GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #13

dotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
44,375
Reaction score
109,593

Re posts rbbm​

''4:25 p.m. Defense presses FBI agent about inconsistencies​

''Magbanua’s defense attorney, Chris DeCoste, questioned FBI Special Agent Pat Sanford Wednesday afternoon, looking to highlight inconsistencies in Luis Rivera’s testimony and the theory of the case''

He pointed to Rivera saying he and Sigfredo Garcia saw Wendi Adelson and her children near Markel’s house in June 2014, a month before he was killed.

The kids were at school during the alleged sighting. FBI reports say that Rivera first told investigators he called Magbanua the day after the murder to coordinate payment.

On the stand he said she called him.

The same day, Rivera said he was at a Miami barbershop when Magbanua called him. Initial FBI reports say Rivera’s phone was miles away near Miami Beach.''

''Rivera told jurors he posted a photo of a lion to Instagram while in Tallahassee, which Magbanua immediately called to tell him to take it down because it could be used to prove his location.''

''Sanford testified the photo was of an owl and that social media records were not subpoenaed.''


''DeCoste asked the detective about various inconsistencies in Rivera’s recollection – such as on which trip they had been pulled over for a speeding ticket. Isom confirmed that Rivera misremembered which trip this happened on. But Cappleman, on redirect, made an excellent point: if Rivera had been spoon-fed information by the State, he wouldn’t have gotten small details like that wrong.

One notable question of Isom related back to Rivera’s account of seeing “the lady” walking on Trescott the day before Markel’s murder. Again, as noted previously, it is irrelevant to prove whether Wendi Adelson herself was walking on Trescott that day – only that the hitmen saw a woman they believed to be her. Rivera had asked Garcia why the woman was looking suspiciously at their car. Garcia tells Rivera that it was “the lady” – minutes later clarified by Garcia to be “Wendi” – who he said, “hired Katie to have her ex-husband killed.''

1659278023327.png
 

Wishbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
7,491
I've been trying to catch up on all the information that has accumulated for this case over the last few years. I got involved early on but then got mad because things were going nowhere as to the A's. KM's hung jury made me mad and I stopped following because I thought we would never see justice. Now I see there is a chance for it. I don't expect to see anything big for the next few months, but maybe I'll get another surprise. Hope so.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
1,791
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Makes me wonder in addition to other things, who Kawass was really working for.....
Her shift in demeanor from during the trial to this last sentencing and the interview after was dizzying. It's almost like she was celebrating this conclusion as she handed Katie off to a public defender. She went from pit bull proclaiming Katie's absolute innocence to showing more compassion for the victim than her client in the sentencing plea. Wasn't she supposed to present mitigating factors to the Judge to at least attempt some leniency (which for her would have been concurrent sentences--not just symbolic by the way)? She tossed in those things--she's a mother of two, no priors and a college graduate--amongst her looking directly in to the camera insisting justice has not been served completely and expressing all this concern for her client's victim's children. The entire thing was totally bizarre and left me with a very unsettling feeling about Kawass.
 

Wishbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
7,491
Her shift in demeanor from during the trial to this last sentencing and the interview after was dizzying. It's almost like she was celebrating this conclusion as she handed Katie off to a public defender. She went from pit bull proclaiming Katie's absolute innocence to showing more compassion for the victim than her client in the sentencing plea. Wasn't she supposed to present mitigating factors to the Judge to at least attempt some leniency (which for her would have been concurrent sentences--not just symbolic by the way)? She tossed in those things--she's a mother of two, no priors and a college graduate--amongst her looking directly in to the camera insisting justice has not been served completely and expressing all this concern for her client's victim's children. The entire thing was totally bizarre and left me with a very unsettling feeling about Kawass.

Why would an attorney not encourage her client to make a deal, but instead say that making a deal with the state only makes you look guilty? KM could have been much better off taking the deal in the beginning. Also, KM did so poorly taking the stand, any good defense attorney would advise their client not to testify.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
1,791
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Why would an attorney not encourage her client to make a deal, but instead say that making a deal with the state only makes you look guilty? KM could have been much better off taking the deal in the beginning. Also, KM did so poorly taking the stand, any good defense attorney would advise their client not to testify.
Agree 100%. And KM is not pushy and arrogant like Charlie (who will likely insist on taking the stand--let's hope anyway). She seems more the type to follow advice. Kawass was SO cocky--both in court and on social media insisting on the strength of their case and that Katie was completely innocent (bizarre she could even say that). She sat that disrespecting the process playing middle school games with snarky eye rolls and whispering with Katie during testimony. She claimed in opening statements that the jury would know clearly after the trial that Katie was not involved and there was a direct link from CA to the killers, then did nothing of the sort to prove that--a shared mechanic for a car that came from Charlie to Katie, an encounter in a restaurant parking lot that never occurred, an errant call to Charlie's DAD. She clearly convinced Katie -- who also displayed a cocky demeanor in court-- that this gamble was worth it, ignoring a 10-2 for conviction in the last trial. Obviously did not properly prepare her for testifying and Katie thought her own wits would get her through that disaster. Katie looked shocked and devastated at the verdict which most saw coming miles away. Because of how she'd been groomed and coached as I see it. As you've said, all things considered, it's almost like she accomplished the job she was hired to do--keep Katie from squealing. Hands wiped together, hand off to public defender (wasn't her sister there to be the brilliant appellate lawyer?) and on to the next. It's all completely sketchy.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
1,791
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Last edited by a moderator:

Weki

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
10,405
Her shift in demeanor from during the trial to this last sentencing and the interview after was dizzying. It's almost like she was celebrating this conclusion as she handed Katie off to a public defender. She went from pit bull proclaiming Katie's absolute innocence to showing more compassion for the victim than her client in the sentencing plea. Wasn't she supposed to present mitigating factors to the Judge to at least attempt some leniency (which for her would have been concurrent sentences--not just symbolic by the way)? She tossed in those things--she's a mother of two, no priors and a college graduate--amongst her looking directly in to the camera insisting justice has not been served completely and expressing all this concern for her client's victim's children. The entire thing was totally bizarre and left me with a very unsettling feeling about Kawass.
Yeah her behavior is sketchy! The stream didn’t show it but based on KM’s face they were making faces at each other during KM’s testimony! Kawass has a similar emotional make up to KM is my theory.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
1,791
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Hmmm, didn’t WA testify that the Markels were part of this celebration?


[elder sons] milestone bar mitzvah came and went in May with no members of their father’s family present in person or via livestream — that invitation was revoked after Charlie’s arrest, despite other guests still welcome to celebrate. All the while, the boys’ other grandmother, Donna, was present in the synagogue: the same grandmother who had accused Dan of being a “religious zealot” for his commitment to Jewish tradition; who had suggested Wendi threaten to convert the boys to Catholicism if Dan didn’t let them move to Miami; and who had floated the idea of dressing the boys in Hitler Youth costumes to make a bigger statement.


Edited to add: in this article below, Ruth Markel says they spent time with the children the day prior to the ceremony, for the first time in six years and at the invitation of WA. But then CA was arrested and the Markels were told not to come to the ceremony: “After Adelson’s arrest, and the implication of his mother, the Markels were told not to come to [elder son’s] bar mitzvah.”


She testified that they were invited. Then a few days later when Charlie was arrested, they were uninvited. That Wendi, she's a slick one.
 

friendlyobserver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
137
Reaction score
744
Agree since it being intentional would require Wendi to have some knowledge of other cultures/languages.
according to google - the owl symbolism of bad omens is prevalent today in mainstream north american culture, even though it comes from native american culture.
"in modern day North America, owls are often seen as a bad omen, a messenger of death. This belief can be traced back to Native American..."
 

Wishbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
7,491
Did a little research on Charlie's attorney. He does white collar crime. Interesting.


Since he is facing charges of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation of murder he's going to need more attorneys would be my guess. Those are not white collar crimes.
 

jbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
220
Reaction score
1,374
For sure. We all recognize, as did a jury, that Katie is a liar at the profligacy of Jodi Arias.

Why anybody should think that KM is honest about this one self-alleged feature of her life, when she surely has strong reason for portraying herself to her MIL or bestie in a particular way, causes me to scratch my head. Plus, there's no due process, which we all agree is the single-most positive feature of why we are all here.
 
Last edited:

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
1,791
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Something occurred to me yesterday (and may be old news to the rest of you) about why the murder was committed in broad daylight. I mean these criminals were used to roaming around in the night--and they were in Tallahassee. So why do something as risky as commit a murder in daytime where they could be seen--and were seen?

My theory is it's the timing they were instructed to use by the person choreographing the crime in Tallahassee. It coincides with LaCasse's departure time for his trip as well as the kids for sure being in daycare. I don't think they decided this timing at all. I think they were given this assignment and they performed it accordingly. Did that question ever come up in Rivera's questioning? Does anyone know?
 

vislaw

Verified Forensic Consultant
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
458
Reaction score
6,559
Hello guys. Say, I got this notice today:

UNAPPROVED SOURCE.png

I'm totally cool (and actually very appreciative) when the mods police these threads. I just don't know what this is referring to. I can't recall posting anything that wasn't my own opinion, but obviously must have strayed and referred to something else. Again, I'm not upset but just would like to know what I posted that stepped over the line. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? THANKS.
 

katiecoolady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
1,791
Website
www.twoinnocents.wordpress.com
Hello guys. Say, I got this notice today:

View attachment 357099

I'm totally cool (and actually very appreciative) when the mods police these threads. I just don't know what this is referring to. I can't recall posting anything that wasn't my own opinion, but obviously must have strayed and referred to something else. Again, I'm not upset but just would like to know what I posted that stepped over the line. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? THANKS.
I'm pretty sure it was related to a channel that is not an approved source to post about here--I think I posted it so my post was also removed. Still coming to understand the rules. I'm sure there are liability issues for sources for this site, understandably. If posting an outside source, they've asked to click report on ANY post to send a message to the moderators to ask if it's an approved source before posting it.
 

Wishbone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
7,491
Hello guys. Say, I got this notice today:

View attachment 357099

I'm totally cool (and actually very appreciative) when the mods police these threads. I just don't know what this is referring to. I can't recall posting anything that wasn't my own opinion, but obviously must have strayed and referred to something else. Again, I'm not upset but just would like to know what I posted that stepped over the line. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? THANKS.
I got a few of those too and try to be careful with posts. Guess it will stay a mystery for me.
 

dotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
44,375
Reaction score
109,593

Blue Shakehead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
78
Reaction score
815
Hello guys. Say, I got this notice today:

View attachment 357099

I'm totally cool (and actually very appreciative) when the mods police these threads. I just don't know what this is referring to. I can't recall posting anything that wasn't my own opinion, but obviously must have strayed and referred to something else. Again, I'm not upset but just would like to know what I posted that stepped over the line. Could anyone enlighten me in this regard? THANKS.
Oh yeah, I signed in one day and had a bunch of these notifications. Mods are essential but I don't recall ever relying on some Youtube source as proof for any argument, aside from using CA or WA's own words against them. Head scratcher, for sure.

Speaking of head-scratchers, Katie is still not singing and will now be using a public offender for her appeal. What in the world is going on with this case?

Looking forward to the CA trial. I am mentally preparing myself for the next rabbit out of the hat that the Adelsons will pull at trial. My newest theory is that there is a chance DA will testify on CA's behalf to say that she planned this whole thing with KM and asked CA to deal with her post-bump. Makes some logical sense. Not sure if it would be enough to get CA off but the elderly DA is in her 70s and doesnt have much time left to serve. Which is why I would love for them to file charges against her yesterday. Even if she wins at trial, which I would put at a 30 percent probability, she will have at least had to spend her last years in a jail and in court. Whereas she can never be charged if she has a stroke a dies next year.
 
Top