel about his tangles with the dentists' regulator, if you're interested)

 

[minusfour]

Forgot to add your posts as a dentist are fascinating - especially the reality check post you made about being a ' travelling periodontist' as Rashbaum called him. That this is not a great way to work. ( One of the Youtube commentators has material on their channel about his tangles with the dentists' regulator, if you're interested)

Thank you. I’ve dived into the dentist history before, even asking friends of friends questions. I don’t think Charlie was very respectful of rules.Dentistry is so exacting, the thought of trying to cope with different surgeries constantly sounds awful. You want to be concentrating on your patients, not how to work the unit. Working in a practice long term does require a certain submission to the many rules of a practice, ( and I’m speaking as a practice owner here), and the need for a tolerance of repetitive work.

I did mean to add in my first post, I’ve never been thinking of killing or in any way harming any person or living creature whilst I’ve worked as a dentist. Don’t be scared of your dentist, they are not thinking that sort of thing

 

[cottonweaver]

Interesting. Thanks for that perspective. I think LE and prosecutors were so done with Katie for not taking the immunity. Their frustration with her is at a 1000 by this point I bet. She had no leverage at that point. She should’ve had her lawyers there!

I just watched the first 15 mins or so on his channel. It's November 2022 so it must be the second proffer interview.
One of her first concerns also seems to be that this will be made public. As well as her appeal, I'm guessing she's concerned that her kids & family might see her as she really is and instead she claims she's psychologically blocked. find it hard to believe that CA never gave her a $number for the pay-off for the hitmen.
OTOH I don't think she was faking tears when one of the LEOs acknowledges that she'd lied on stand.

The proffer interview is also frustrating. Too many cooks, sometimes talking over each other & too much waffling. Send Monica Jordan in!
Anyway, I'll watch the rest of it another time. Well done MentourLawyer for paying for those - and WSers who contributed to those expenses. Fascinating stuff
( There's potential for her to be using again at another Adelson trial - IF she can do better - so I'm not going to rip her to shreds on twitter even though some might - she might be useful in the future)

BTW I do think it's possible that on one of their first proper dates at Halloween, that CA used deliberately vague phrasing on his first mention such as ' harm somebody' rather than ' do you know somebody who can kill somebody?' because he was testing the waters on that date. It's interesting that she admits on Halloween that she replied to CA, yes I know somebody who can do that.
I don't believe her when she claimed she couldn't recall the later point at which CA starts getting specific about a plan to kill nor when she claims she was manipulated into this crime

@Seattle1 Are the contents of past proffers admissable in future trials ? Just thinking how Donna could use some of these KM comments in her favour

 

[cottonweaver]

Too late to edit that post - Nope it's her first proffer.

 

[Tapeartree]

I wonder if this is the end of the road for Justice for Dan? Will the state stop here with CA? Will they go after DA? Will WA have to testify at her own mother's trial? It's just difficult, for me, to see the evidence presented so far, and not one person has been able to question the parents. It's been such a long road for DM family to seek justice and fight for visits with their grandchildren. Just my thoughts.

 

[Weki]

I just watched the first 15 mins or so on his channel. It's November 2022 so it must be the second proffer interview.
One of her first concerns also seems to be that this will be made public. As well as her appeal, I'm guessing she's concerned that her kids & family might see her as she really is and instead she claims she's psychologically blocked. find it hard to believe that CA never gave her a $number for the pay-off for the hitmen.
OTOH I don't think she was faking tears when one of the LEOs acknowledges that she'd lied on stand.

The proffer interview is also frustrating. Too many cooks, sometimes talking over each other & too much waffling. Send Monica Jordan in!
Anyway, I'll watch the rest of it another time. Well done MentourLawyer for paying for those - and WSers who contributed to those expenses. Fascinating stuff
( There's potential for her to be using again at another Adelson trial - IF she can do better - so I'm not going to rip her to shreds on twitter even though some might - she might be useful in the future)

BTW I do think it's possible that on one of their first proper dates at Halloween, that CA used deliberately vague phrasing on his first mention such as ' harm somebody' rather than ' do you know somebody who can kill somebody?' because he was testing the waters on that date. It's interesting that she admits on Halloween that she replied to CA, yes I know somebody who can do that.
I don't believe her when she claimed she couldn't recall the later point at which CA starts getting specific about a plan to kill nor when she claims she was manipulated into this crime

@Seattle1 Are the contents of past proffers admissable in future trials ? Just thinking how Donna could use some of these KM comments in her favour

I really thought we were gonna hear about all the details of the plot. I was frustrated that the state didn’t go in a linear fashion and bring out all the discussions between her and Charlie prior to the murder. Now I have my answer! She forgot?! No way! This foolish woman fears reputational damage over loss of freedom! She ended up saying she did it anyway! It’s so unbelievably stupid! And anyone with a brain would know she did it even if she didn’t admit to it.

Anyway thanks for the summary. I can imagine that LE had no patience with her by this point. JMO

 

[amicuscurie]

Dentist’s often buy their aged parents out. It’s often a transaction that benefits the parents more than the child. I suspect this is the case here, wasn’t their information that Harvey wasn’t that well?

Yes. I remember hearing somewhere that he wanted to retire, so they transferred the business to Charlie. Wendi has claimed he had a brain tumor, I’ve heard in other places that it was benign. Don’t know how the exchange for the business worked, but CA seems to have already been involved in moving cash around between them, so I’m sure a deal was struck. And then, at some point after the arrests, perhaps in fear of CA’s arrest, I think I remember hearing that it was transferred back to Harvey for a nominal sum. Does anyone else remember that?

 

[amicuscurie]

I’m only a few minutes in but this IMO totally backs up KM saying the other day how nervous and scared she was at first, they just show up, a camera is in her face, her attorneys aren’t there, law enforcement is asking for her to “just talk” and she’s said she’s “never” talked to anyone about this until now (assuming she means talked about the truth of what happened to law enforcement). She seems visibly nervous, and asked if the video would be made public.

I can totally see how and why she said it took her time to start saying these things and her “truth”, especially after years of saying all these other stuff that wasn’t entirely that same truth. But JMOO.

I think they should have explained this in direct, how she didn’t exactly “come forward” wanting to talk, they just showed up. Did her attorneys make the arrangements without her?

 

[Missyrocks5]

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that both WA and CA started dating their respective marks right at The same time almost. They both decided to lure in KM and JL to use both of them. Both relationships ended right after the murder for CA and with WA the Monday of that week. I don’t think they did anything other than use them and I think WA was trying to see if she could get JL to be William Hurt in Body Heat, but settled on making him just be the patsy to take the fall. He is blessed he left early.

 

[amicuscurie]

They stopped paying the “paychecks” to Katie, which Rash alleges were actually extortion payments, at the time of the arrests, right? So, at any time, even if he was being extorted, Charlie could have stopped having to make these ”installment” payments by simply providing info to the cops leading to their arrests.

Is he claiming he didn’t know who the actual murdererers were? This may be true, Katie seems to have played that close to the vest. But he knew who Katie was. He could’ve turned her in. Instead, he was buying her cruises, etc.

The closing arguments are going to be interesting.

 

[amicuscurie]

I wonder if this is the end of the road for Justice for Dan? Will the state stop here with CA? Will they go after DA? Will WA have to testify at her own mother's trial? It's just difficult, for me, to see the evidence presented so far, and not one person has been able to question the parents. It's been such a long road for DM family to seek justice and fight for visits with their grandchildren. Just my thoughts.

If not, they should bring a civil suit. They would definitely be found responsible under the civil standard, and it would hit them in the wallet big time.