GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could it possibly be that it's information they couldn't use in previous trials? I wonder how much of that there is that will come in from hundreds of hours of wiretaps between all of them.

Perhaps, you are alluding to the situation whereas several curious facts already in the court records did not get to be discussed in the previous Magbanua trials. I expect the State Attorneys to evoke some of these curious facts in Charles Adelson’s trial to the extent they may show the dynamics of Charles Adelson’s criminal behavior.

Below are few curious facts about Katherine Diana Magbanua’s life in 2016 that were not discussed much in her Dan Markel murder trials:

1. Magbanua was always packed, at home and in her car, although she admitted that she does not have neither concealed nor open carry permit
2. While Dr. Adelson was steady with Ms. Umchinda, Ms. Magbanua went back to live with Mr. Garcia. However, Katie Diana and Charlie continued to see and to know each other aside
3. Magbanua and Garcia have had a tumultuous relationship and Magbanua threatened to breakup multiple times. Surprisingly, Charlie was the one coaching Katie not to breakup with Sigfredo
4. Besides stapled $100 bills, Katie continually tried to extract valuables from Charlie. She wanted Charlie to gift his Ferrari to Sigfredo. She demanded that Charlie transfers his boat’s title to her. She demanded a Cadillac Escalade before settling for Dr. Harvey Adelson's Lexus
5. Katie refused to meet Charlie and both his parents at the Adelsons’ place. She demanded to meet in public places where there are other people such as at restaurants and by pool sides.

What could be the reason that unemployed Ms. Magbanua has had so much booty call hold on Dr. Adelson the younger, while the good doctor was professionally busy making stapled $100 bills to fill his refrigerator size safe and privately busy humping Ms. Umchinda?

Besides these people's multiple personality disorders, if you have not heard the drollery news about them, here goes one. “Since her divorce, every time Wendi and Donna were at a wedding Donna says “you are next”, which pressure irritates Wendi greatly. Hence, Wendi says the same thing to Donna at funerals.”
 
Last edited:
I listened to a podcast yesterday with a "legal roundtable" discussion on this case. A defense attorney was speculating about a possible defense for Charlie. That he admits hiring the hitmen to "rough up" DM, but not to kill him and that they went rogue. He would really have to take the stand to try and pull that off and explain ALL the wiretaps that say nothing of the sort, but still, interesting. That defense attorney even admitted that the evidence against him is overwhelming. I'm still hoping he takes a deal, if one is offered--for giving up Donna and/or Wendi.
Good question.

Charlie is in the jail system right now. Leon County--ironically he's back in Tallahassee where they were trying to break free from. I hope they all 3 end up back there one day.

What I want to know is has Donna tried to visit him--or any of them? I doubt Wendi would.

And as an aside- I can see the Lewisburg Pen tower from my back patio (from a distance!). And a former warden is my next door neighbor.
I watched a Youtube with a similar discussion. I am not sure if I think GC wants Charlie to go to trial or would prefer a deal. Probably a deal, but I do think she wants him locked away for good and that might require a trial.

As far as Donna and Wendi visiting ... My gut feeling is this is a family that can cut you out like cancer. Look what they have done to to the elder son. I just can't fathom why you would distance yourself from a beloved son who is responsible, is a Dr. with a nice family, simply over who they chose to marry.

I can understand cutting out a family member who is a drug addict and steals relentlessly from you (as happened to my mother with my estranged sister) but that is more in the mode of self preservation. But a functioning member of society for such a ridiculous reason?

So, I guess I can see them suddenly cutting Charlie OFF. which might make for interesting deal making!
 
I listened to a podcast yesterday with a "legal roundtable" discussion on this case. A defense attorney was speculating about a possible defense for Charlie. That he admits hiring the hitmen to "rough up" DM, but not to kill him and that they went rogue. He would really have to take the stand to try and pull that off and explain ALL the wiretaps that say nothing of the sort, but still, interesting. That defense attorney even admitted that the evidence against him is overwhelming. I'm still hoping he takes a deal, if one is offered--for giving up Donna and/or Wendi.
Of the two obvious defenses (the other being that KM planned it all and solicited CA with a finished plan and hitmen all lined up so he has diminished responsibility), I think the rough up one has the most problems. Given that KM appears to show no interest in testifying for or against CA at the moment the "KM planned it all and solicited CA " idea has a chance of flying. For instance there are zero calls from CA to either Rivera or SG. - which suggests that KM solicited them both. (in fact she solicited only SG). His attorneys could offer to accept a second degree murder plea on this basis. Don't forget that the current paperwork shows that CA and KM are up on the same charge set at the moment. This could change after KM is sentenced. However her solicitation finding appears to apply only to the legal fact that she solicited SG - not that she solicited CA. That latter matter remains open. Blind Freddy can see that CA solicited her (group) of course. For instance Rivera claimed in the proffer that a $5K travelling money transaction was made. KM did not have that sort of money. This statement was never tested in court , likely because Rivera was the nominated hit man on the first trip and the prosecution did not want to discuss that too much.

The main problems with the "rough up " theory being that Rivera knew he was going to be paid $35K * [which seems very large for a criminal assault] (This suggests SG was going to be paid about that or a bit more ) , the purchase of a throw away firearm and the fact that only two men, one of whom had to stay in the car, went both times to " rough someone up". * The defense could say that Rivera knew the amount only after the killing and there's not a lot of evidence to disprove that.
 
Perhaps, you are alluding to the situation whereas several curious facts already in the court records did not get to be discussed in the previous Magbanua trials. I expect the State Attorneys to evoke some of these curious facts in Charles Adelson’s trial to the extent they may show the dynamics of Charles Adelson’s criminal behavior.

Below are few curious facts about Katherine Diana Magbanua’s life in 2016 that were not discussed much in her Dan Markel murder trials:

1. Magbanua was always packed, at home and in her car, although she admitted that she does not have neither concealed nor open carry permit
2. While Dr. Adelson was steady with Ms. Umchinda, Ms. Magbanua went back to live with Mr. Garcia. However, Katie Diana and Charlie continued to see and to know each other aside
3. Magbanua and Garcia have had a tumultuous relationship and Magbanua threatened to breakup multiple times. Surprisingly, Charlie was the one coaching Katie not to breakup with Sigfredo
4. Besides stapled $100 bills, Katie continually tried to extract valuables from Charlie. She wanted Charlie to gift his Ferrari to Sigfredo. She demanded that Charlie transfers his boat’s title to her. She demanded a Cadillac Escalade before settling for Dr. Harvey Adelson's Lexus
5. Katie refused to meet Charlie and both his parents at the Adelsons’ place. She demanded to meet in public places where there are other people such as at restaurants and by pool sides.

What could be the reason that unemployed Ms. Magbanua has had so much booty call hold on Dr. Adelson the younger, while the good doctor was professionally busy making stapled $100 bills to fill his refrigerator size safe and privately busy humping Ms. Umchinda?

Besides these people's multiple personality disorders, if you have not heard the drollery news about them, here goes one. “Since her divorce, every time Wendi and Donna were at a wedding Donna says “you are next”, which pressure irritates Wendi greatly. Hence, Wendi says the same thing to Donna at funerals.”
I always look forward to your posts. I did not know about that highlighted portion above about the vehicles!

Seems the very thing he was worried about with the "blackmailer" was exactly the situation he was stuck in with KM. What was it he called it...a "leech"?

Is that last quote for real??? (I just googled drollery and I'm thinking this is a joke...and thinking you are posting from the UK ;) )
 
Of the two obvious defenses (the other being that KM planned it all and solicited CA with a finished plan and hitmen all lined up so he has diminished responsibility), I think the rough up one has the most problems. Given that KM appears to show no interest in testifying for or against CA at the moment the "KM planned it all and solicited CA " idea has a chance of flying. For instance there are zero calls from CA to either Rivera or SG. - which suggests that KM solicited them both. (in fact she solicited only SG). His attorneys could offer to accept a second degree murder plea on this basis. Don't forget that the current paperwork shows that CA and KM are up on the same charge set at the moment. This could change after KM is sentenced. However her solicitation finding appears to apply only to the legal fact that she solicited SG - not that she solicited CA. That latter matter remains open. Blind Freddy can see that CA solicited her (group) of course. For instance Rivera claimed in the proffer that a $5K travelling money transaction was made. KM did not have that sort of money. This statement was never tested in court , likely because Rivera was the nominated hit man on the first trip and the prosecution did not want to discuss that too much.

The main problems with the "rough up " theory being that Rivera knew he was going to be paid $35K * [which seems very large for a criminal assault] (This suggests SG was going to be paid about that or a bit more ) , the purchase of a throw away firearm and the fact that only two men, one of whom had to stay in the car, went both times to " rough someone up". * The defense could say that Rivera knew the amount only after the killing and there's not a lot of evidence to disprove that.

I seriously doubt the State would go with a 2nd degree offer with so much on Charlie. Unless significant details implicating Donna and/or Wendi was involved. What do you think?

Good point on the traveling monies--those kind of seemingly "small" details can really hang things up for defendants.

(I once watched a trial where a son killed his wealthy mother and claimed she grabbed a VCR machine out of his hands and ran up the stairs with it, then fell to her death from the landing at the top. Wearing a long flannel nightgown. Being a man who didn't wear long nightgowns, he missed the part where she would surely trip over it going up the stairs with her hands full--and that detail was significant in getting him convicted. I've never forgotten that)
 
I watched a Youtube with a similar discussion. I am not sure if I think GC wants Charlie to go to trial or would prefer a deal. Probably a deal, but I do think she wants him locked away for good and that might require a trial.

As far as Donna and Wendi visiting ... My gut feeling is this is a family that can cut you out like cancer. Look what they have done to to the elder son. I just can't fathom why you would distance yourself from a beloved son who is responsible, is a Dr. with a nice family, simply over who they chose to marry.

I can understand cutting out a family member who is a drug addict and steals relentlessly from you (as happened to my mother with my estranged sister) but that is more in the mode of self preservation. But a functioning member of society for such a ridiculous reason?

So, I guess I can see them suddenly cutting Charlie OFF. which might make for interesting deal making!
I also think Wendi and Donna would and will throw him under the bus like yesterday's garbage and have already discussed that. But that comes at a big risk to them right now. It's a fascinating game of chess with a soup of personality disorders thrown in.
 
CA might try a similar defense as Dr. Leon Jacob -

He is sticking to his story that he never wanted to kill anyone.

Jacob insists he was desperate following the breakup with his ex-girlfriend Meghan Verikas. He admits hiring a person he characterizes as a private investigator to find her because she had shut off all contact with him. But Jacob insists he just wanted to reconcile.

"We had multiple discussions about not wanting to harm or hurt anybody," he said. "I never asked for anybody to be hurt, killed, harmed, kidnapped."

"It doesn't make me guilty of solicitation of capital murder. I'm not on trial for being a womanizer," said Jacob. He continued, "You can assassinate my character all you want up here but it doesn't make me guilty of solicitation of capital murder."

You do know that that defense didn't work and that Leon Jacob got Life for his murder-for-hire scheme, and that there was also evidence that he had stalked Meghan don't you?
 
I always look forward to your posts. I did not know about that highlighted portion above about the vehicles!

Seems the very thing he was worried about with the "blackmailer" was exactly the situation he was stuck in with KM. What was it he called it...a "leech"?

Is that last quote for real??? (I just googled drollery and I'm thinking this is a joke...and thinking you are posting from the UK ;) )

About the first quote you highlighted, LE wrote in court records to the effect that “it seems Charlie wanted to keep Katie happy”. Hence, it is hoped that Katie and Charlie’s 2016 interactions will come up in court this time with some details to showcase the underlying of Charlie’s criminal behavior. After all, Charlie is taped directing Katie to kill an UC FBI agent.

The last quote is a joke, obviously. It is my hope you laughed. I grew up in my grandfather's household who spoke British English but I completed my undergrad in CA. I went to grad schools and worked in multiple States, and now I work and settle in TX. Somehow, I find UK English jokes to be fancier than US English jokes!
 
Last edited:
I believe that June told us her name is Bri.
I may be wrong, but Bri or Brianna is not an Old-Testament name - but Irish in origin.
Could the Adelson's be hiring heathen Catholic Irish workers as menial laborers, like in the early 19th Century?

Anyway - does the public record imply that CA (or the A's more generally) were disputing paternity?
Would there be a child-support order too?
You are correct that the name Brianna is not an Old Testament name. It is of Celtic origin. Irish/Scottish. I named my daughter Brianna partly because my husband has both Scottish and Irish ancestry, and we gave her a Hebrew name for my grandmothers, one of whose names started with a B.
 
How about 3 or 4 at once? Has that ever happened?
Yes. Just saw a Dateline with Keith Morrison where that happened. Can't remember which one though. 4 defendants in one family tried together, although one was boyfriend of mother. I think 2/4 got convicted- mother and oldest son. Wasn't as strong of evidence against the other two-mother's boyfriend and younger son. I believe his name was Alex. The victim was the father, ex-husband. Keith interviewed the 4 defense teams in one room after the trial. They were each trying to throw their co-defendants under the bus- the "he did it" defense.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, you are alluding to the situation whereas several curious facts already in the court records did not get to be discussed in the previous Magbanua trials. I expect the State Attorneys to evoke some of these curious facts in Charles Adelson’s trial to the extent they may show the dynamics of Charles Adelson’s criminal behavior.

Below are few curious facts about Katherine Diana Magbanua’s life in 2016 that were not discussed much in her Dan Markel murder trials:

Snip
5. Katie refused to meet a. Charlie and both his parents at the Adelsons’ place. b. She demanded to meet in public places where there are other people such as at restaurants and by pool sides.
I've added the letters a and b.

a. I'd say if this is provable it is more likely to have come from Charlie than KM. He'd know that his mother would absolutely despise a poor "latino" and Charlie had uses for KM before the crime (and afterwards).
b. The meeting at Dolce V was set up by CJA not KM. He set it up at the last minute in case (I believe he thought) she was in on the extortion racket. There may have been lesser meetings in restaurants but they don't seem to be documented , certainly not in the period April 2016 until Oct 1st 2016, when KM was arrested. This was the period when the wire taps were active and you'd think that extra meetings would have come up in reported conversations.
 
About the first quote you highlighted, LE wrote in court records to the effect that “it seems Charlie wanted to keep Katie happy”. Hence, it is hoped that Katie and Charlie’s 2016 interactions will come up in court this time with some details to showcase the underlying of Charlie’s criminal behavior. After all, Charlie is taped directing Katie to kill an UC FBI agent.

The last quote is a joke, obviously. It is my hope you laughed. I grew up in my grandfather's household who spoke British English but I completed my undergrad in CA. I went to grad schools and worked in multiple States, and now I work and settle in TX. Somehow, I find UK English jokes to be fancier than US English jokes!

As I told my husband, although I consider myself pretty well-versed in trial discussions, I find myself playing with a LOT better tennis players on this board than me. Which is really good for my brain. Likely because the victim in this case was such an intellectual, educated, articulate and well known in those arenas. With that being said, I had to google before I laughed. ;)
 
The just wanting to rough him up defense is a big No. Completely Implausible. And CA would almost certainly need to get on the stand to advance that theory. Not going to happen. JMO.
Oh how I would love to see that. I'm guessing though, since he fancies himself such a "smartest guy in the room" who loves to hear himself speak more than anything, it's going to take some convincing to keep him off the stand. I'd personally love to see it. I wonder who would do the cross.
 
I've added the letters a and b.

a. I'd say if this is provable it is more likely to have come from Charlie than KM. He'd know that his mother would absolutely despise a poor "latino" and Charlie had uses for KM before the crime (and afterwards).
b. The meeting at Dolce V was set up by CJA not KM. He set it up at the last minute in case (I believe he thought) she was in on the extortion racket. There may have been lesser meetings in restaurants but they don't seem to be documented , certainly not in the period April 2016 until Oct 1st 2016, when KM was arrested. This was the period when the wire taps were active and you'd think that extra meetings would have come up in reported conversations.

What are the chances that there are significant documented wiretaps that we just have heard nothing about because they weren't relevant to the prosecution of KM and SG?
 
I've added the letters a and b.

b. The meeting at Dolce V was set up by CJA not KM. He set it up at the last minute in case (I believe he thought) she was in on the extortion racket. There may have been lesser meetings in restaurants but they don't seem to be documented , certainly not in the period April 2016 until Oct 1st 2016, when KM was arrested. This was the period when the wire taps were active and you'd think that extra meetings would have come up in reported conversations.

Pretty sure this is incorrect and that KM insisted on meeting in public rather than meeting at CA"s condo.
What "lesser meetings" in restaurants are you referring to? The one at Monti's was discussed at trial, same with the sushi restaurant.
 
This is my paraphrase of a fact in the court records:
“5. Katie refused to meet Charlie and both his parents at the Adelsons’ place. She demanded to meet in public places where there are other people such as at restaurants and by pool sides.”

There comes again the utterly uninformed post addressing in ignorant manner the existing records (See picture attached invalidating the uninformed post) as if the records of the State of Florida courts were conspiracy theory. I attach a snapshot of the records so that other sensible posts toward “Justice for Dan Markel” are generated rather than spinning some unnecessary discussion based on bizarre efforts to mislead.

Facts such as these, more relevant to Charles Adelson's case than Magbanua's, are hoped to be discussed in more details in Charles Adelson's coming trial toward convicting him of all three counts so that justice may be served.
 

Attachments

  • Charlie agrees to meet elsewhere.png
    Charlie agrees to meet elsewhere.png
    82.3 KB · Views: 58
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
1,497
Total visitors
1,665

Forum statistics

Threads
589,947
Messages
17,928,053
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top