FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #14

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Weki said:
I believe Charlie has to testify and he will. If he says Donna knew of the extortion and helped arrange the payouts, I don’t know how that would lead to Donna being indicted. First of all there is no way that Rashbaum will do anything that would implicate Donna. Donna is pulling the strings in this defense - we can count on that.

Secondly, there is no way Charlie’s testimony would be admitted in Donna’s trial as proof she was in on it. Charlie would have to testify at Donna’s trial to get that in, which is not going to happen. State can’t compel him while he’s waiting out his appeals.

MOO
Click to expand...
I agree. Legally, Donna’s trial would be a brand new trial, and there would be no reference to what Charlie said previously.

I think there’s a chance Charlie won’t testify in this one. That’s why it’s really important that the state make its case without reference to Charlie’s theory. I think they’re just not trying hard enough to do that like they did with Katie. If Charlie doesn’t testify and incriminate himself, they’re going to be left with the case they’ve made. Based on what they’ve done so far, it might seem a little confusing and incomplete. I’m only basing that on some comments here by people new to the case who seem confused about the importance and direction of certain lines of questioning. And the people on here are probably smarter than the average juror. (I bet Charlie’s jury consultant was told to look for people who weren’t very bright, or rule out people who were)
 
As much as I want to believe Donna will be arrested, I just don’t know if they have enough evidence. I feel she would have been charged by now. Correct me if I’m wrong (no coffee yet this am and I’m foggy), but the reason why CA was finally arrested was the enhanced Dolce Vita, right?
 
Gypsy Road said:
As much as I want to believe Donna will be arrested, I just don’t know if they have enough evidence. I feel she would have been charged by now. Correct me if I’m wrong (no coffee yet this am and I’m foggy), but the reason why CA was finally arrested was the enhanced Dolce Vita, right?
Click to expand...
Donna signed the checks to Katie. That seems like pretty clear documentary evidence in furtherance of a conspiracy. IMO stronger evidence than the enhanced Dolce Vita tape, which I've never found that compelling (not because I don't think CA is guilty as sin, but because he and KM speak in such elliptical vague terms).

Unrelated, but about the case: I remember Dave Lat suggesting a version of the story the defense is using as a theory in a blog post. IIRC it was an answer to the question, "If SG and LR weren't hired by the Adelsons to kill DM, why the hell were they there?" And Lat's framing was not that this was a plausible or likely theory but that it was an insane longshot but the only one he could imagine.

I'm biased, but I think the jury will see through it. One, the evidence for the blackmail theory as opposed to the actual truth is going to be very thin, unless CA or DA testifies, and even then there are serious credibility problems. Jurors' instincts are often troublesome and hard to predict, but I think they can usually sniff out egregious .

Of the two explanations, which is more likely: CA hired a hit man to kill DM because of longstanding antipathy and a desire to free his sister from a situation she hated, or that these two guys, knowing basically nothing about the case, figured out that if they went to kill DM, that would likely implicate CA, so they suddenly decided to kill someone of their own volition for a hundred grand or so? Occam's razor, y'all.
 
Last edited:
cottonweaver said:
Impulsively. My guess is she was on edge, adrenalin was pumping. (The hit was happening but she hadn't known exactly what moment it was to take place and also nobody had received the tip-off once it had occurred- LR & SG had turned their phones off & didn't switch back on until many miles away) To her it was worth the risk because she can talk her way out of it later if need be.

imo she changes her story because she can. While she has limited immunity she'll keep on tweaking her testimony, aiming for the most convincing version. She wants to win.

I have forgotten so much since last trial
- was it ever proven she had comm'd her family while she was in the car? ( In order for Katie to have been able to reply to Sigfriedo ' I know.' We know the Adelsons love their secret codes, so it's possible she could've used a signalling technique such as posting or liking a FB post etc)
- was she ever confirmed to be a whatsapp user? ( Isom downloaded her phone)
- Isom asked her if she had more than one phone ( But she was never searched)
Click to expand...
In an earlier trial Wendi testified that she currently had whatsapp but didn't know if she had it at the time of the murder and didn't know if Charlie had it then either. She said that if she did have whatsapp then she may have communicated with Charlie on it. It appears that in a May 9, 2016 wiretap, CA said that he communicated with WA on whatsapp that day. I don't know what Wendi's phone showed when it was downloaded.
 
Both Wendi and LaCasse mentioned Charlie the day of the murder, right? I know the family wouldn’t talk after that, but why didn’t the cops at least send someone to try to talk to him? They spoke to Donna and Harvey at the funeral, when they said that they would talk later (of course they immediately lawyered up and refused, but, still). But I think had they acted quickly and sent someone to talk to Charlie, there might have been a window on the day of the murder or the day after when he might have talked. The parents were in Tally and preoccupied with Wendi, so they might not have been able to influence him not to. And he’s just arrogant enough to do it. Im sure they got him a lawyer right away. But, still, why didn’t the cops even try? And why didn’t they ask Wendi more information about the people Charlie associated with, like Katie? Maybe they only realized how important he was when LaCasse came in, and by that time, of course, nobody was talking. I still think it’s a missed opportunity.

I also think that the cops and the state really thought Katie would cooperate early on. When she didn’t, I think they thought they didn’t have enough on Donna or Charlie. I think in most cases like this, someone talks. It’s amazing that Katie was content knowing that the family wasn’t talking, so she thought she could keep her mouth shut, too. Didn’t she realize this whole scenario, with her being tried and convicted and them remaining free, would be what happened if she kept quiet? What kind of counsel did she get? There is so much more direct evidence against her than against them. Someone should have told her she was going to jail and they weren’t without her testimony. That was the reason to talk. But instead the lawyer tells her “theyre not talking, so you shouldn’t either?” (That’s on one of the wiretaps). Bad advice. I could see them telling her that at first, but once it became clear they weren’t going to bring charges against Donna or Charlie, her testimony becomes much more valuable. If nobody in the A family has to pay for this crime, it is her fault. And I bet that they counted on that, on her doing the time for them, when they planned this.
 
I don’t use WhatsApp, I just text, so I don’t know how it works. Do WhatsApp messages disappear after a few minutes or do they stay until you delete them?
 
Gypsy Road said:
I don’t use WhatsApp, I just text, so I don’t know how it works. Do WhatsApp messages disappear after a few minutes or do they stay until you delete them?
Click to expand...
they don’t disappear. But supposedly they’re encrypted so nobody can read them. I think if you delete them they’re permanently gone from everywhere.
 
clearskies1 said:
In an earlier trial Wendi testified that she currently had whatsapp but didn't know if she had it at the time of the murder and didn't know if Charlie had it then either. She said that if she did have whatsapp then she may have communicated with Charlie on it. It appears that in a May 9, 2016 wiretap, CA said that he communicated with WA on whatsapp that day. I don't know what Wendi's phone showed when it was downloaded.
Click to expand...
Had forgotten about that wiretap- so they both used whatsapp on the day of the murder

She also tells Isom same day, when asked, that she tends to delete her messages ( she meant her texts, iirc he doesn't ask her about whatsapp)

So both CA & WA had both set their whatsapp to auto delete messages? TBH that does make sense for a pair of elaborate planners like C & W.( I've never set my whatsapps to delete but I just had a look online and it says you can choose 24 hrs auto 'disappear', or 7 days or 90 days. No less than 24hrs?)

I went to check the lists of exhibits and all I can see that might relate is ' ICould extract' on the State's list.


PS @Gypsy Road link:

How to turn disappearing messages on or off | WhatsApp Help Center

faq.whatsapp.com faq.whatsapp.com
 
vislaw said:
The defense opening strongly suggests that Charlie will take the stand. However, Jose Baez famously made a series of sensational claims in his opening for Casey Anthony that suggested she would need to take the stand as well, and we all know how that came out. It's possible the defense will close without calling Charlie and claim that "the State never proved its case so Charlie doesn't have to testify." There's no way that would work here IMHO because we have two trials completed with convicted murderers, unlike Casey Anthony's situation.

IF Charlie does take the stand and spins the story that he and his mom were being blackmailed I believe doing so will punch the ticket to indict DA immediately after the verdict no matter what the verdict is. Until now bringing charges against Donna would have allowed her to have a decent chance of acquittal by not putting on a case. If Charlie affirmatively testifies that his mother knew who the murderers were and was involved in paying them off, it changes the dynamics in the courtroom dramatically.

For one thing, I believe Charlie's testimony, if true, would still constitute criminal acts on Donna's part. I haven't studied Florida law, but I'd bet money that such conduct would be covered one way or the other by aiding and abetting theories and possibly misprision of a felony. Of course, the State has no interest in nailing Donna on such lesser crimes, but the fact that it would constitute criminal conduct would be useful to the State in any case. Charlie's obviously false story implicating his mother would put her defense counsel in a very tough position. Donna would be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder and Charlie's porky pie lies coming into evidence would put enormous pressure on Donna to have to take the stand in an attempt to shore up the crazy defense. She might try to say Charlie duped her and didn't tell her the whole story but who would ever believe her.

It would be a tragedy if this jury acquits Charlie on this crazy strategy, but I believe if he testifies it will lead to his mother's conviction. Right now Charlie has rolled the dice feeling his best chance is to present to the jury two scenarios: 1) He participated in arranging the hit on Dan; or 2) The killers figured they would kill Dan and then shake down Charlie for money. It seems pretty clear that its a long shot that a jury would pick #2 as the most likely given the evidence we know about. So, Charlie laying out this long shot claim under oath will essentially set up the same equation for his mother unless she concocts yet another explanation as to her actions.

I do wish Donna and Wendy had been named as co-defendants in this case. However, I also believe Charlie's wild defense here is going to essentially seal his mother's fate and will result in charges very soon after this trial is over.
Click to expand...
I watched an interesting analysis by Mentour Lawyer in which he said he thought that CA and DA were in lock step and had the same defense and that had GC followed through and interviewed HA and DA before this trial, she would have learned about the extortion defense at that time.
 
Gypsy Road said:
I don’t use WhatsApp, I just text, so I don’t know how it works. Do WhatsApp messages disappear after a few minutes or do they stay until you delete them?
Click to expand...
I have never used it but from following other cases, it does stay and I'm pretty sure police can recover messages with a search warrant from the company. I know in Charles case they talk a few times about the WhatsApp and I'm curious if they were ever recovered.
 
BSBC said:
This summary of the story Rashbaum wants the jury to believe reveals its absurdity:

floridapolitics.com

Charlie Adelson trial Day 1: State’s case consistent, defense floats puzzling conspiracy theory

'The defense theory isn’t just missing pieces. It’s missing borders, a picture and any semblance of glue.'
floridapolitics.com floridapolitics.com

In the winding defense theory, Charlie spoke too freely in front of bad actors — namely his then-girlfriend Katie Magbanua — about the stress his sister was feeling through her highly litigious divorce and was then set up by Katie and her gangster associates in a plot to extort money from his family. Rashbaum told the jury that Katie wanted a deeper relationship with Charlie, but that Charlie didn’t want that. And that Katie’s allegiance to Charlie really upset Garcia, with whom she shares two children.

The defense story has a few threads. In one, Garcia hated Charlie. Garcia decided to kill Markel to get Charlie framed for murder so that Garcia could get Katie back all for himself. Somehow, Rashbaum tells the jury, Garcia intentionally called an Adelson phone (Harvey’s) to plant a connection that could be discoverable by law enforcement. It’s unclear how Rashbaum thinks Garcia believed this plot would work, considering it would result in linking himself to the murder.

In the other thread, Rashbaum claims that Katie herself masterminded this — having heard Charlie’s hit man “joke” and the ability of the family to contemplate a $1 million payoff to Markel. In other words, Rashbaum insinuates, Charlie became enmeshed in a web of extortion and blackmail long after the murder, with the FBI bump becoming a “second extortion” against him and his family.

Rashbaum claims that the extensive wiretapping and the recording of Charlie at Dolce Vita will exonerate his client — and will prove his innocence (never mind that his defense fought super hard but unsuccessfully to keep all of these recordings out of trial.)
Click to expand...
bumping this old post because it has a summary of Rashbaum's opening statement

@Seattle had also posted a good summary of his opening but I can't find it right now
 
clearskies1 said:
I watched an interesting analysis by Mentour Lawyer in which he said he thought that CA and DA were in lock step and had the same defense and that had GC followed through and interviewed HA and DA before this trial, she would have learned about the extortion defense at that time.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine they didn’t at least try to predict something like this. To me it’s not hard to come up with this for Donna. The only evidence for her is the checks and the wiretaps, which can easily be explained by arguing that Charlie came to her after the fact and asked her to start paying Katie, and then when the bump happened she was scared. She never says anything specifically about murder on those tapes, just the TV (which is code for payment), and “it concerns the two of us”

Why didn’t they go ahead and interview D and H? And why would they have told her about Charlie’s extortion theory?

Honestly, if it weren’t for the bump, they would’ve gotten away with this, or at least Donna would have. They kept themselves well insulated. The payments went from Katie to the killers, the killers only knew Katie, etc. That was the plan, all the evidence would point to Katie. No evidence of Charlie giving Katie the money, because it was cash. (They didn’t count on the staples being an identifier). No evidence against Donna except for the checks, which could be explained as either blackmail or insurance fraud unrelated to the murder. Unless someone talked, it’s pretty clean. That’s why they had to do the bump.
 
amicuscurie said:
I can’t imagine they didn’t at least try to predict something like this. To me it’s not hard to come up with this for Donna. The only evidence for her is the checks and the wiretaps, which can easily be explained by arguing that Charlie came to her after the fact and asked her to start paying Katie, and then when the bump happened she was scared. She never says anything specifically about murder on those tapes, just the TV (which is code for payment), and “it concerns the two of us”

Why didn’t they go ahead and interview D and H? And why would they have told her about Charlie’s extortion theory?

Honestly, if it weren’t for the bump, they would’ve gotten away with this, or at least Donna would have. They kept themselves well insulated. The payments went from Katie to the killers, the killers only knew Katie, etc. That was the plan, all the evidence would point to Katie. No evidence of Charlie giving Katie the money, because it was cash. (They didn’t count on the staples being an identifier). No evidence against Donna except for the checks, which could be explained as either blackmail or insurance fraud unrelated to the murder. Unless someone talked, it’s pretty clean. That’s why they had to do the bump.
Click to expand...
I don't know why they didn't interview HA and DA, but from what I've heard it's much harder for the state to successfully prosecute someone after interviewing them under a grant of limited immunity because the state needs to prove to a judge that all the evidence used against the person was not derived from info gained at the interview. It's a headache for the state. The idea is that if DA has the same defense as CA (extortion), the facts of the alleged extortion have been learned at the interview.
 
clearskies1 said:
I watched an interesting analysis by Mentour Lawyer in which he said he thought that CA and DA were in lock step and had the same defense and that had GC followed through and interviewed HA and DA before this trial, she would have learned about the extortion defense at that time.
Click to expand...
yes I watched that- he thought it was a mistake to drop the chance to interview the pair.

Re ' lockstep'
MentourLawyer also said this was why the three use the same attorney - less conflict of interest.

BTW MentourL first proposed the scenario 7 days before trial - the same scenario which Rashbaum is using. ML is smart

Other little titbits from ML
- that Katie is still being repped by attorney LaCoste
- he is certain that CA will testify ( which most of us already posted but...)
- ML describes Rash's defense as ' high stakes poker' and wtte that if he were to win, it's over, no more indictments for any other Adelson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 48 more.
Total: 3,612 (members: 49, guests: 3,563)

Online statistics

Members online
49
Guests online
3,563
Total visitors
3,612
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,490
Messages
17,969,797
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top