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

[Gypsy Road]

OOOO! I hope so! These wire taps make this case so interesting. Can you imagine going out in public if you are Donna? Yikes!

I can’t even imagine BEING Donna! Lol

She must be a nervous wreck! I hope the arms of Justice reach her soon.

 

[vislaw]

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 personally don't believe there will be significant new wiretaps or other information. First and foremost, it is difficult for me to imagine any significant wiretap that would not have been used in the case against Garcia and Magbanua. Anything that established the existence of the conspiracy would have been relevant and important to prove the case. When I try to imagine a "smoking gun" wiretap that would be used in Charlie's case I just can't imagine how it wouldn't already have been among the recordings used to convict Katie and Sigfredo.

Second, if you listened to the Over My Dead Body/Tally podcast you realize how many of these wiretaps and recordings were used or referred to in the podcast. I've corresponded with Matt Shaer, and he emphasized to me that Florida law requires almost total disclosure of police investigation files. Thus, his team received all of the wiretaps and investigatory documents (hundreds of gigabytes) in response to his request for the government files way back when he began investigating the case. His biggest problem was figuring out how to go through the massive amount of evidence. There were so many calls and many of them were not relevant that involved Charlie droning on to Donna over minutia or bitching about minor problems in his life. Matt believes his team received all of the calls subject to the court's approval and if there were bombshells not used in the Garcia/Magbanua case among the recordings, surely Matt would have used them in the podcast. For there to be new important wiretaps they would have had to be sealed by request of one of the parties and I believe we would know about it.

 

[serifina]

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 believe there were many wiretaps. Including Wendi.

 

[LinasK]

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.

I realized that I further needed to clarify my point: one shouldn't assume a person's religion based on a name. My Brianna is Jewish, and "Wendi" isn't a Biblical name either.

 

[Costcoluvr]

Second, if you listened to the Over My Dead Body/Tally podcast you realize how many of these wiretaps and recordings were used or referred to in the podcast. I've corresponded with Matt Shaer, and he emphasized to me that Florida law requires almost total disclosure of police investigation files. Thus, his team received all of the wiretaps and investigatory documents (hundreds of gigabytes) in response to his request for the government files way back when he began investigating the case. His biggest problem was figuring out how to go through the massive amount of evidence. There were so many calls and many of them were not relevant that involved Charlie droning on to Donna over minutia or bitching about minor problems in his life. Matt believes his team received all of the calls subject to the court's approval and if there were bombshells not used in the Garcia/Magbanua case among the recordings, surely Matt would have used them in the podcast. For there to be new important wiretaps they would have had to be sealed by request of one of the parties and I believe we would know about it.

There is an exemption in Florida’s disclosure laws that might be applicable:

(c)1. Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

Definition of Active Intelligence: criminal intelligence information shall be considered active as long as it is related to intelligence gathering conducted with a reasonable, good faith belief that it will lead to detection of ongoing or reasonably anticipated criminal activity.

Is it possible that information related to a potential indictment of any of the Adelsons was considered “active” and therefore not released to Matt Shear? Could the “ongoing criminal activity” be the Adelsons’ possible attempts to cover up their involvement in the murder, flee the jurisdiction, etc? At the time the evidence was released to Matt Shear, Rivera, Garcia and Katie were incarcerated, so, there would be no “ongoing criminal activity”. Calls/messages relevant to their cases would not be exempted from disclosure. The Adelsons, however, were all free. The Adelsons could therefore continue to engage in criminal activity related to the murder (cover up, flee, etc).

This argument may be a stretch and I must admit that I really don’t know anything about criminal law. And I do agree with Vislaw that it is difficult to imagine what could be relevant to a charge against the Adelsons that would not have bolstered the case against Garcia and Magbanua, and therefore used as evidence in the trials against them.

 

[clearskies1]

I believe there were many wiretaps. Including Wendi.

No, LE only sought and got authorization to wiretap CA's phone and KM's phone. There was testimony about that. The wiretap authorization related to the bump.

 

[KidonGadol]

No, LE only sought and got authorization to wiretap CA's phone and KM's phone. There was testimony about that. The wiretap authorization related to the bump.

100% correct.

Sgt Corbitt was questioned in the second KM trial about phone taps on Donna A and he said it was not possible to get a judicial warrant for reasons of insufficient prima facie evidence. The same would apply to WJA though I don't believe he commented on that case. So CJA to WJA calls could be captured, but calls between WJA and DA have never been captured.

 

[laefd]

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.

What's the name of the podcast? Be interested to give it a listen

 

[katiecoolady]

What's the name of the podcast? Be interested to give it a listen

It's actually a youtube show and podcast called Surviving the Survivor. They also interviewed Georgia Cappleman recently where she indicated they are not seeking the death penalty on CA.

 

[Deleted member 302228]

There is an exemption in Florida’s disclosure laws that might be applicable:

(c)1. Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

Definition of Active Intelligence: criminal intelligence information shall be considered active as long as it is related to intelligence gathering conducted with a reasonable, good faith belief that it will lead to detection of ongoing or reasonably anticipated criminal activity.

Is it possible that information related to a potential indictment of any of the Adelsons was considered “active” and therefore not released to Matt Shear? Could the “ongoing criminal activity” be the Adelsons’ possible attempts to cover up their involvement in the murder, flee the jurisdiction, etc? At the time the evidence was released to Matt Shear, Rivera, Garcia and Katie were incarcerated, so, there would be no “ongoing criminal activity”. Calls/messages relevant to their cases would not be exempted from disclosure. The Adelsons, however, were all free. The Adelsons could therefore continue to engage in criminal activity related to the murder (cover up, flee, etc).

@vislaw, if you can correct anything below, please do:

In Florida, if both the defense and DA agree to seal a piece of evidence, it never sees the light of day. The public would never know of it. The existence of such evidence only appears in public records when there is a disagreement, and therefore a need for a hearing and a ruling by a judge. DA Cappleman alluded to this in her recent podcast appearance, stating that evidence sealed by mutual agreement would never be seen by the public, even after the conclusion of the case.

Observers have claimed that there is new information in CA's discovery that has never appeared before. Supposedly, this is impossible, but this has apparently already happened.

Aside from sealed evidence, there is evidence in discovery that was not available to the OMDB creators in 2018. OMDB aired in early 2019, and covered evidence collected up until 2016 only. New evidence has appeared since, including new forensic evidence from multiple cellphones right before the first trial, as posted on WS in 2019. In the May 2022 trial, we saw the DA use deleted What'sApp messages for the first time. This evidence was unknown to Websleuthers, yet it appeared suddenly in the trial.

Of course, if CA chooses to go to trial, this will all change rapidly- but the idea that we will see nothing new as his case develops, is, IMHO, incorrect.

 

[katiecoolady]

I personally don't believe there will be significant new wiretaps or other information. First and foremost, it is difficult for me to imagine any significant wiretap that would not have been used in the case against Garcia and Magbanua. Anything that established the existence of the conspiracy would have been relevant and important to prove the case. When I try to imagine a "smoking gun" wiretap that would be used in Charlie's case I just can't imagine how it wouldn't already have been among the recordings used to convict Katie and Sigfredo.

Second, if you listened to the Over My Dead Body/Tally podcast you realize how many of these wiretaps and recordings were used or referred to in the podcast. I've corresponded with Matt Shaer, and he emphasized to me that Florida law requires almost total disclosure of police investigation files. Thus, his team received all of the wiretaps and investigatory documents (hundreds of gigabytes) in response to his request for the government files way back when he began investigating the case. His biggest problem was figuring out how to go through the massive amount of evidence. There were so many calls and many of them were not relevant that involved Charlie droning on to Donna over minutia or bitching about minor problems in his life. Matt believes his team received all of the calls subject to the court's approval and if there were bombshells not used in the Garcia/Magbanua case among the recordings, surely Matt would have used them in the podcast. For there to be new important wiretaps they would have had to be sealed by request of one of the parties and I believe we would know about it.

Thanks for all of this. Makes sense. What is your opinion about ongoing wiretapping of the Adelsons? Like even now?

 

[Montrealaise]

There are huge psychological factors at play here and as much as I hope fervently the boys will be able to "find out what really happened" I'm not terribly optimistic given the mother and grandmother that have been indoctrinating them for years. I ran across this article discussing OJ's kids and whether they believe he is guilty of killing their mom. The evidence of the Juice's guilt is so overwhelming (hello Bruno Magli shoes). Nevertheless, it appears both older kids firmly believe in their father's innocence and if Sydney's ex-boyfriend is to be believed, she doesn't accept his guilt either.

I personally went through a bitter divorce with a young son whose mother did a number of truly despicable things hoping to turn him against me. He was under enormous pressure and eventually took his own life leaving a note that broke my heart. It gave me an appreciation of how much a mother can screw up a child. Unless the boys break away from their mother/grandmother emotionally, I expect the facts and evidence will be much less important to them than maintaining the approval and affection of WA and DA.

Thank you for sharing your story - I am so sorry you had to go through that. Parental alienation usually turns a child against a parent permanently, although there are exceptions - I know of someone who didn't see his children for years because their mother brainwashed them against him. When they reached their early 20s, they met so many people who knew their dad and urged them to reach out to him that they did, and discovered that he was a loving, kind man and not the monster their mother had depicted. The mother's response to discovering that her kids had rekindled their relationship with their dad was to cut them out of her life.
I'm sure the Adelsons have brainwashed the boys, which does not bode well for an eventual reunion with their paternal grandparents, but who knows? We all know parents who are way too involved in their adult children's lives, but DA takes it to a new level. We've seen the pages upon pages of emails she sent to WA during the divorce trial, instructing her exactly what to say to sway the judge (it didn't work, obviously). DA manipulated her eldest son RA into breaking off with his first girlfriend, who was Indian and non-Jewish (and therefore unacceptable to DA), and marrying a Jewish girl instead. RA divorced her after a few months, married his girlfriend, and they now live in another state. He is estranged from his family, especially DA. If RA can break away, perhaps the boys can too.

 

[katiecoolady]

Thank you for sharing your story - I am so sorry you had to go through that. Parental alienation usually turns a child against a parent permanently, although there are exceptions - I know of someone who didn't see his children for years because their mother brainwashed them against him. When they reached their early 20s, they met so many people who knew their dad and urged them to reach out to him that they did, and discovered that he was a loving, kind man and not the monster their mother had depicted. The mother's response to discovering that her kids had rekindled their relationship with their dad was to cut them out of her life.
I'm sure the Adelsons have brainwashed the boys, which does not bode well for an eventual reunion with their paternal grandparents, but who knows? We all know parents who are way too involved in their adult children's lives, but DA takes it to a new level. We've seen the pages upon pages of emails she sent to WA during the divorce trial, instructing her exactly what to say to sway the judge (it didn't work, obviously). DA manipulated her eldest son RA into breaking off with his first girlfriend, who was Indian and non-Jewish (and therefore unacceptable to DA), and marrying a Jewish girl instead. RA divorced her after a few months, married his girlfriend, and they now live in another state. He is estranged from his family, especially DA. If RA can break away, perhaps the boys can too.

I'm struck with the bizarre fact that people were either "not Jewish enough" or "too Jewish" for Donna Adelson. RA's wife being the former (and how sad she is obsessed with her grandchildren with Wendi and apparently nothing with her other grandkids) and DM being the latter.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I'm struck with the bizarre fact that people were either "not Jewish enough" or "too Jewish" for Donna Adelson. RA's wife being the former (and how sad she is obsessed with her grandchildren with Wendi and apparently nothing with her other grandkids) and DM being the latter.

Me too! I just think Donna likes to control every aspect of her children’s lives!

 

[Sherubbian]

@vislaw, if you can correct anything below, please do:

In Florida, if both the defense and DA agree to seal a piece of evidence, it never sees the light of day. The public would never know of it. The existence of such evidence only appears in public records when there is a disagreement, and therefore a need for a hearing and a ruling by a judge. DA Cappleman alluded to this in her recent podcast appearance, stating that evidence sealed by mutual agreement would never be seen by the public, even after the conclusion of the case.

Observers have claimed that there is new information in CA's discovery that has never appeared before. Supposedly, this is impossible, but this has apparently already happened.

The case comment for court events shows that the first day of Magbanua 2nd trial, 5/23/22, there were two Richardson hearings because the State introduced two late discovery items on 5/20/22. To date, both items remain sealed. On 5/23/22, the Judge ruled there were no discovery violation for an apple document and the jail cell calls recording.

Why would the State want to reveal some apple document as late as 5/20/22 if it were not enhancing their case against defendant Magbanua?

The original 16 pages of Answer to Demand for Discovery dated 6/17/22 in Charles Adelson’s records listed already i-Cloud. Then on 6/29/22, there is this one page amendment to the Answer to Demand for Discovery for Charles Adelson i-Cloud “replacements”. I re-post the amendment from my #758 post for convenience. Since i-Cloud is an umbrella name for multiple Apple products such as email, photos, PDF, and other file storage, I could qualify any i-Cloud content as an “apple document”, IMHO.

Could it be the case that the Charles Adelson’s i-Cloud contents were augmented on 6/29/22 with the apple document item that is still sealed in Magbanua’s court records?

The reasoning above does not imply that the augmented i-Cloud contents were fresh evidence dated 2022. It could be the case that they are “older” items, might be emails dated 2016, but they availed to the State only in May 2022. Such delay is possible because there are such examples in other lawsuits whereas the strong privacy terms of big techs such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or Google have pushed back FBI requests.

It is my hope that relevant items already in the court records but not discussed much in the two Magbanua trials will be vigorously examined as they apply to the Charles Adelson’s case. That could put more bright lights in the actions of the other Adelson alleged by the State as co-conspirators. In turn, new bright lights could refresh the memory of potential witnesses.

Whatever goes toward bringing Justice for Dan Markel, we take it.

 

[Montrealaise]

I'm struck with the bizarre fact that people were either "not Jewish enough" or "too Jewish" for Donna Adelson. RA's wife being the former (and how sad she is obsessed with her grandchildren with Wendi and apparently nothing with her other grandkids) and DM being the latter.

From what I understand, DA has no relationship with RA's kids - is it because he keeps her from his kids because he thinks she is too toxic, or is it because she doesn't want to have anything to do with grandchildren who don't have the "right" type of mother (I actually know someone like that; her son married someone she thinks is not good enough for him, so she doesn't see the grandchildren because they were born of "that woman"). Doesn't CA have a child, too, born out of wedlock to one of his many girlfriends? I wonder whether DA has a relationship with that child.

 

[katiecoolady]

From what I understand, DA has no relationship with RA's kids - is it because he keeps her from his kids because he thinks she is too toxic, or is it because she doesn't want to have anything to do with grandchildren who don't have the "right" type of mother (I actually know someone like that; her son married someone she thinks is not good enough for him, so she doesn't see the grandchildren because they were born of "that woman"). Doesn't CA have a child, too, born out of wedlock to one of his many girlfriends? I wonder whether DA has a relationship with that child.

From how he sounded in the podcast, it appeared, to me, that it was DA and HA who were staying away from RA's kids. He said something like "yeah, that's too bad, because they are fantastic kids". I suspect at this point, it's pretty mutual though. I mean who would want to expose their innocent children to that crime family on purpose? Killers!

And yes Charlie has a child whose name was exposed on the depositions recently read on youtube via Judy the Youtube lawyer (worth listening). I'd be very surprised if that child was up to Donna's standards.

Edited to add: they are Charlie's disability deposition and she's reading them verbatim. What a scammer!

 

[katiecoolady]

I was recently reflecting on the order of things related to my father's death a few months ago. Specifically, like how we dodged some bullets that he outlived a couple of people and feeling like life handed us some favors, amidst how hard other things have been.

It made me wonder if the Adelsons didn't collectively reflect similarly, like sitting around holiday tables with "aren't our lives so much better now that Danny isn't in the picture messing things up?". Thanking their lucky stars for the fruits of their murderous labors. I can definitely see that kind of banter between Donna and Charlie.

This trio of sociopaths need to be held accountable and I think Georgia Cappelman will not stop until she's exhausted every single avenue to do just that.

 

[JT_Watchman]

A lot of people have mentioned Charlie's lawsuit against his insurance company for breach of contract/failure to pay benefits. Here is the complaint from that suit:

 

[katiecoolady]

A lot of people have mentioned Charlie's lawsuit against his insurance company for breach of contract/failure to pay benefits. Here is the complaint from that suit:

This is super interesting. Judy the Youtube Lawyer is reading his deposition line by line on her page. They are asking him lots of questions about the DM case which he's asserting his right not to answer, but this is in front of a jury. One minute they are hearing about his back pain and how he didn't provide the basic info to the disability company (he just jumped to a lawsuit), then the next they are hearing how he's been implicated in a homicide and being asked if it was the publicity from that that hurt his practice, not his back pain. He's such a scammer!

(Edited to add: I got that wrong, this isn't in front of a jury. It's just a deposition)

She's on the 4th installment of reading this this week: