GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blue Shakehead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
77
Reaction score
794
The defense said they would be calling Garcia to the stand before opening, but you notice nothing was said by Ms. Kawass. I don’t think they are going to call him.

Kawass said in her opening...

"I want to be very clear, the State and I can actually agree on two very important points about this case. Number 1: Charles Adelson had Dan Markel killed. We absolutely agree with that. And number 2: Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia carried out the hit for Charlie Adelson. We agree with that too. What we do not agree on is whether or not Katherine Magbanua knew about a plan to have Dan Markel killed. That is the only thing we don't agree on."

The next bit is quite interesting....

"Now, we do not have a burden in this case. We went over and over and over this in jury selection - that we dont have a burden and the burden completely rests on the State. But Mr. DeCoste and I are gong to have to do something very different in this case. We are going to prove to you beyond any doubt that Charles Adelson conspired directly with Sigfredo Garcia, behind Katie's back...to have Dan Markel killed. The only question you are going to have to answer at the end of all this is....did Katherine know? Thats it. Its that simple.

-----
She did not specify that Garcia would be testifying but I don't know how else she could possibly make that bold of a claim without having Garcia or Charles Adelson testify.

The phone records and wiretap trail tell a completely different story.
 

clearskies1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
16,202
Kawass said in her opening...

"I want to be very clear, the State and I can actually agree on two very important points about this case. Number 1: Charles Adelson had Dan Markel killed. We absolutely agree with that. And number 2: Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia carried out the hit for Charlie Adelson. We agree with that too. What we do not agree on is whether or not Katherine Magbanua knew about a plan to have Dan Markel killed. That is the only thing we don't agree on."

The next bit is quite interesting....

"Now, we do not have a burden in this case. We went over and over and over this in jury selection - that we dont have a burden and the burden completely rests on the State. But Mr. DeCoste and I are gong to have to do something very different in this case. We are going to prove to you beyond any doubt that Charles Adelson conspired directly with Sigfredo Garcia, behind Katie's back...to have Dan Markel killed. The only question you are going to have to answer at the end of all this is....did Katherine know? Thats it. Its that simple.

-----
She did not specify that Garcia would be testifying but I don't know how else she could possibly make that bold of a claim without having Garcia or Charles Adelson testify.

The phone records and wiretap trail tell a completely different story.
It may just be based on Katie testifying.
 

clearskies1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
16,202
I don’t think they will have Katie testify. They will try to rely on her prior testimony. I hope they do put Garcia on the stand. However, based on what we have seen so far I am still not convinced they will try that gambit.
I don't think the defense can get her prior testimony into evidence. She is available to testify so I think they would need to call her again. JMO.
 

Blue Shakehead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
77
Reaction score
794
It may just be based on Katie testifying.

I don’t think they will have Katie testify. They will try to rely on her prior testimony. I hope they do put Garcia on the stand. However, based on what we have seen so far I am still not convinced they will try that gambit.

Yeah, its not entirely clear. One reason Im leaning towards Garcia testifying is the other part of Kawass opening, where she mentions that Garcia had been stalking/following around Katie and Charlie when they went on dates without Katie's knowledge (Garcia previously alleged this as well). She then said that Charles was very aware (from Katie) of Sigfredo Garcia being a deadbeat and not being able to get his life together.

And then Kawass said:

"On May 15th, Sigredo sat outside the restaurant and watched them while they (Charlie and Katie) at dinner. Kate then left to go home cause she has kids to take care of. And Charles leaves south beach to now drive up to his Fort Lauderdale home in his burgundy Lexus. This is when Sigfredo Garcia confronted Charles about Katie. And for Charles...an opportunity had now fallen directly into his lap. "You want her back...Katie? No problem. I will give you $100,000 in cash and I will leave her alone if you do this for me." God only knows what Charles Adelson said to Sigfredo Garcia about Dan Markel. He probably even said to him to him "you can get someone else to do this for me". The deal was hatched in that moment.

---

Its a very creative argument (lie) which seems almost entirely based on Rivera's prior testimony about Garcia losing his mind about Katie dating the dentist, following them around and then confronting both of them in traffic outside a restaurant. Now, Katie can't corroborate this story at all. The only people who can are Garcia and Charlie Adelson. Thats why I'm guessing that Garcia will testify.

Of course, like any lie...it wont be able to stand up to any scrutiny or common sense. If you are confronting someone about screwing your common law wife, what are the chances that you are going to walk out of there with a deal to murder a complete stranger who lives 8 hours away? That not usually how those confrontations go down. And then most importantly.....there are zero calls/texts between Adelson and Garcia and the only flow of information is Charlie Adelson>Katie>Garcia.

If Garcia is testifying, it seems like the defense is going to make the trial a credibility contest between Rivera and Garcia. But they still won't be able to explain the phone records that have Katie quarterbacking the whole thing, the money drop, Katie getting a no-show job at the Adelson institute and then Adelson and Katie strategizing how to deal with the extortion ruse. All the coded language. Seems like a tough hill to climb.

---

Kawass then admitted that the source of some of Katie's cash deposits into the bank following the murder were actually from Sigfredo Garcia - but she didn't know it was the proceeds of the Markel homicide. This is a brand new defense theory and suggests that Katie likely will not be testifying as she told the court in her last trial that she got all that money from tips working in nightclubs. She never said she got money from Garcia. Kawass then said Katie also had several cash jobs. In any case, the defense admitting to their client depositing murder proceeds money is an......interesting defense.

This is setting up for a very interesting trial.
 
Last edited:

vislaw

Verified Forensic Consultant
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
433
Reaction score
6,258
I don't think the defense can get her prior testimony into evidence. She is available to testify so I think they would need to call her again. JMO.
You are correct. The prosecution should be able to introduce her prior testimony against her, but the defense cannot use her testimony proactively since she is available to testify.
 

vislaw

Verified Forensic Consultant
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
433
Reaction score
6,258
Yeah, its not entirely clear. One reason Im leaning towards Garcia testifying is the other part of Kawass opening, where she mentions that Garcia had been stalking/following around Katie and Charlie when they went on dates without Katie's knowledge (Garcia previously alleged this as well). She then said that Charles was very aware (from Katie) of Sigfredo Garcia being a deadbeat and not being able to get his life together.

And then Kawass said:

"On May 15th, Sigredo sat outside the restaurant and watched them while they (Charlie and Katie) at dinner. Kate then left to go home cause she has kids to take care of. And Charles leaves south beach to now drive up to his Fort Lauderdale home in his burgundy Lexus. This is when Sigfredo Garcia confronted Charles about Katie. And for Charles...an opportunity had now fallen directly into his lap. "You want her back...Katie? No problem. I will give you $100,000 in cash and I will leave her alone if you do this for me." God only knows what Charles Adelson said to Sigfredo Garcia about Dan Markel. He probably even said to him to him "you can get someone else to do this for me". The deal was hatched in that moment.

---

Its a very creative argument (lie) which seems almost entirely based on Rivera's prior testimony about Garcia losing his mind about Katie dating the dentist, following them around and then confronting both of them in traffic outside a restaurant. Now, Katie can't corroborate this story at all. The only people who can are Garcia and Charlie Adelson. Thats why I'm guessing that Garcia will testify.

Of course, like any lie...it wont be able to stand up to any scrutiny or common sense. If you are confronting someone about screwing your common law wife, what are the chances that you are going to walk out of there with a deal to murder a complete stranger who lives 8 hours away? That not usually how those confrontations go down. And then most importantly.....there are zero calls/texts between Adelson and Garcia and the only flow of information is Charlie Adelson>Katie>Garcia.

If Garcia is testifying, it seems like the defense is going to make the trial a credibility contest between Rivera and Garcia. But they still won't be able to explain the phone records that have Katie quarterbacking the whole thing, the money drop, Katie getting a no-show job at the Adelson institute and then Adelson and Katie strategizing how to deal with the extortion ruse. All the coded language. Seems like a tough hill to climb.

---

Kawass then admitted that the source of some of Katie's cash deposits into the bank following the murder were actually from Sigfredo Garcia - but she didn't know it was the proceeds of the Markel homicide. This is a brand new defense theory and suggests that Katie likely will not be testifying as she told the court in her last trial that she got all that money from tips working in nightclubs. She never said she got money from Garcia. Kawass then said Katie also had several cash jobs. In any case, the defense admitting to their client depositing murder proceeds money is an......interesting defense.

This is setting up for a very interesting trial.
I really appreciate your analysis and find it fascinating. I would give a lot to have them call Garcia, because it would be an extraordinary cross examination. Also, it sounds like he would be directly claiming to have conspired with Charlie if he takes the stand. As much as I want them to convict Katie, it would be rather delicious to have more testimony under oath implicating Charlie. It would be so ironic if Garcia takes the stand and implicates Charlie while still being unable to exculpate Katie. Both of them had the opportunity to cut a deal and it may turn out that they both go down without any benefit at all.
 

clearskies1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
16,202
I was a little confused at the end of today. Is Wendi going to testify tomorrow or not?
From what the Judge and prosecutor said, yes, she is supposed to testify tomorrow. First her lawyer is supposed to put something on the record. After that the prosecutor will call WA as a witness. Cappleman also said that she thinks Luis Rivera will testify in the afternoon. That's what I heard.
 

clearskies1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,390
Reaction score
16,202
Edit: I forgot to quote Clearskies regarding Georgia Cappleman.

I can certainly understand how you’d feel that way. She’s not animated or expressive in her speech, but I think she’s effective and brilliant. I have really come admire her.
I agree that she's smart and very effective on cross exam and re-direct. Her direct exams are where I think she comes off as blasé and lacking in energy. JMO.
 

Gypsy Road

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,575
Reaction score
6,760
From what the Judge and prosecutor said, yes, she is supposed to testify tomorrow. First her lawyer is supposed to put something on the record. After that the prosecutor will call WA as a witness. Cappleman also said that she thinks Luis Rivera will testify in the afternoon. That's what I heard.
Hi, Does WA have immunity this time as well?
 

Gypsy Road

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,575
Reaction score
6,760

GordonX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
774
Reaction score
2,877
IMO - this is one of the reasons Kawass and DeCoste were so afraid of CA being tried in same trial as KM. when there was a threat of that they suddenly stopped all delays and pushed for KM's trial to start!

they couldn't point the finger at CA as party of their KM defense theory if he was on trial too because that would hurt him. pointing a finger at him now doesn't hurt him because he's not there on trial - it only helps KM which benefits CA - if KM gets off that's one less potential weapon against CA.

so when you hear Kawass and DeCoste badmouth CA in KM's trial - don't be fooled. they are only doing it because it helps KM which ultimately helps CA and in no way hurts CA legally. IMO they are trying to protect CA by preventing KM from singing and also getting her acquitted. who is paying their fees???
 

avalanche50

New Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
5
Reaction score
16
Kawass implies Katie was a decent mom trying to feed her kids.
In 2015, Katie and Sigfredo were in a car wreck. Also in the car was a gentleman named Arturo Andrade – a fellow by the same name was arrested in a gang sweep of Latin Kings several days after a negligence lawsuit was filed by Katie, Sigfredo and Arturo in connection with the accident. It was the same sweep that nailed Luis Rivera. Twenty-two suspects in Latin Kings case facing 2016 trial - maybe the name Andrade is a coincidence, maybe not
 

Attachments

  • complaint copy.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 12

Dorothy Jane

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
157
Reaction score
1,697
IMO - this is one of the reasons Kawass and DeCoste were so afraid of CA being tried in same trial as KM. when there was a threat of that they suddenly stopped all delays and pushed for KM's trial to start!

they couldn't point the finger at CA as party of their KM defense theory if he was on trial too because that would hurt him. pointing a finger at him now doesn't hurt him because he's not there on trial - it only helps KM which benefits CA - if KM gets off that's one less potential weapon against CA.

so when you hear Kawass and DeCoste badmouth CA in KM's trial - don't be fooled. they are only doing it because it helps KM which ultimately helps CA and in no way hurts CA legally. IMO they are trying to protect CA.
How does is help CA? I thought it seemed like they are throwing him under the bus and obliquely giving him up as the prosecution has wanted. I think they are giving him up and SG will support it to get KM off to go home to the kids. But I don't think it will work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top