GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #9 *arrests*
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
New Posts
-
AR AR - Angela Figueroa, 21, Fayetteville, 27 April 2024 *possibly on foot in a robe*- Latest: heuristicsdepartment
- Status
Yes, very confusing as it was widely reported that the family was in the courtroom from day one and shown during verdict.
I asked MentourLawyer to clarify. He said: it’s just poorly written - they meant not excluding the next of kin from the application of the sequestration rule
computantis
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 182
When Rivera said in the witness stand something to the effect of:
(1) “Katie recruited us (Rivera and Garcia) to kill the guy (Dan Markel) for the benefits of the lady with two kids (Wendi Adelson) and Katie’s ex-boyfriend (Charly Adelson)”;
(2) “the first attempt when we went to Tallahassee, we failed but we succeeded the second attempt”;
Were these L. Rivera statements circumstantial evidences or direct evidences?
S. Garcia’s lawyer Saam Zangeneh said to the WCTV reporters something to the effect of “Now that S. Garcia is convicted, the Adelsons should be concerned.”
When the same pieces of evidence were insufficient to convict Magbanua, because three jurors did not make the necessary inference, how could the same insufficient pieces of evidence make the alleged upper echelons above Magbanua concerned?
I am missing some dots in between ...
(1) “Katie recruited us (Rivera and Garcia) to kill the guy (Dan Markel) for the benefits of the lady with two kids (Wendi Adelson) and Katie’s ex-boyfriend (Charly Adelson)”;
(2) “the first attempt when we went to Tallahassee, we failed but we succeeded the second attempt”;
Were these L. Rivera statements circumstantial evidences or direct evidences?
S. Garcia’s lawyer Saam Zangeneh said to the WCTV reporters something to the effect of “Now that S. Garcia is convicted, the Adelsons should be concerned.”
When the same pieces of evidence were insufficient to convict Magbanua, because three jurors did not make the necessary inference, how could the same insufficient pieces of evidence make the alleged upper echelons above Magbanua concerned?
I am missing some dots in between ...
clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,809
- Reaction score
- 28,585
It's direct evidence - eyewitness testimony that is based on personal knowledge/ observation and which (if true) directly proves the allegations. Perhaps a different jury would have convicted Magbanua. Depends who is on the jury. JMO.
reallybusy
random person
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2016
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 838
Karl reports 10-2.
“We kept trying to figure out what they would want to hear, what evidence they thought was missing,” one juror, who asked to remain anonymous, said of the holdout. “It kept coming back to they didn’t show enough. The discussions just kind of fell through, broke down.”
Dan Markel murder: Jury deadlocked at 10-2 in Katherine Magbanua mistrial
“We kept trying to figure out what they would want to hear, what evidence they thought was missing,” one juror, who asked to remain anonymous, said of the holdout. “It kept coming back to they didn’t show enough. The discussions just kind of fell through, broke down.”
Dan Markel murder: Jury deadlocked at 10-2 in Katherine Magbanua mistrial
Weki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2019
- Messages
- 2,457
- Reaction score
- 16,981
wow thank you. This was the exact breakdown on the jury I sat on. Finally 1 came around and the other held out longer but eventually came around after days of deliberation. It was so frustrating! And this was the exact issue we had - no genuine reasoning was given just a blanket there isn’t enough. What a waste!!
This assures me state will be able to get a conviction at the next trial!
Yay! I like these numbers better! Thanks reallybusy!.....and from the wording this is a quote from a Guilty voter (one juror, who asked to remain anonymous, said of the holdout). I wish we could have heard more from them.....I am ready for April with new found confidence of the case.
Also from article....
"One of the not-guilty votes for Magbanua was from a juror who insisted the state had not shown enough evidence to prove the 34-year-old guilty. The second was from a juror who grappled with interpretations of the law, according to the sources."
ETA: also if we can believe the "original" holdout interview the other juror switched from G to NG shortly after Allen Charge read
Gardenista
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19,034
- Reaction score
- 157,395
So does that mean the Mentour Lawyer juror lied? Didn't she say 10/3?
Weki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2019
- Messages
- 2,457
- Reaction score
- 16,981
So all those stupid questions during deliberations were from the 1 holdout it sounds like. This person was creating idiotic hypotheticals that had no bearing on the evidence. Probably the same one who asked stupid questions about KM’s work as a brand ambassador. How infuriating!
She said 9/3 from what I recall hearing and discussed here.
I think Miss Chatty Cathy might be so into herself that she was mistaken about the final vote...CLUELESS
I don't know if I just want to believe this number because it favors how I feel but I think it is true. Etters pretty quickly retracted his original number and it has taken several weeks for him to re-report.
ETA: I told MentourLawyer about Etters article with different count
TTF14
Spaceship Headlight Pattern Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,654
- Reaction score
- 60,167
Agree. Chatty Cathy could definitely have interpreted it wrong, but also Karl Etters doesn't have the best track record for accuracy.
I don't think she lied, per se. She did say the initial vote was 10-2, but she claims that during their final deliberation, someone else supposedly switched her vote. She may have been exaggerating a little to make to make it seem like she was able to persuade someone else to adopt her "enlightened" opinion.
That juror was pretty self-righteous throughout her interview with Mentour Lawyer. She made it seem like everyone else only found KM guilty because they were bigots with no sympathy for poor KM, who was just sticking it to the man by failing to report 25 large in "tips" to the IRS.
Hopefully, the SA can do better job of weeding out millennial snowflakes next time.
Interestingly, from the article, it seem like the jury was actually initially more divided over SG's guilt.
You've got to hand it to the defense, they ate the SA's lunch when it came to voir dire.
Gardenista
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19,034
- Reaction score
- 157,395
So I wonder if that means it was 11/1 before the Allen charge and then went to 10/2.
You are being kind saying she mis-remembered. I think she was trying to boost her ridiculous narrative.
Here is MentourLawyers response to the Etters vote count of 10-2:
"well - this juror said that the first final vote was 10-2 - but then when the judge told the to go back and try again - one more female juror voted not-guilty - so not sure where Etters got the info - I only have one juror’s version"
I had a new response from MentourLawyer below, which I did not see until today. It really helped me understand the cross appeal pertaining to victims rights. I was confused and I think some others were too because the Markel family were present at trial. ML explains why they were there. This is great that the State is pursuing this for other victims that may be excluded in future cases.
"when Judge Hankinson denied the State’s request to let the Markels stay in the courtroom even though they were listed as witnesses/ the State then released them from the subpoena for trial / in essence the State decided it could go forward without using them as witnesses- and that’s why they watched the full trial - the State hopes that in future trials in this and other murder cases the next of kin will be allowed to watch the trial and still be able to testify"
computantis
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 182
Reggie Garcia, a lawyer and former neighbor of Dan Markel, said to WCTV reporter that Magbanua should be also tried with “others who have financed this” in subsequent trials to come.
The Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman said to the effect of “we presented all pieces of evidence we have in this case”; and, the State of Florida got a mistrial for Magbanua.
Said in a more direct way, the State of Florida does not have more pieces of evidence, circumstantial or direct, to go anywhere further such as to go after the alleged commandeers, Adelson siblings and parents.
Does it appear to be the case that the only potential and hypothetical direct evidence between the killing of Dan Markel and the alleged commandeers Adelson is K. Magbanua; if she were to flip?
Yes, there is no status of limitation for a murder in Florida but over time memories and human key witnesses fade.
Are potential and hypothetical witnesses eligible for pre-emptive witness protection program at the level of the State of Florida?
The Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman said to the effect of “we presented all pieces of evidence we have in this case”; and, the State of Florida got a mistrial for Magbanua.
Said in a more direct way, the State of Florida does not have more pieces of evidence, circumstantial or direct, to go anywhere further such as to go after the alleged commandeers, Adelson siblings and parents.
Does it appear to be the case that the only potential and hypothetical direct evidence between the killing of Dan Markel and the alleged commandeers Adelson is K. Magbanua; if she were to flip?
Yes, there is no status of limitation for a murder in Florida but over time memories and human key witnesses fade.
Are potential and hypothetical witnesses eligible for pre-emptive witness protection program at the level of the State of Florida?
I don’t know the answer to that computantis but am becoming more and more disappointed every day and disillusioned that justice really will prevail for Dan... personally.
Bongo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2017
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 686
Is it possible that she literally meant in THIS case? She has evidence for the case against CA or DA, which is for that case, not this case? I'm I grasping at straws?
TTF14
Spaceship Headlight Pattern Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,654
- Reaction score
- 60,167
I don't think you're grasping, and I think that's either exactly what she meant or it isn't true. Why would she show her hand now?
- Status