The sentiment for some in this thread is that if KM if acquitted, the Adelsons are home free. Georgia Cattleman still feels she doesn't have enough evidence to go trial. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but I disagree. I watched the the trial, and saw 85% or so of it. I was surprised how KM attorneys threw the Adelsons under the bus , because i thought they would try not to unalienate KM from them. But.....had the Adelsons been on trial, I would have 100% convicted Charlie, Donna and the wicked ex-wife. Harvey most likely has Alzheimer's and was clueless.
GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #10
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
- Status
justice1960
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 1,554
sg
KM has to admit guilt to give up the Adelsons, plus hang SG to boot. I'm sure SG is filing every appeal in the book imaginable...With that him taking the stand is probably very unlikely. This may be one of the reasons the defense is using delaying tactics. Their client has been in the pen for 5 plus years and they are complaining about discovery issues. Another false tactic and the Judge sees right through it.
justice1960
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 1,554
A KM conviction ties everything up in a nice little bow in the case that will follow shortly there after. I'm sure the Adelsons can read the writing on the wall... The arrest warrants will still be warm after the next jury finds KM guilty and they slap the cuffs on them. We have to remember the Adelsons have top of the line lawyers and The Prosecutors in Tallahassee like slam dunk cases...Sort of like how Federal Prosecutors operate. They don't like the thought of reasonable doubt drifting in the air. IMO.
GordonX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 3,514
IMO - In KM's trial, the alleged masterminds only had one objective - to have KM acquitted. If badmouthing the masterminds helped KM get acquitted, the masterminds were just fine with that. It doesn't matter what KM said about them - they didn't care because her words of "thought" in that trial have NO direct legal impact on them. Only the facts matter. So when KM VERY CAREFULLY (as coached by her attorneys) said - "Yes, based on the evidence I've seen, I THINK CA had something to do with this crime but I had nothing to do with it." - it helps KM get acquitted and doesn't put CA/alleged masterminds in any legal jeopardy whatsoever in any future trial. What she "thinks" doesn't matter and all of the attorneys know this! So if I'm the masterminds - I tell KM and her attorneys - say whatever you need to in order to get acquitted! SO while it sounds like KM is "badmouthing" them - she's really not - she's trying to facilitate her own acquittal which ultimately helps the masterminds. Because if KM falls, the masterminds fall. Like Dominoes. I believe KM's attorneys and the Mastermind's Attorney all sat around together in Penthouse one and coordinated this UNIFIED defense strategy. Part One is to get KM Acquitted at all costs. KM is the firewall to get to the alleged Masterminds. If that firewall falls, it's game over. I think if KM gets convicted, reality sets in, and she sings. As of now, she's made a Faustian Bargain - she's willing to gamble for the big $$$$$ payoff.
Faustian bargain - a pact whereby a person trades something of supreme moral or spiritual importance, such as personal values or the soul, for some worldly or material benefit, such as knowledge, power, or riches.
A Faustian bargain is made with a power that the bargainer recognizes as evil or amoral. Faustian bargains are by their nature tragic or self-defeating for the person who makes them, because what is surrendered is ultimately far more valuable than what is obtained, whether or not the bargainer appreciates that fact.
Last edited:
Great post.
justice1960
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 1,554
Excellent summary!
KM will be singing to deaf ears after she is convicted...She had her chance and she blew it. This is exactly why the State is taking their sweet time on this case and they will be throwing everything except the kitchen sink at KM. In the mean time they will continue with the phone taps and surveillance on the Adelsons until it is their turn to face the music. Only God knows what they have on the Adelsons at this point in the cat and mouse game...The State don't have to give their attorneys discovery until they indict and charge them.
Last edited:
Agree.
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
KM does not necessarily sing.
Someone is paying for the maintenance of her kids.
IN the worst case I'd see her getting served with 12-14 yrs and with time off for good behaviour that could come down to 8 in the best case.
At the time that the retrial kicks off , she will have been in for six.
I can easily see old de Coste playing out the appeal for 18 mo to a year (Kawass might not wan to carry on - this has been her life story for about four years ) . If KM does a deal with the state before the appeal, she might be spitting in her own dish. And that is even assuming a conviction and not another mistrial.
The Adelsons and their legal help have this whole thing sussed - they are laughing at the state of FL.
KG
GordonX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 3,514
12-14 or 8 Years? What orifice are you pulling this out from?
KM is charged with First Degree Murder.
First Degree Murder is a Capital Offense in Florida and only has two possible sentences:
Death, or
Life without the possibility of parole.
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
Ans -
Prosecutor has already stated she is no seeking death penalty in the case of KM. I know the charge sheet says capital murder or did at the first trial but I think CAppleman wants to make it far easier for the jury to convict.
In fact the new charge sheet may not be for "capital murder ". I have seen the first but not the second. If you perchance have a copy PDF of the latter I'd love to see it. I am not being sarcastic. I got my other PDF from the Above the Law site I do believe. Someone like James W (Mentour lawyer on Ytube) May be able to get a copy of a charge sheet for a work in progress trial but I am not sure he can.
It is also possible there an inertia or sticktion in the FL system and once you are charged with capital murder that sticks to all subs retrials even if the prosecutor is going for a "lite " sentence.
I found I could not upload the FULL PDF so I took Jpegs of a few pages as per ATT. NB the first charge sheet /Warrant for arrest .
Kidon Gadol
Attachments
I am new to Websleuths. I got interested in this case and landed here after listening to the Over My Dead Body podcast. I have been amazed at the insights and links to documents and other materials that members have posted here.
I recently finished watching the videos of the Garcia/Magbanua trial. I purposely did not read the probable cause documents or review other evidence before watching the trial because I wanted to come to an opinion of guilty/not guilty based on the same evidence presented to jurors. Here are my thoughts. Please keep in mind this is based on my recollection of the trial evidence without fact checking what was said or reviewing evidence.
I found Rivera's testimony to be credible. The defense kept trying to point out inconsistencies in his statements. However, I felt like the inconsistencies were petty and not substantial to the case. I felt like the other evidence presented corroborated his story and weighed way more in my mind than his testimony alone.
I did not find Katherine Magbanua's testimony to be credible. Based on her demeanor alone, I thought she did a good job in her own defense as she didn't seem nervous or flustered to me. However, her words I didn't find credible. Her own attorney's questions seem to be leading to me. There seemed to be a lot of confusion or not remembering. I kept thinking to myself how can she not remember since she has been sitting here listening to all the testimony. If I was on trial for my life after being in jail for two years, you can be sure I would be going through all the information in detail to try to help myself especially if I was innocent. She admitted that she didn't work for the Adelson Institute. Honestly, that really turned me off from her lawyer's arguments. I felt like they kept hammering three points: 1. Why are the Adelsons not on trial? Yes, they should be held accountable, but the jury was there to decide on Garcia/Magbanua so to me this was a nonissue in coming to a verdict. 2. The government didn't properly investigate. I thought Detective Isom and Agent Sanborn did a good job explaining how their investigation led them to the evidence and defendants to refute this point. 3. Her money came from legitimate work for the Adelson Institute and working for clubs. After hammering the other witnesses that she could have worked remotely and was doing customer care, I thought this was a blow to her credibility to say she was Charlie's personal assistant. Why wouldn't you tell your own lawyers that if it was true rather than have them hammer this story that you contradicted on the stand. Also, none of the testimony supported making that much doing bottle service. Again, why would you not have any evidence or witnesses if this is your main argument for your cash deposits.
As one of the other posters commented, I was surprised by the ages of the jury members. I have a 20 year old who has almost no life experience, and I'm not sure he would be able to test the veracity of the witness statements. Among other things, he has never filed a tax return or had to get health insurance so he would not have picked up on any discrepancies with this testimony. I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) by profession so I deal with banking information, tax documents and employment files routinely as part of my job. As such, I thought the state did a good job presenting that evidence.
I thought GC did a good job, and I would have voted guilty for Magbanua with the evidence presented. I am wondering if a new trial will be even more difficult since she will again have to present evidence related to all the other players to establish the conspiracy and Ms. Magbanua's involvement. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I recently finished watching the videos of the Garcia/Magbanua trial. I purposely did not read the probable cause documents or review other evidence before watching the trial because I wanted to come to an opinion of guilty/not guilty based on the same evidence presented to jurors. Here are my thoughts. Please keep in mind this is based on my recollection of the trial evidence without fact checking what was said or reviewing evidence.
I found Rivera's testimony to be credible. The defense kept trying to point out inconsistencies in his statements. However, I felt like the inconsistencies were petty and not substantial to the case. I felt like the other evidence presented corroborated his story and weighed way more in my mind than his testimony alone.
I did not find Katherine Magbanua's testimony to be credible. Based on her demeanor alone, I thought she did a good job in her own defense as she didn't seem nervous or flustered to me. However, her words I didn't find credible. Her own attorney's questions seem to be leading to me. There seemed to be a lot of confusion or not remembering. I kept thinking to myself how can she not remember since she has been sitting here listening to all the testimony. If I was on trial for my life after being in jail for two years, you can be sure I would be going through all the information in detail to try to help myself especially if I was innocent. She admitted that she didn't work for the Adelson Institute. Honestly, that really turned me off from her lawyer's arguments. I felt like they kept hammering three points: 1. Why are the Adelsons not on trial? Yes, they should be held accountable, but the jury was there to decide on Garcia/Magbanua so to me this was a nonissue in coming to a verdict. 2. The government didn't properly investigate. I thought Detective Isom and Agent Sanborn did a good job explaining how their investigation led them to the evidence and defendants to refute this point. 3. Her money came from legitimate work for the Adelson Institute and working for clubs. After hammering the other witnesses that she could have worked remotely and was doing customer care, I thought this was a blow to her credibility to say she was Charlie's personal assistant. Why wouldn't you tell your own lawyers that if it was true rather than have them hammer this story that you contradicted on the stand. Also, none of the testimony supported making that much doing bottle service. Again, why would you not have any evidence or witnesses if this is your main argument for your cash deposits.
As one of the other posters commented, I was surprised by the ages of the jury members. I have a 20 year old who has almost no life experience, and I'm not sure he would be able to test the veracity of the witness statements. Among other things, he has never filed a tax return or had to get health insurance so he would not have picked up on any discrepancies with this testimony. I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) by profession so I deal with banking information, tax documents and employment files routinely as part of my job. As such, I thought the state did a good job presenting that evidence.
I thought GC did a good job, and I would have voted guilty for Magbanua with the evidence presented. I am wondering if a new trial will be even more difficult since she will again have to present evidence related to all the other players to establish the conspiracy and Ms. Magbanua's involvement. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
1. Place holder .
2
"Also, none of the testimony supported making that much doing bottle service. Again, why would you not have any evidence or witnesses if this is your main argument for your cash deposits. "
State has a new witness called Ramsi N (forget the spelling of the surname so I won't guess). He is or was the owner of the Fate Nightclub. No doubt he will testify she earned very little as a bottle girl.
Two new witnesses are available The other is Ryan Fitzgerald.
3.
"I found Rivera's testimony to be credible. The defense kept trying to point out inconsistencies in his statements. However, I felt like the inconsistencies were petty and not substantial to the case. "
They signed a one trial only plea agreement with Rivera. It will be very very interesting to see how helpful he is on the retrial. I expect the state can offer him various concessions re his release or at least make his time in the jug more pleasant. He sent a letter to Cappleman trying to ensure he did the 7 yr tack on in the Az prison but to no avail ( I suspect he suspected his life was at risk after xfer back to FL to serve the remainder of his sentence ).
4. GC did a mediocre job. She has a droning voice that does her no favours. She at one stage apologised for not having a transcript prepared for an audio section that was VERY VERY hard to understand. There is no excuse f or that .
She had over two years to prep the trial. She may well have lost it. Between her and her assistant the lost originals of other documents at least once. She came across as someone who had less than total focus on the job. I told her boss (Campbell) that in an email and he got nasty and sarcastic towards me and told me to stay out of the state or I'd have possible legal troubles.
5. KM will likely get convicted and the next cab off the rank should be Wendi . The state has more dirt on her than they have on Charlie. The indemnity only covers material that comes out of Wend's mouth that cannot be discovered by another means. That other means is potentially in NYU by the name of Amy Adler. She is the last woman whom Markel was dating. She could testify that WJA must have known about the trip north because of childcare arrangements. If she does that, then the fact that G Cappel stupidly got WJA to admit she knew of that movement of DM while not the stand - that goes out the window. AA is J_ish. I sure the Adelsons will be pulling out all the dollar stops to make sure AA does not testify against their daughter. Since it is a state and not Fed trial, it is not that trivial to get AA to testify (there is nothing in it for her and it's an intrusion on her personal history).
The state has to move fast once KM is convicted or retry her again. Reason being that Rivera (who is by far the best witness against WJA ) could be released from custody as early as mid 2025 if he gets full good behaviour reductions. At that point, the Adels will make him a dollar offer he cannot refuse - perhaps.
Kidon G
2
"Also, none of the testimony supported making that much doing bottle service. Again, why would you not have any evidence or witnesses if this is your main argument for your cash deposits. "
State has a new witness called Ramsi N (forget the spelling of the surname so I won't guess). He is or was the owner of the Fate Nightclub. No doubt he will testify she earned very little as a bottle girl.
Two new witnesses are available The other is Ryan Fitzgerald.
3.
"I found Rivera's testimony to be credible. The defense kept trying to point out inconsistencies in his statements. However, I felt like the inconsistencies were petty and not substantial to the case. "
They signed a one trial only plea agreement with Rivera. It will be very very interesting to see how helpful he is on the retrial. I expect the state can offer him various concessions re his release or at least make his time in the jug more pleasant. He sent a letter to Cappleman trying to ensure he did the 7 yr tack on in the Az prison but to no avail ( I suspect he suspected his life was at risk after xfer back to FL to serve the remainder of his sentence ).
4. GC did a mediocre job. She has a droning voice that does her no favours. She at one stage apologised for not having a transcript prepared for an audio section that was VERY VERY hard to understand. There is no excuse f or that .
She had over two years to prep the trial. She may well have lost it. Between her and her assistant the lost originals of other documents at least once. She came across as someone who had less than total focus on the job. I told her boss (Campbell) that in an email and he got nasty and sarcastic towards me and told me to stay out of the state or I'd have possible legal troubles.
5. KM will likely get convicted and the next cab off the rank should be Wendi . The state has more dirt on her than they have on Charlie. The indemnity only covers material that comes out of Wend's mouth that cannot be discovered by another means. That other means is potentially in NYU by the name of Amy Adler. She is the last woman whom Markel was dating. She could testify that WJA must have known about the trip north because of childcare arrangements. If she does that, then the fact that G Cappel stupidly got WJA to admit she knew of that movement of DM while not the stand - that goes out the window. AA is J_ish. I sure the Adelsons will be pulling out all the dollar stops to make sure AA does not testify against their daughter. Since it is a state and not Fed trial, it is not that trivial to get AA to testify (there is nothing in it for her and it's an intrusion on her personal history).
The state has to move fast once KM is convicted or retry her again. Reason being that Rivera (who is by far the best witness against WJA ) could be released from custody as early as mid 2025 if he gets full good behaviour reductions. At that point, the Adels will make him a dollar offer he cannot refuse - perhaps.
Kidon G
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
Dan Markel Case - Work with Mentour Lawyer
look for this on Ytube search . There is the magic deposition dated March 22nd, 2019, taken by Kawass from L Rivera and transcribed by AN Other. There's a lot of meat in there; that has never come out at trial about how Rivera was paid and who paid him.
Video is 54 minutes long - just to make sure you get the right one.
KG
look for this on Ytube search . There is the magic deposition dated March 22nd, 2019, taken by Kawass from L Rivera and transcribed by AN Other. There's a lot of meat in there; that has never come out at trial about how Rivera was paid and who paid him.
Video is 54 minutes long - just to make sure you get the right one.
KG
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
For those who are following this - there is yet another question about this deposition - what entered into Rivera's tiny mind to have this interview at all ? He's already been sentenced and he is about to be a prosecution witness.
It occurs to me that two things could be at play -
a. He is bored and has a long time to go in Az Fed prison - well not so long - only another two years as it turns out. Now I believe he is back in FL in the state prison, something he was trying to avoid.
b. Anthor possibility - Via Jessica, his defacto, he's been made a small offer so he would talk to Kawass.
But how does Kawass know ? I suspect via her meetings with her client, KM. She may have mentioned this option of paying Rivera to see what he will say that may be of benefit in the defense of KM. Kawass would not pay.. far too dangerous. but Charlie might - either in person or via an intermediary. If that can be proven it is at present the only provable transaction in the case.
I think LE should be getting a set of possible photos to show Jessica to see if she was paid and if so , by whom. (J Umchinda is another possibility for the intermediary) . She'll probably refuse to talk. But you have to try....
KGadol
TTF14
Spaceship Headlight Pattern Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,554
- Reaction score
- 59,565
Thank you for posting! It's really interesting to hear your perspective as someone who didn't know a lot of detail before watching the trial. A 13th juror if you will
.I also have a 20-year-old and I would not trust her 1. Pay close enough attention for the duration of the trial and 2. Understand enough to not realize that she didn't know what she didn't understand.....if that makes sense.
Great post. Welcome to WS!
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
Thank you for posting! It's really interesting to hear your perspective as someone who didn't know a lot of detail before watching the trial. A 13th juror if you will
I also have a 20-year-old and I would not trust her 1. Pay close enough attention for the duration of the trial and 2. Understand enough to not realize that she didn't know what she didn't understand.....if that makes sense.
Great post. Welcome to WS!
James Wacnewski (my approximation) of FL AKA Mentour Lawyer has done another session on Ytube on all the recent Tallahassee court postings from both Prosec and defense ahead of the trial .
inter alia : it appears that Sig Garcia is NOT in the witness list, so it seems the Theory of CJA contracting with SG directly (without KM) for the murder has gone onto the rubbish theory pile, which is a good place for it. One of the problems is that the Def has only one known meeting occurred between SG and CJA and it was not a happy one. And the only witness was KM and she's a known liar.
What is even more interesting is that WJA CJA and Donna Adelson are all nominated by defense as potential witnesses. This of course may be a ploy to keep the prosecution just guessing... What the hell do they need Donna for.
This raises the interesting question as to if the "use indemnity" for WJA is still in place for this trial - I'd say not (just for the earlier KM trial ) . That's the last thing that Cappelman needs.
Use of headphones for jurors is in the prosecution brief - it a warning to the court that this is what they will be intending to have in the court system (plus loudspeaker coverage for the rest of the court) . That would be to cover the Dolce Vita restaurant FBI recordings I'd guess. I was hoping they'd use automatic translation by several methods and amalgamate them to get some sort of agreed transcription. Perhaps the FL rules of evidence rule that out.
The defense still may try to use June Umchinda as a witness. She 's on a list for the taking of depositions.
The defense is also going to take one from Ryan Fitzpatrick who was noted as State witness on the matter of stapled money and any habits CJA might have in that area.
Prosecution has made a bundle of other stipulations - disallowing "bolstering " and so on... Georgia has been working hard to make sure this time it don't fall in a hole. The sad thing is that with time already served , I suspect that practically KM might only have do another five years or so in the Klink - assuming that the prosecution wins . Still, five years is a long time when you are her age.
With the conviction of KM, then the state can start stalking bigger game.
genuineusa77
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2021
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 2,608
This is mind-blowing!
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
GUSA77 - be aware !!! that that last sentence is a look ahead - the trial is set for mid Feb next.
I have not crystal ball as to the outcome, but if the state fails, it will not be for want of trying. If the State wins, then Donna A has blown about $800K , which is my estimate of all the legal costs plus the cost of having the original killing done (and the money drain remains open - the Adelsons could end up in the poorhouse, even if the case against Donna and CJA is never proven. If KM is convicted then WJA needs to be tried. There is far more evidence against her than anyone else (assuming KM does not say anything implicating C J Adelson in the next little while). I hate to think what this has cost the taxpayers to investigate and prosecute.... KG.
GordonX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 3,514
5 Years? KM is charged with First Degree Murder. First Degree Murder is a Capital Offense in Florida and only has two possible sentences: Death, or Life without the possibility of parole.
KidonGadol
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 1,718
I predict she will get 20 years but with reductions for good behaviour she she'll be out in 11 or twelve and she's already done 6.5 years on remand. NB I said "another five years". Look at Rivera - he got just 7 years additional as the driver for the hitman to his racketeering penalty for a total of 19 and he may be out in two or three years from start of 2022 with good behaviour .
Who knows, this first degree murder charge could get downgraded. Cappleman needs a scalp, any scalp - she needs to make it easy for the jury to convict otherwise she looks like a time waster to her boss, J. Campbell (who don't like me none
) ) Justice ain't like the old days.- Status