GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU law professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #4 *Arrests*

[Pawns123]

Everyone here are making really good point's, it's good to know that I am not the only one thinking about this case,in my life nobody even knows who CA is.

It really does seem (to me) that KM's lawyers are determined to take this case to court. Is it because of CA's council down the hall?, we all have a pretty good idea who may be paying them or worse (my awful idea) they know that they will make more billing hour's by going to court? Also they will be part of a high profile and possibly live streamed case.

Maybe it is as simple as the lawyers really believing they can win, in their mind her walking away free would be better than any plea deal.

I get the sense that many board members on this thread are like myself and want her to flip and take down the A's. Why do I hate CA so much? Why do I check daily to see if she's flipped? My greatest hope on this case is that LE arrest CA and the case is streamed, I really want to watch that trial.

Taco, glad I'm not only one. I knew from jump this did not add up.

 

[Razz]

Remember all the posturing and hemming a hawing about no evidence from Rivera's lawyer? Right up until the day he pled... Don't worry, everyone. Her attorneys are doing exactly what they should be doing. Positioning their client for the best deal possible.

We just need to be patient. At some point before February 27, I predict she will either move to continue or plea. And when the next trial date rolls around...I predict she will either move to continue or plea. In my opinion, their is just no way she will risk doing life in prison, with all of the other opportunities before her. All we can do is breathe, watch, and wait...

The one here being patient is KM herself. She's already missed one Christmas with her kids. Why would she continue to languish in jail?
Why not plead now? Get that
timeclock on her sentence ticking away.

I can be patient, but if I'm in jail, I'd be antsy as heck to get out of there. What are they saying to her to keep her sitting and waiting. Waiting and sitting while someone else is taking care of her children.

Does she really think she'll be freed? Talk now and get the best possible deal. I'm not sure I see the benefits of her waiting. And to ask for continuance after continuance on a trial is a waste of her time and whoever's money is paying the bills.

The only people who can be patient are those sitting on the outside, enjoying dinner w/ their kids, or sleeping in their own bed.

I wonder if she's among the general female population or if she has a cell of her own? I'm getting cookoo
just thinking about that.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[minusfour]

Everyone here are making really good point's, it's good to know that I am not the only one thinking about this case,in my life nobody even knows who CA is.

It really does seem (to me) that KM's lawyers are determined to take this case to court. Is it because of CA's council down the hall?, we all have a pretty good idea who may be paying them or worse (my awful idea) they know that they will make more billing hour's by going to court? Also they will be part of a high profile and possibly live streamed case.

Maybe it is as simple as the lawyers really believing they can win, in their mind her walking away free would be better than any plea deal.

I get the sense that many board members on this thread are like myself and want her to flip and take down the A's. Why do I hate CA so much? Why do I check daily to see if she's flipped? My greatest hope on this case is that LE arrest CA and the case is streamed, I really want to watch that trial.

You are not alone. I check every morning for progress. I predicted, incorrectly, to my dental staff that CA would be arrested before Christmas. A couple of months ago, I interrupted a periodontal study group to tell them all about CA. (By the way, calling a two man dental surgery an "Institutute" seems incredibly naff!) We are all waiting.

 

[BSBC]

To those on this thread that actually practice criminal law: Do you think it's a realistic possibility that the As are paying for KM's attorneys? And if so, would the prosecutors be able to discover that fact? Would it be admissible in a trial against KM (or the As)?

 

[Marvin Berry]

To those on this thread that actually practice criminal law: Do you think it's a realistic possibility that the As are paying for KM's attorneys? And if so, would the prosecutors be able to discover that fact? Would it be admissible in a trial against KM (or the As)?

Of course its possible that the As are helping with KMs attorney fees. It even seems likely given what we know about KM's finances (my opinion only).

In many jurisdictions (not sure about Florida), if a third party is paying for a representation, the identity of that third party is not privileged. Therefore, the prosecution should be able to find that out--but I'm sure that it would be a fight to get the info. But since these are murder charges, the judge is going to be very sensitive to admitting evidence that is overly prejudicial. Hypothetically, let's assume that the Adelsons and KM actually had nothing to do with DM's murder. It would be very plausible that CA would help pay KM's attorney fees given their past relationship and his being implicated in her charging documents. Therefore, if the As are in fact paying, while looking really bad to those of us who think they are guilty (again only an opinion!), it isn't really probative of KM's guilt (or the A's guilt). I can see a situation where the prosecution gets evidence that the As are paying for the defense, but that the evidence is excluded as overly prejudicial.

 

[86Violet]

To those on this thread that actually practice criminal law: Do you think it's a realistic possibility that the As are paying for KM's attorneys? And if so, would the prosecutors be able to discover that fact? Would it be admissible in a trial against KM (or the As)?

No, I don't think they are actually paying KM's attorneys. Just my assessment. I don't practice criminal law anymore. I've never dealt with this issue. My understanding was that the identity of a third party who pays legal fees was not privileged and the attorneys could be subpoena'd to provide the identity of the person paying them. However, in Florida, my google search seems to show that courts have barred discovery of this information in the past. Google Corry v. Meggs, a 1986 Florida appellate case. Also google the "last link" exception. So I dunno...maybe a person could get away with secretly paying another person's legal fees, but it just seems like a really risky/unlikely thing to do. My guess is that they cut all ties with KM once people started getting arrested, or if not then, after Rivera entered a plea and tendered his testimony.

 

[TacoChip]

To those on this thread that actually practice criminal law: Do you think it's a realistic possibility that the As are paying for KM's attorneys? And if so, would the prosecutors be able to discover that fact? Would it be admissible in a trial against KM (or the As)?

Maybe KM's brother or other family member is receiving anonymous money orders in the mail, something like that? CA protecting himself using a third party go between.

 

[Pawns123]

Maybe KM's brother or other family member is receiving anonymous money orders in the mail, something like that? CA protecting himself using a third party go between.

I know for a fact CA monitors this thread. The dragnet is tightening.

 

[Razz]

I know for a fact CA monitors this thread. The dragnet is tightening.

And WA as well.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[reallybusy]

SG is getting his defense on. Finally. Hoping a trial date will be set at his next case mgmt on 1/19 (next week).

 

[Montrealaise]

Of course its possible that the As are helping with KMs attorney fees. It even seems likely given what we know about KM's finances (my opinion only).

In many jurisdictions (not sure about Florida), if a third party is paying for a representation, the identity of that third party is not privileged. Therefore, the prosecution should be able to find that out--but I'm sure that it would be a fight to get the info. But since these are murder charges, the judge is going to be very sensitive to admitting evidence that is overly prejudicial. Hypothetically, let's assume that the Adelsons and KM actually had nothing to do with DM's murder. It would be very plausible that CA would help pay KM's attorney fees given their past relationship and his being implicated in her charging documents. Therefore, if the As are in fact paying, while looking really bad to those of us who think they are guilty (again only an opinion!), it isn't really probative of KM's guilt (or the A's guilt). I can see a situation where the prosecution gets evidence that the As are paying for the defense, but that the evidence is excluded as overly prejudicial.

I think the more compelling issue is not just who is paying KM's lawyers but who is directing her defense. At this point, KM and CA have diametrically opposed interests.

 

[86Violet]

Therefore, if the As are in fact paying, while looking really bad to those of us who think they are guilty (again only an opinion!), it isn't really probative of KM's guilt (or the A's guilt). I can see a situation where the prosecution gets evidence that the As are paying for the defense, but that the evidence is excluded as overly prejudicial.

Good point. It really doesn't prove or disprove any elements of murder. Not relevant.

 

[whonos]

Good point. It really doesn't prove or disprove any elements of murder. Not relevant.

Would it be considered relevant if they were telling KM that she would go free, no need to squeal on the A family?

Is it clear to law professionals that she will serve time or could that advice be considered a possibility?

I am confusing myself...

I am asking if it looks suspicious if they tell her something that would be contrary to what most professionals think is in her future?

 

[Satchie]

I know for a fact CA monitors this thread

:wave: waving

 

[whonos]

The "why" is easily explained - an upstanding, brilliant man was murdered in cold blood for the simple reason that he wanted to be a father to his children, and you - and I, and everyone else on this board - want to see his killers brought to justice. Not just the people who carried out the murder, but also the ones who ordered it.

"Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which society has a direct interest."
W.H. AUDEN, The Dyer's Hand

 

[Marvin Berry]

I think the more compelling issue is not just who is paying KM's lawyers but who is directing her defense. At this point, KM and CA have diametrically opposed interests.

KM's attorney has an ethical obligation to act in her best interest regardless of who is paying for her representation. As long as they can do that--and also follow their other obligations (e.g. maintaining confidentiality)--there isn't anything wrong with it per se .

But you don't have to be an experienced attorney to know that you probably shouldn't accept payment from the individual on the opposite side of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" from your client. Even if everything you did in the case was correct and in your client's best interest, the appearance of conflicting interests will inevitably bite you in the rear.

 

[86Violet]

Would it be considered relevant if they were telling KM that she would go free, no need to squeal on the A family?

Is it clear to law professionals that she will serve time or could that advice be considered a possibility?

I am confusing myself...

I am asking if it looks suspicious if they tell her something that would be contrary to what most professionals think is in her future?

Well, yeah, if her attorneys were conspiring against her they would be guilty of several ethical violations...and if the A's were paying KM's attorneys to conspire against her there is probably a crime in there somewhere as well? But none of those things would be relevant to prove that any of the parties are guilty of MURDER. And I highly doubt those things are happening - it's just too far-fetched for me. The only plausible thing I could think is possibly KM was given some cash at some point to put away for legal fees in case she was arrested soon? Like maybe after Garcia and Rivera were arrested? Not like an ongoing stream of payment for her legal fees.

But as for her attorneys, I think they are truly doing their best for her. I think they are fighting for her and trying to get her an awesome deal. The best she can possibly get. And I think they'll get it for her - someday soon.

 

[TacoChip]

:wave: waving

Thank you Satchie, I needed that today. I think I can predict the future.:jail:

 

[GordonX]

Are her attorneys pushing for trial and avoiding a plea deal at the request of someone else?

 

[Gaius]

An acquaintance of mine; who made me notice this sad story; has a point of view along the following lines. My point of view is different.

May be some of us have not realized, but this is going to be a difficult fight for the TPD, the Tallahassee Mayor, the State of Florida, and the FBI. It may appear none sense but the governments are facing law savvy and powerful people. From the start, some unusual law savvy maneuvers are involved.

Just, review the following public domain examples. It would be too long to provide the references but if you partially google each statement, you will be taken to the original source with much details:

1.“Since Garcia's arrest, the document has been sealed because of the ongoing nature of the investigation. However, the affidavit, which provided never-before-seen details of the 2014 shooting, was released minutes before Garcia made his first appearance in a Leon County courtroom on Thursday.”
2.“The order to lift the seal was filed at 7:59 a.m. by Chief Circuit Judge Jonathan Sjostrom. Garcia appeared before a judge 36 minutes later. The order gave no details as to why the document was unsealed.”
3.“TALLAHASSEE, FL (WTXL) - In an email sent to the Tallahassee Mayor and City Commissioners, City Manager Rick Fernandez said the unsealing and release of documents in the Dan Markel investigation is "highly unusual."
4.“Tallahassee Police didn’t want details of their case against a Miami man arrested in Dan Markel’s killing to be made public for fear other suspects in the murder-for-hire scheme might flee the U.S., court documents show.”
5.“Suspected co-defendants have the financial means to flee the country and to not return, and in fact, have already been discovered talking about leaving,” TPD’s legal counsel Theresa Flury wrote in a May 26 motion that successfully sought to have Sigfredo Garcia’s arresting documents sealed.
6.“Chief DeLeo did say more arrests are likely. He declined to comment on the Adelsons, except to say with a smirk, when asked if he knew their whereabouts, “We aren’t on speaking terms.”
7.“Based on the above information, this investigator belives there is sufficient evidence to prove Charles Adelson, Katherine Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia, and Luis Rivera are responsible for the murder of Daniel Markel.”
8.“Adelson Family Will Not Be Charged In Dan Markel's Murder Despite Circumstantial Evidence Released By Police (Including $1 Million Offer To Allow Children To Move To Miami, Communication And Money Trail To Hit Men)”
9.Tallahassee Democrat, Tensions Flare in Markel Case After Unexpected Document Drop:
After two years of investigation into the murder-for-hire plot of Dan Markel, prosecutors are unlikely to approve the arrest of his former in-laws.
10.Police chipped away at leads, drafting arrest affidavits filled with evidence laying out investigators’ case against Charlie and Donna Adelson, the brother and mother of Markel’s ex-wife Wendi Adelson.”

The same scenario may happen again. May be, some unusual law savvy maneuvers are involved behind the scene on behalf of Katherine Magbanua. It is still a possibility that one day, Katherine Magbanua wil be just let off-the-hook. It is sad that people with no more than $100,000 plus few used cars interests in a killing are behind bars while those who may have actually benefited from it beyond monetary value, such as blood value (I know some will not comprehend what I mean but I want not elaborate), will never be prosecuted.