GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #20

[dotr]

Meant to post this earlier on, fwiw

Charlie Adelson trial Day 2: An ex-friend, ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend, officers, lawyer & an accomplice step up

'I don’t want to be here at all.'

floridapolitics.com

''Charlie had alleged Fitzpatrick embezzled from their shared business and demanded money back. Fitzpatrick replied to him in a series of text messages including the following:

“I don’t owe you *advertiser censored*. I’ll be on the phone with the FBI today. Get your affairs in order;” “You open your mouth, and I’ll open mine;” “I dare you to threaten me again, I’ll get on the phone with the FBI, you murderer;” and “Get , you belong in jail.”

“I want to propose a wager. An over/under on Life+,” Fitzpatrick had written on a True Crime website days before testifying, which Rashbaum took as an attempt by a jilted friend to hurt Charlie out of spite.

“It’s free speech,” Fitzpatrick replied.''

ByPeter EdwardsStaff Reporter
Sunday, December 17, 2023

It started with a bad joke: Florida trial brings yet another conviction in Canadian professor’s murder, but no closure

In a series of trials over several years, Florida courts have heard a story of how a set of in-laws from hell allegedly took it upon themselves to kill prominent

www.thestar.com

''In the telephone interview, Ruth Markel shows empathy when talking about the hit man who killed her son, whom she calls “Danny.” Rivera also testified for the prosecution in three trials.
“He’s a key witness,” Ruth Markel says. “He was credible.”

''She wonders what the boys have heard about their father’s death through social media.
“They can’t not know now.”
Meanwhile, she’s bracing herself for Charlie Adelson’s appeal and Donna Adelson’s trial.
She notes that her Danny was a strong voice against capital punishment and she wants to respect that.
“I don’t think he would have wanted the death penalty, even with his personal situation. We were not disappointed.”
She keeps listening to podcasts and soaking up information on what happened to her Danny — but she doesn’t expect the pain to end.
“Closure is a word in the dictionary. There’s no such thing as closure.”

 

[geevee]

From CA's probable cause affidavit:

10:52-10:55 a.m. - Neighbor hears gunshot and sees small light colored vehicle pulling out of Markel's driveway

11:02 a.m. - MARKEL'S neighbor calls 911

11:06 a.m. - DONNA ADELSON contacts CHARLIE ADELSON (either attempted call or text)

11:22 a.m. - CHARLIE ADELSON contacts DONNA ADELSON (7 minutes)

11:30 a.m. - CHARLIE ADELSON contacts MAGBANUA (30 seconds)

11:31 a.m. - CHARLIE ADELSON contacts MAGBANUA (5 minutes)

Also, I think WA said she called DM at 11:42am but did not get an answer. (I'm not 100% sure of that time).

Un-Served Probable Cause For Charlie Adelson | PDF

Un-served probable cause for Charlie Adelson

www.scribd.com

Just speculating here...given that there was a plot the year before that wasn't completed, would it to too outlandish to think DA could have been listening to something like Broadcastify and heard the police call for DM's address? The timing of her call to CA (and his to KM) would fit with that.

 

[iamshadow21]

I think Rivera is an honest witness and told the truth. But I also think they were high and paranoid on this trip! A lot of coke as he testified. So I think some of the things he said like seeing Wendi and KM saying “I know” are from his imagination. Even if he said SG agreed. I don’t think either of those things happened. I don’t think he’s lying but I think ‘seeing Wendi’ was a paranoia thing and I think the “I know” comment was something his mind filled in in hindsight.

I have been dismissive of the idea that the Adelsons will turn on each other but Katiecoolady said something interesting yesterday on her live - Donna is the kind of mother who has no problem cutting off from her children ie Robert. And now I’m wondering if Donna is mad enough to implicate Wendi. I still think it’s doubtful but hmmm….

JMO

I think she'll be more inclined to cut off Charlie. Claim ignorance of what he wanted money for, what he was doing, claim to be a victim too, etc.

It won't work.

MOO

 

[Missyrocks5]

She may have said “I know,” and he may have heard her say that. Doesn’t mean she knew.

For all we know, she might have meant she figured, because why else would he be calling her.

Charlie states on a jail call that Rashbaum said he would be driving home with him. And that they would win. But you can’t really believe anything Charlie says. Unless he says the sky is blue (although it may be a rainy day..

I can see both of these being possible. I don't know if there is any definitive answer unless KM tells the whole truth, which she so far has not been willing to do. I do find It compelling that Rivera says he asked SG how can she know?

I think it is also very plausible that katie knew what time it was supposed to go down, and that her first phone call from him would be to let her know it was done, so she said I know. I don't think we will ever get a real answer on this until potential trial.

 

[IQuestion]

...Jumping ahead because the CA/DA rehash drone is still playing in the background. I realize the phone calls are revealing and a possible money maker for someone or some group that helps inmates, IDK ..but dhaaang can't someone give CA 15 ballpoint pens and a ream of paper? He needs to memorialize the cosmic coincidences surrounding his life. He needs to save his voice and my ears.

 

[amicuscurie]

...Jumping ahead because the CA/DA rehash drone is still playing in the background. I realize the phone calls are revealing and a possible money maker for someone or some group that helps inmates, IDK ..but dhaaang can't someone give CA 15 ballpoint pens and a ream of paper? He needs to memorialize the cosmic coincidences surrounding his life. He needs to save his voice and my ears.

He does repeat himself endlessly. I remember Katie testifying at her trial that he would just talk on and on and repeat himself. Of course, she was trying to use that as a reason she didn’t know what he was talking about at Dolce Vita. But, he does seem to do that. It’s WHAT he fixates on that is significant, to me. In the first calls he is generally talking about the jury, how stupid he thinks they were, how they didn’t look at the evidence, how they cut and pasted the texts, etc. Pretty standard for a convicted defendant, in my opinion. But as the calls go on, he starts to talk about specific things the state introduced that suggest the whole family was involved: Wendi’s book, Donna’s emails, Wendi’s drive-by, Donna’s callback to “TV“ in the bump call, his use of the land-line to talk to his parents. To me, his fixation on these specific points suggests that he feels these were the worst pieces of evidence for him, and that it took him by surprise at trial how much the state was going to use them. These all happen to be things that don’t fit or are hard to fit with the narrative that he was the victim of a double extortion and nobody knew. If the family was involved in a plot to kill Dan, then he was also involved in it. There’s a new call with Janis where he talks to her about these “coincidences,” and not only does she agree they are incredible coincidences, she also says she doesn’t even see what they have to do with HIM and HIS case. I had to stop listening at that point. I’d rather hear a conversation with Bubbles the Dog.

 

[IQuestion]

This is not about an appeal. He knows he has nothing to appeal. He has said as much on the calls. This seems legitimately about CA trying to figure out how on gods green earth he could have gotten so unlucky that on the day of the murder, WA drives by the scene, implying that she did so not knowing what was going to go down, but by doing so, essentially sealed his fate.

BBM above: Everybody is "dancing around the subject" of WA driving by Trescott. Of course she would do that after the failed attempt in June...she had to see for herself this time. (WA's version of Trust but verify?) I'm guessing KM and WA traded phone numbers and added each other to What'sAPP. That's what single Mommies do when they sunbathe together, take selfies with their cell phones, and "diss" their baby Daddies right? I seem to recall/remember the Oscar Pistorius trial the prosecution was able to recover the texts on What'sAPP.

 

[BSBC]

To me, his fixation on these specific points suggests that he feels these were the worst pieces of evidence for him, and that it took him by surprise at trial how much the state was going to use them. These all happen to be things that don’t fit or are hard to fit with the narrative that he was the victim of a double extortion and nobody knew.

I have a different take. CA seems to have fixated on several relatively minor pieces of evidence (e.g., WA's book and Ryan Fitzpatrick's testimony) that he blames for his conviction, even though I'm confident the verdict would have been exactly the same had they never been presented to the jury. But CA ignores--probably deliberately--the much, much more important evidence that got him convicted.

I think it's important to step back and look at the forest rather than the trees (i.e., the specifics of the evidence) for a moment. It's beyond dispute (and in fact CA did not dispute) that SG and LR drove up from Miami to murder DM, a man they had never met and had no personal beef with. It's also indisputable (and CA did not dispute) that LR was romantically involved with KM, who was also involved with CA. So why did SG and LR kill DM? By far the most logical explanation--bolstered by all the motive evidence regarding the divorce--is that they were paid by some combination of Adelsons to do it. And CA in fact testified that his money flowed via KM to the hit men. This is how murder-for-hire works: someone hires the hitmen and pays them--it's logical, and how just about everyone understands this type of crime from popular culture, which is the lens through which most of us who are not directly involved in crime experience it. That extremely logical and straightforward theory of the murder was bolstered by the testimony of LR and KM--direct participants in the conspiracy--among much other evidence.

CA of course came up with his cockamamie theory that SG and LR killed DM "on spec" and then extorted him afterwards. That story was inherently unbelievable and ludicrous on multiple levels, supported only by CA's own self-severing testimony. OF COURSE the jury didn't believe it. And while CA is fixated on how the jury in Tallahassee would never give him a fair shake, I highly doubt any jury anywhere in Florida (and probably anywhere in the US) would buy his murder-on-spec/extortion theory. It makes no sense in the abstract, and even less sense when viewed in light of all of the specific evidence against him.

I've listened to hours of CA's post-conviction calls complaining about the bias of the jury, Cappleman's closing, WA's book, etc., etc. But not once have I heard him mention, let alone defend, his extortion theory. I think the obvious reason is that it is complete and utter nonsense. CA knows that, and he can't argue it with a straight face even to his parents or the others who are willing to put up with his hours of rambling about his miserable fate.

 

[Windward Gal]

The one laugh-out-loud moment I had while listening to the calls was hearing Charlie tell his mother he was “speechless” after ranting and raving for hours. It still cracks me up every time I think of it. If anyone ever uses the word around me I’ll probably burst out laughing!

 

[amicuscurie]

I have a different take. CA seems to have fixated on several relatively minor pieces of evidence (e.g., WA's book and Ryan Fitzpatrick's testimony) that he blames for his conviction, even though I'm confident the verdict would have been exactly the same had they never been presented to the jury. But CA ignores--probably deliberately--the much, much more important evidence that got him convicted.

I think it's important to step back and look at the forest rather than the trees (i.e., the specifics of the evidence) for a moment. It's beyond dispute (and in fact CA did not dispute) that SG and LR drove up from Miami to murder DM, a man they had never met and had no personal beef with. It's also indisputable (and CA did not dispute) that LR was romantically involved with KM, who was also involved with CA. So why did SG and LR kill DM? By far the most logical explanation--bolstered by all the motive evidence regarding the divorce--is that they were paid by some combination of Adelsons to do it. And CA in fact testified that his money flowed via KM to the hit men. This is how murder-for-hire works: someone hires the hitmen and pays them--it's logical, and how just about everyone understands this type of crime from popular culture, which is the lens through which most of us who are not directly involved in crime experience it. That extremely logical and straightforward theory of the murder was bolstered by the testimony of LR and KM--direct participants in the conspiracy--among much other evidence.

CA of course came up with his cockamamie theory that SG and LR killed DM "on spec" and then extorted him afterwards. That story was inherently unbelievable and ludicrous on multiple levels, supported only by CA's own self-severing testimony. OF COURSE the jury didn't believe it. And while CA is fixated on how the jury in Tallahassee would never give him a fair shake, I highly doubt any jury anywhere in Florida (and probably anywhere in the US) would buy his murder-on-spec/extortion theory. It makes no sense in the abstract, and even less sense when viewed in light of all of the specific evidence against him.

I've listened to hours of CA's post-conviction calls complaining about the bias of the jury, Cappleman's closing, WA's book, etc., etc. But not once have I heard him mention, let alone defend, his extortion theory. I think the obvious reason is that it is complete and utter nonsense. CA knows that, and he can't argue it with a straight face even to his parents or the others who are willing to put up with his hours of rambling about his miserable fate.

Great post!

 

[cottonweaver]

There’s a new call with Janis where he talks to her about these “coincidences,” and not only does she agree they are incredible coincidences, she also says she doesn’t even see what they have to do with HIM and HIS case. I had to stop listening at that point. I’d rather hear a conversation with Bubbles the Dog.

snipped
I agree. He's just ranting by that stage and she is beyond stupid.

Nonetheless I made a few notes, it might spare somebody else from having to listen to it

31m Charlies plans, after his NG verdict, were to 'go to a hotel for a couple of days to decompress, have a cocktail, smoke a joint and then be rolling within a week' ( 'by the weekend be home')
Janis - 'and then WE gather a plan for whatever, we move on' ( Speculation: travel, go abroad together. )
14m CA: Dan had rated CA's performance on the stand as 95%. ( A sure thing for NG. A score above 70 would mean that Dan would be driving him home. )

35m Janis: ‘ Can I ask you a question?' Pause. 'Have you talked to the boys? '
His reply is inaudible & he doesn't want to go there, imo.
Janis :‘ I just know those two boys love you very much'

39m Janis: 'why wasn’t Robert a witness? ‘ your shi/tty brother’
CA replies wtte of : well we weren’t gonna call him. They could’ve called him

46m CA : 'If Wendy had come up in this trial they would have convicted her.'

In the middle of this call, Janis gets a text from Donna and he asks Janis to text Donna saying that he will call her shortly. Janis also explains how she's been sending favourable SM comments to Donna during the trial, proving to Donna that the trial is going well for Charlie. (I hope Janis listens to the other calls & hears Donna, behind her back, suggest to Charlie that Janis is given two weeks to clear out of the house!)

Also, there's a call to Donna, 7th or 8th Nov where CA tells Donna that everything in his life had declined over the last few years, work, income, friendships and.... in case some of his loyal women are browsing WS.... he says that the calibre of his girlfriends also declined each year.

+ Sundry blatantly racist comments from Charlie about the jury. Also, his claim that Georgia deployed anti-semitism in the case.

link

 

[Chelly]

It cracks me up listening to CA on these tapes placing blame for his prison sentence everywhere except where blame is due.

When he stops ranting, will CA finally turn against the true Architect of the Assassination... his own mother? Will he stop lying to himself long enough to see his own role as mommy's little helper? I see years of mental health therapy ahead.

DA, CA, WA and HA are a true crime-family. They all played a role. MOO

 

[Weki]

Rashbaum told CA his testimony was 95% favorable to him!??? OK I’m sorry but Rashbaum is not only a terrible litigator but he is seriously unethical imo. He has a duty to manage his clients expectations. He is Charlie’s advocate - in what world does that involve just blatantly lying to his client? Telling your client he’s gonna go home seems to me to be an unconscionable choice. This is along the lines of Kawass/DeCoste not forcing KM if they had to to take that deal! JMO

 

[LinasK]

Exactly. He wasn’t tried and convicted in a federal court so he won’t be going to a club fed “camp”. Don’t know why Charlie keeps referring that he hopes he might end up in one of these “camps” in those recorded calls.

And they aren't necessarily safer. Derrick Chauvin just got attacked in a Federal prison.

 

[cottonweaver]

And they aren't necessarily safer. Derrick Chauvin just got attacked in a Federal prison.

and that's a prison which is strictly all ' Protective Management'

Coincidentally, in one of the jail calls on 7th Nov, Charlie tells his Mom that he's hoping to get transferred to a state prison which is all ' PM' so that there's more freedoms for all the high profile perps.
( I don't even know if there are any of those in Florida, a Floridian will know)

 

[LinasK]

Indeed. The tapes are beyond fascinating. Did you all hear where he was explaining how Raushbaum told him it'll be easy to explain because he's innocent. That is not the only time we have heard that either. I forget if it was Mentour lawyer or Tim Jansen who spoke with him in person, and that is what he told whoever it was. They asked is he nervous or worried. This was months and months ago, and he said no, because he has an innocent client.

It can't possibly be true that he believes that, is it? Which means he's a good actor I guess. I believe defense attorneys cannot suborn perjury of their client so maybe that's just what he has to say that in order to be able to put Charlie up on the stand.

Defense attorneys usually don't ask their clients if they are guilty for that very reason. They aren't allowed to lie about it. I know because I've known some defense attorneys.

 

[BUF]

Rashbaum told CA his testimony was 95% favorable to him!??? OK I’m sorry but Rashbaum is not only a terrible litigator but he is seriously unethical imo. He has a duty to manage his clients expectations. He is Charlie’s advocate - in what world does that involve just blatantly lying to his client? Telling your client he’s gonna go home seems to me to be an unconscionable choice. This is along the lines of Kawass/DeCoste not forcing KM if they had to to take that deal! JMO

That whole story of Rashbaum saying it was 95% favorable to CA, was going home, etc. came from CA with DA chiming in…so who knows what the true story is.

I can only listen to these recorded calls a little at a time. There is so much repetitiveness, but then you pick up on some interesting stuff.

Given how Charlie was convicted, I don’t think I have ever heard so many accolades repeatedly given about his attorney that represented him…”especially” from DA which I find odd as they seem so over the top.

 

[BUF]

and that's a prison which is strictly all ' Protective Management'

Coincidentally, in one of the jail calls on 7th Nov, Charlie tells his Mom that he's hoping to get transferred to a state prison which is all ' PM' so that there's more freedoms for all the high profile perps.
( I don't even know if there are any of those in Florida, a Floridian will know)

I live in Florida. I think he’s delusional.

 

[Ferpo]

snipped
I agree. He's just ranting by that stage and she is beyond stupid.

So much CA venom for the jury selection process even though he spent a boatload hiring Dubin and team. I think I can summarize CA's position by saying that they (Defense) had to use up all of their X's (removals) on people who were familiar with the case (e.g. Over My Dead Body podcast listeners) while the Prosecution didn't have this burden.

Dubin is a "prominent civil rights attorney" (source below). Wonder what he thinks of CA's targeting the African-American jurors?

Josh Dubin

cardozo.yu.edu

A happy CA with the Dream Team during jury selection. Source: Pool Photo

 

[Weki]

That whole story of Rashbaum saying it was 95% favorable to CA, was going home, etc. came from CA with DA chiming in…so who knows what the true story is.

I can only listen to these recorded calls a little at a time. There is so much repetitiveness, but then you pick up on some interesting stuff.

Given how Charlie was convicted, I don’t think I have ever heard so many accolades repeatedly given about his attorney that represented him…”especially” from DA which I find odd as they seem so over the top.

It seems to me that if he said Rashbaum said it was 95% favorable - that’s a quote. It seems specific. Not something Charlie embellished. But I could be wrong of course.