FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #16

[cottonweaver]

He went to Nova, I think. Not sure if it is any good. He did work in his father’s practice some, but also in a lot of others. I agree it makes little sense IMO that he wouldn’t just set up a practice out of his father’s office.

A short snippet on CA's training, just cause it relates to my last post on this WS page

'.....his education — UCF for undergrad and Nova Southeastern for dental school — where he said he had to work “really hard” to get good grades.

Police reports suggest he didn’t always succeed in this: in some, it was suggested that when Charlie’s grades fell, or he was caught cheating, Charlie used family and political connections — such as through Wendi’s godfather, then chief judge in Broward County — to pull strings. According to other accounts, members of his periodontal class refused to walk at graduation if Charlie was allowed to attend.'

( OfC CA are very litigious but once he's convicted am expecting people who knew him at dental school to come forward. Joel Wilding already has subscribers from that period in Charlie's life. )

Charlie Adelson trial Day 6, Part 1: Charlie tells his version

'Stupidest thing I ever said in my life.'

floridapolitics.com

 

[cottonweaver]

“Don’t let the way they thought they’d get away with this murder BE the way they get away with this murder!” - Georgia Cappleman

Yes GC should recycle that one for her closing

Perhaps when re-emphasising why CA never went to police over the ' extortion' Georgia could use his own words of warning: ' If we go to the police, this is gonna put a spotlight on the investigation.'

Context:
Charlie to Katie :
' Charlie: “But let me explain something to you. If we go to the police, this is gonna put a spotlight on the investigation. The FBI. The FBI. We’re talking about a bigwig in the FBI, not like the first-year rookie. You’re gonna have a 20-year vet with the FBI knocking at your door, wanting to speak with you, and wanting to speak with your attorney.” ( Dolce tape)

 

[vislaw]

Yes GC should recycle that one for her closing

Perhaps when re-emphasising why CA never went to police over the ' extortion' Georgia could use his own words of warning: ' If we go to the police, this is gonna put a spotlight on the investigation.'

Context:
Charlie to Katie :
' Charlie: “But let me explain something to you. If we go to the police, this is gonna put a spotlight on the investigation. The FBI. The FBI. We’re talking about a bigwig in the FBI, not like the first-year rookie. You’re gonna have a 20-year vet with the FBI knocking at your door, wanting to speak with you, and wanting to speak with your attorney.” ( Dolce tape)

Yes!!!!! This is so important to emphasize.

 

[justice1960]

The state needs to keep their closing simple. Because it is simple.

None of the 'explanations' (not evidence) by CA make any sense.
No killers would kill a stranger and then hope to extort a brother-in-law. The brother in law willingly paid them the night of the murder.

End of case

Turn the tables and use the Defenses own words in 2016..."Fanciful Fiction"

 

[GordonX]

Sociopaths wear a mask to seem like a real normal person but sometimes the mask slips.

 

[GordonX]

per "Lawyer You Know" on YT - CA may have been planning this defense for a long time -

"If you go ahead and make it seem like you're being extorted or blackmailed - what are (LE) going to do?" - CA to DA on Wiretapped Call

 

[GordonX]

“CA convinced himself that this is my truth and this is what I’m going to say.” “He was well prepared.” “Preparation is always key to winning when you’re a lawyer and most cases are won by the side that prepares the most.” - Mentour Lawyer - Adelsons Fairy Tales & the mostly awesome cross-examination of “Doctor” Charlie - Deep Dive True Crime

 

[Windward Gal]

I’ve never been so emotionally invested in any trial before. I’ve been so angry for years about what this family did to Dan. Today I just feel sad thinking about everything his boys have lost. I’m a nervous wreck but confident at the same time.

 

[Missyrocks5]

If it's true that the state can re-open to add some evidence, if they can get it in, I hope they can admit the tap where CA brags how he got out of a ticket by lying that he was an ER dr (he was wearing his scrubs) & has to get to thr hospital.

Then, analogize that to what his mindset is. On DV, he says he's an oral surgeon & when he kills the gangsta who is bribing him, he will be believed . Drive that home. Hes doing it here. He is smart and memorized a script. He's an actor in this role of a lifetime. DA sent the email where she tells WA that she can be convincing in her lies. She needs to give the performance of her life. It's how they were raised.

He's privileged, thinks he's smarter and better, and will skate again. Tell the jury, don't let him walk out of the courtroom & then again be bragging how he told his memorized script lies. The real CA is in the taps, not the actor version in court. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[phillaw]

If it's true that the state can re-open to add some evidence, if they can get it in, I hope they can admit the tap where CA brags how he got out of a ticket by lying that he was an ER dr (he was wearing his scrubs) & has to get to thr hospital.

Then, analogize that to what his mindset is. On DV, he says he's an oral surgeon & when he kills the gangsta who is bribing him, he will be believed . Drive that home. Hes doing it here. He is smart and memorized a script. He's an actor in this role of a lifetime. DA sent the email where she tells WA that she can be convincing in her lies. She needs to give the performance of her life. It's how they were raised.

He's privileged, thinks he's smarter and better, and will skate again. Tell the jury, don't let him walk out of the courtroom & then again be bragging how he told his memorized script lies. The real CA is in the taps, not the actor version in court. The evidence is overwhelming.

And that he was completely blasé about being fraudulent to the government about KM’s employment so she could get health insurance.

 

[amicuscurie]

IIRC he was acting as KM & SG's lawyer at the time that call was tapped because Atty Lewis tells her that if she is arrested she will need a new lawyer immediately to avoid conflict, and she needs the funds to pay that. ( So, arguably this call couldn't be used at trial because of privilege?)

He also tells her that he has a lawyer picked out for her. Lewis also tells her that he also needs another payment from Katie & she better start working on that & hopefully Katie can get that from SG's bank account
Numerous references to ' the family not talkin' and specifically to Charlie. I believe the Adelson lawyer who called attorney Lewis is Michael Weinstein.

In the playlist this call is listed as:

Post Arrest 5/30/16 - Dan Markel Murder: Katie & Sigfredo's 1st Lawyer = The Family Ain't Talkin'​

Weinstein again ( & see previous links in my previous post)
'
3) Weinstein's response did not dispute his role a go-between for communications between Charlie, Katie, and Sigfredo just following Sigfredo’s arrest.

'Attorney-to-attorney communications are common and perfectly proper. But, the impact of these conversations seemed to matter in this case: Weinstein “assured” Sigfredo Garcia’s then-lawyer Jim Lewis that Charlie and “the family” wouldn’t talk with law enforcement. Lewis then shared this with Katie Magbanua. From there, she and Sigfredo felt safe to avoid cooperating, too. This is reiterated here only to underscore that Weinstein’s early role wasn’t trivial. In this very definitional “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” law enforcement had an uphill battle in eliciting cooperation due to these assurances taking place. Yes, Weinstein was just doing his job – but in this case, that meant that Florida residents had to spend much more time and money to get less justice in this horrific murder case. '

Michael Weinstein confirms former role as 'zealous advocate' for Charlie Adelson; raises new Qs

Michael Weinstein submitted a formal reply, amended to to the Florida Politics column describing his relationship with the Adelson family. In this, Weinstein asserted that everything he did was within the law and his role as an attorney. That assertion does not contradict anything in the column...

www.justicefordan.com

I don't have the old links to hand where SG, Isom & other LEO are all in the car park immediately after SG's arrest & LE get a call from an Adelson lawyer but irrc that was Weinstein too.

However here's another one about Weinstein & Adelson influence in FLA
'...the Weinsteins aren’t the only example of political connectedness the Adelson family boasts.'
'....There are multiple appointed South Florida judges who appear to remain friendly with the family.'

An HD 81 candidate with deep ties to family suspected of murdering Dan Markel

A young father was killed, and law enforcement knows how — and why.

floridapolitics.com

It’s just so good for impeachment, I was wondering why she asked him about this at all if she wasn’t going to use it.

 

[amicuscurie]

“CA convinced himself that this is my truth and this is what I’m going to say.” “He was well prepared.” “Preparation is always key to winning when you’re a lawyer and most cases are won by the side that prepares the most.” - Mentour Lawyer - Adelsons Fairy Tales & the mostly awesome cross-examination of “Doctor” Charlie - Deep Dive True Crime

Mostly awesome? I was talking to a friend the other day who said it was not a good cross at all. I thought it was good enough, started strong petered out in the middle somehow, ended abruptly. I think it got away from her when he started talking over her and the judge intervened. She wasn’t as good after that. I’m hoping his story is just not believable, enough that the shortcomings in the cross won’t matter. He did seem obviously lying throughout, even though he had the story down pretty good. You can memorize a lie, but it’s still obviously a lie.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes GC should recycle that one for her closing

Perhaps when re-emphasising why CA never went to police over the ' extortion' Georgia could use his own words of warning: ' If we go to the police, this is gonna put a spotlight on the investigation.'

Context:
Charlie to Katie :
' Charlie: “But let me explain something to you. If we go to the police, this is gonna put a spotlight on the investigation. The FBI. The FBI. We’re talking about a bigwig in the FBI, not like the first-year rookie. You’re gonna have a 20-year vet with the FBI knocking at your door, wanting to speak with you, and wanting to speak with your attorney.” ( Dolce tape)

She should emphasize that he went to the police when his PUPPY almost died. But not when someone he knew died.

 

[amicuscurie]

The state needs to keep their closing simple. Because it is simple.

None of the 'explanations' (not evidence) by CA make any sense.
No killers would kill a stranger and then hope to extort a brother-in-law. The brother in law willingly paid them the night of the murder.

End of case.

The Defendant is charged with murder for hire. The evidence shows that Dan was killed, and that Charlie paid for it. (Go through the evidence, all the tapes, the bump). That’s murder for hire. If someone kills someone and you pay them, it‘s murder for hire. There is no requirement that the payment be made before the murder. If someone builds a house, and you pay for it after it is built, you have bought yourself a house. If someone killed Dan, and Defendant paid for it after they killed him, Defendant bought himself a murder. The Defendant does not refute any of this evidence. Instead, he claims that this same evidence supports his claim that he was extorted. It doesn’t. Extortion is using force or duress to get money from someone. Again, the evidence in this case is that Dan was murdered, and this Defendant paid for it. There is no evidence of duress or force, even in the Defendant’s own testimony. Turning to the second count, conspiracy, the evidence shows there was a conspiracy in this case. We have a witness, Katie, who testified that she conspired to murder Dan and was convicted for it. We also have another witness, Luis, who testified that he participated in a murder for hire conspiracy and was convicted for it. This Defendant has presented no evidence to refute that testimony. He may argue that it is not credible, but in fact, he stated here in court that he believes Katie and Luis were part of a conspiracy to murder Dan. The Defendant claims he was not involved in the conspiracy, but the evidence shows he was. Luis testified that Katie, who was “always broke,” (according to the Defendant,) gave him money to use for expenses, and that Sig had a paper with Dan’s picture and address on it. Katie testified she gave Sig a paper from Charlie as part of the conspiracy. She also testified she didn’t know where Dan lived. Defendant has no evidence to refute any of this. Look, the Defendant doesn’t have to put on a case. The burden is on the state. Looking at the totality of the evidence presented, the state has met this burden, and then some. But in this case, the Defendant has chosen to present a case, and is claiming that this was extortion. There is no evidence of extortion, no evidence of force or duress, no evidence to show this was anything other than a conspiracy to commit murder for hire, and no evidence to overcome the testimony as to Defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy. Reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt. It is not reasonable to believe, in the face of all of the evidence in this case which shows that the Defendant arranged and paid for a murder, that this is not, in fact, what happened. It is not reasonable to believe that three people unrelated to Dan would conspire to kill him without the Defendant ‘s knowledge in the hope that he would pay them for it. I rest my case.

ETA- the state should move for directed verdict. Ha.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I’ve never been so emotionally invested in any trial before. I’ve been so angry for years about what this family did to Dan. Today I just feel sad thinking about everything his boys have lost. I’m a nervous wreck but confident at the same time.

Me too!! I have been obsessed with this case since the day I heard about it. I live about 2 1/2 hours away from beautiful Tallahassee and there was lots of media here. There were very few leads in the very beginning. I remember people thinking that maybe Dan had upset a student, and a student murdered him, or a disgruntled colleague. I read and read and read and googled this story often. I couldn’t get it off my mind. When the pieces finally started to come together and LR and SG were arrrested, and then Katie, I was so relieved, but obviously I knew there should be more arrests made. It was obvious it was a murder for hire and it was obvious who did the hiring. But I started losing hope after Katie’s first trial. I’ll never forget watching the news one night and on the bottom scrolling ticker —- I saw Charlie had been arrested!! I remember literally jumping out of my seat -I was so happy they finally arrested him! Now I’m praying for Donna’s arrest. I personally don’t think Wendy or Harvey will ever be charged. I am praying that the Markels get the Justice they deserve. This has been a long tragic road for them and I can’t even imagine being in their shoes. Not only have they had to deal with the tragic death of their beloved son and brother, they’ve had to deal with not being able to see the two most important things that connect them to Dan - his precious sons. And on top of this, they have had to endure the slow wheels of Justice and a narcissistic, family who has political ties to people who can protect them. It’s just SO HEAVY! I admire Ruth so very much. I don’t know if I could have held up this many years. My heart goes out to Dan’s family I pray there is Justice for Dan.

 

[Weki]

She should emphasize that he went to the police when his PUPPY almost died. But not when someone he knew died.

Right those are the types of comebacks that you get from prosecutors who are well-prepared and also listen to the answers and can pivot as needed. GC was reading off a list of questions. She got frustrated cause he didn’t say “ok you got me, my story makes no sense.” Her approach in all her questioning, direct and cross, is to ask the questions that get her the answers for her closing argument. She’s not the type of prosecutor who likes to tell a story. Of course all prosecutors are asking questions to get answers that they can use to argue at the end. But that is not all there is to persuading a jury. JMO

Edited to add - Another missed opportunity was when she was asking him whether he ever had any intentions of marrying Katie. And he tried to act like he wasn’t just using her. At that point she could’ve said “I mean you wouldn’t marry even a Victoria’s Secret model if she had 2 kids, right?” “Isn’t it true that you think single mothers are damaged goods?” His answer doesn’t even matter but it would’ve pissed him off and reminded the jury what a jerk he is. For people who lie constantly and can’t keep their mouth shut, use their own words against them! So many opportunities here that she she missed! Instead he CHECKED her a couple times about what he said or didn’t say!

 

[BSBC]

There is no evidence of duress or force, even in the Defendant’s own testimony.

I think CA is guilty as sin, but it's just not accurate to say "There is no evidence of duress or force, even in the Defendant’s own testimony." CA testified that KM told him after the murder that he would be killed if he didn't pay the extortionists within 48 hours. If CA's testimony is true, then it would indeed constitute evidence that he paid KM under duress, given the threat of force.

To be clear, I think CA "extortion" defense is complete nonsense, and that the evidence is overwhelming that he was the "maestro" behind the murder-for-hire plot. But he did introduce evidence (i.e., his testimony) that he was extorted by KM and others.

 

[Tanager]

Well said! Over time, the absurdity of CA's story stops being shocking and we all become a bit numb to how middleschool his tale is with its excessive chatter, bluster, feigned fear, and contradictions galore. It is still no less preposterous; we just stop being shocked by it.

When I listen to the codespeak in the wiretaps, it is painful how the transition into the code lacks the appropriate context for a real non-code conversation on the topic. Wouldn't the features of a new TV or repair be discussed at length if you are going to bother to talk about it with everyone? My parents would have gone on and on about the super boring new TV enhancements, how the remote works with the 50 other remotes, or how to connect it to their wireless network. There is nothing organic about the way these conversations flow. They are 100% inauthentic as soon as you picture the real conversation the code is attempting to use for cover.

I had a brief moment of mercy for CA last night when I thought about how terrifying prison will be for him, and his family, and how miserable that will be. What is it like to worry that your son is not safe every minute of the day? I feel like there is a decent chance that someone in prison will resent the circumstances under which the family tried to transfer complete blame elsewhere for their crimes. I do not wish violence on anyone, but I would not mind it if DA had anxious G-I distress for every minute of the rest of her life, and it would be right for her to have that distress while in a tiny cell reflecting on her deep regrets about her cruelty to another mother and her son.

 

[Windward Gal]

Even with his life on the line Charlie couldn’t hide his contempt for Dan. It just oozed out of him. He refused to admit that Dan was brilliant, called him a nerd and even said going to the cops wouldn’t have brought him back. He also slept in the same bed with Katie on the night she announced that she had gotten Dan killed. He just popped a Xanax and went to sleep. I want to see him in handcuffs so badly I can taste it.

 

[cottonweaver]

Even with his life on the line Charlie couldn’t hide his contempt for Dan. It just oozed out of him. He refused to admit that Dan was brilliant, called him a nerd and even said going to the cops wouldn’t have brought him back. He also slept in the same bed with Katie on the night she announced that she had gotten Dan killed. He just popped a Xanax and went to sleep. I want to see him in handcuffs so badly I can taste it.

Yes a very telling moment.
' just a nerdy guy' is the most CA could manage. GC got under his skin on that question

I just cannot imagine any of the Adelsons garnering the kind of eulogies that DM did. Here's a few from what would have been his 50th Birthday. Remembering Danny on his 50th Birthday

This link includes Tamara Demko's memorial and reading the section on Dan's relationship with his kids makes one wonder whether WA was also threatened by Dan's bond with his kids, in the same way that both CA & WA were threatened by Dan's other exceptional qualities.

( In WA -and DA's-twisted world, it's better if they can annihilate Dan while his boys are tiny, in the hope that they will barely remember him or any of the details of the bond that Tamara wrote about)