sheldonvan
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
Could well be, but either way, isn't it the first evidence we've seen of direct cellphone contact between the killers and the family?
GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU law professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #3 *Arrests*
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
New Posts
-
CANADA Steven, 61, last seen July 10, 2024 in Brockville Ontario
- Latest: Fabled Automatic
-
GA GA - Katherine Janness & Dog Bowie Fatally Stabbed - Piedmont Park, Atlanta, 2021 #5
- Latest: concernedcitizen706
- Status
Marvin Berry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 434
I've been following this case (and this thread) for a while now. You guys have done an outstanding job aggregating and correlating facts that are strewn over various different articles. I believe that the evidence in this case--even if circumstantial--strongly points to at least Charlie and Magbanua being culpable for murder. Obviously, that's just my opinion, and I don't have to try the case, but I'm somewhat surprised there haven't been more arrests yet. Which brings me to my biggest concern with the current state of affairs.
Rivera is set to go on trial in a little over a month from today. If he doesn't deal, which seems like a distinct possibility, I believe statements made by the prosecution (specifically Meggs) could lead to an acquittal. The prosecution is going to have to put up some sort of evidence with respect to motive and, presumably, they will put up evidence connecting the dots from Garcia and Rivera to Magbanua and the Adelsons. Putting up that evidence for motive is fine even if you haven't arrested any of the As. But now you have overt declarations by the prosecutor that there is not even sufficient evidence to establish probable cause--a relatively low threshold--that Magbanua or the Adelsons were involved. He goes so far as to suggest that an arrest would be grounds for a lawsuit by the Adelsons. This admission by the prosecution completely destroys any evidence of motive and inserts reasonable doubt where there should be none. I truly hope that Meggs is a prosecution ninja who is merely setting up the board for his plan. Because if not, his inappropriate statements might prevent justice in this case.
Rivera is set to go on trial in a little over a month from today. If he doesn't deal, which seems like a distinct possibility, I believe statements made by the prosecution (specifically Meggs) could lead to an acquittal. The prosecution is going to have to put up some sort of evidence with respect to motive and, presumably, they will put up evidence connecting the dots from Garcia and Rivera to Magbanua and the Adelsons. Putting up that evidence for motive is fine even if you haven't arrested any of the As. But now you have overt declarations by the prosecutor that there is not even sufficient evidence to establish probable cause--a relatively low threshold--that Magbanua or the Adelsons were involved. He goes so far as to suggest that an arrest would be grounds for a lawsuit by the Adelsons. This admission by the prosecution completely destroys any evidence of motive and inserts reasonable doubt where there should be none. I truly hope that Meggs is a prosecution ninja who is merely setting up the board for his plan. Because if not, his inappropriate statements might prevent justice in this case.
Blondie in Spokane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 10,992
- Reaction score
- 13,644
Welcome Marvin Berry! I pray Meggs hasn't tainted this case - they all need to be locked up.....the whole lot of them!
:wagon:
:wagon:
Hello, all. This is a very intriguing case, isn't it. This may be a stupid question, buy I will ask anyway. If Garcia and/or Rivera decide to give information, don't they then rescind their ability to plead not-guilty? I'm not at all sure how that works, if they give up the info they know, does that mean they won't have a trial and have already accepted some kind of plea deal? Thanks to anyone who can answer my question. I much appreciate all of the very thoughtful and informative posts on this site. Thanks, again. Katt
TTF14
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 14,679
- Reaction score
- 68,263
Yes, that's what it would mean. Plead guilty (or maybe no contest?) and no trial.
sheldonvan
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
Exactly. You can't plead not-guilty while also claiming that you did it because someone else paid you.
clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,890
- Reaction score
- 29,357
This case is similar to the JonBenet Ramsey case in that LE and the prosecutor's office are not on the same page. Both cases involve fairly wealthy people who have the means to hire very good defense attorneys. That can make the prosecutor's office worry more about losing.
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,249
- Reaction score
- 17,212
According to information provided to the public thus far, there is no eyewitness to the shooting and there is no physical evidence linking Rivera or Garcia to the garage crime scene.
If there was more than circumstantial evidence, I think Rivera would be working on a plea deal.
I think there is likely not enough evidence to convict Rivera or Garcia ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
If Rivera goes to trial in a month, he might opt to request a non-jury trial. He would be taking a serious ‘chance’ with a jury trial. He might prefer a verdict by a judge in a bench trial. The judge would (should) decide the case based on extensive knowledge of the law, including the lawful interpretation of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
https://floridacriminalprocedure.com/3-260-waiver-of-jury-trial/
Rule 3.260. Waiver of Jury Trial
A defendant may in writing waive a jury trial with the consent of the state.
http://www.pdmiami.com/trial_by_jury.pdf
TRIAL BY JURY: AN EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY IN THE COURTS
BENNETT H. BRUMMER, Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
Copyright 1987
Page 5 -
Jury trials were not intended to reach the same results that a non-jury trial would reach. To the contrary, the disadvantages of jury trial were accepted because of the jury's ability to disregard rules of law and reach a result that a judge could not or would not reach.
Page 6 -
The length or complexity of a case, the introduction of expert evidence, or an emotional factor which blurs the issue may present a greater problem in a jury trial than would be presented in a bench trial.
If there was more than circumstantial evidence, I think Rivera would be working on a plea deal.
I think there is likely not enough evidence to convict Rivera or Garcia ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
If Rivera goes to trial in a month, he might opt to request a non-jury trial. He would be taking a serious ‘chance’ with a jury trial. He might prefer a verdict by a judge in a bench trial. The judge would (should) decide the case based on extensive knowledge of the law, including the lawful interpretation of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
https://floridacriminalprocedure.com/3-260-waiver-of-jury-trial/
Rule 3.260. Waiver of Jury Trial
A defendant may in writing waive a jury trial with the consent of the state.
http://www.pdmiami.com/trial_by_jury.pdf
TRIAL BY JURY: AN EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY IN THE COURTS
BENNETT H. BRUMMER, Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
Copyright 1987
Page 5 -
Jury trials were not intended to reach the same results that a non-jury trial would reach. To the contrary, the disadvantages of jury trial were accepted because of the jury's ability to disregard rules of law and reach a result that a judge could not or would not reach.
Page 6 -
The length or complexity of a case, the introduction of expert evidence, or an emotional factor which blurs the issue may present a greater problem in a jury trial than would be presented in a bench trial.
Marvin Berry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 434
"...he might opt to request a non-jury trial..."
That would certainly be an interesting (and gutsy) strategy. The police officers in Baltimore that were accused of manslaughter in the death of Freddie Gray opted for a bench trial and it worked out well for them. But there are differences between the criminal procedure laws in Maryland and in Florida. In Florida, the state (i.e. the prosecutor) has to consent to a bench trial. Maryland allows waiver of a jury trial in criminal cases without the state's consent.
I'm not so certain that the prosecutor would consent to a bench trial here. But then again I've never seen a prosecutor dare the police department to arrest somebody before so anything is possible.
That would certainly be an interesting (and gutsy) strategy. The police officers in Baltimore that were accused of manslaughter in the death of Freddie Gray opted for a bench trial and it worked out well for them. But there are differences between the criminal procedure laws in Maryland and in Florida. In Florida, the state (i.e. the prosecutor) has to consent to a bench trial. Maryland allows waiver of a jury trial in criminal cases without the state's consent.
I'm not so certain that the prosecutor would consent to a bench trial here. But then again I've never seen a prosecutor dare the police department to arrest somebody before so anything is possible.
Welcome to Ws Marvin Berry, thanks for your insight into this odd and convoluted case!
Makes one wonder if only he was here, what D M himself might have thought and said about a case like this?
From a Canadian perspective, a government prosecutor would never publicly undermine an effort by law enforcement the way Meggs has, but here, evidence is not released until the trial.
I think, due to the Sunshine law and the release of so much evidence that looks very bad for the participants, there is a trial going on in the court of public opinion, but without the possibility of any defense. So on principle, I can understand where Megg's statements might come from, but they way he stated it just comes across as his own opinion, rather than educating the public about legal principles and standards of proof. And he came across as being distrustful of LE's efforts, rather than wanting to work with them to ensure justice is done.
I think, due to the Sunshine law and the release of so much evidence that looks very bad for the participants, there is a trial going on in the court of public opinion, but without the possibility of any defense. So on principle, I can understand where Megg's statements might come from, but they way he stated it just comes across as his own opinion, rather than educating the public about legal principles and standards of proof. And he came across as being distrustful of LE's efforts, rather than wanting to work with them to ensure justice is done.
Marvin Berry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 434
He would undoubtedly say something far more intelligent and insightful than I can muster.
helmut3585
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 0
The new probably cause document reveals interesting information about Wendi's possible involvement. She's contacted by Donna the morning of the murder. The call is short. Then she gets a call from Charlie. The call lasts a minute. Then Wendi receives a call from Dan, presumably telling her that he's dropped off their kids at Jewish daycare. Then Wendi calls Charlie and the call lasts 20 minutes. A 20 minute call 1 hour before the murder. My guess is Wendi may have given to Charlie info on Dan's whereabouts. She must have told him that Dan's headed to either his gym or home. My understanding is that she then headed toward a wine shop (is that correct?) to pick up a bottle of wine for a party that night?
Totally circumstantial but it looks like she may have known about what was coming down the pike. Not legally admissible in court but common sense tells you that she had an idea that "this time, it will really happen."
Totally circumstantial but it looks like she may have known about what was coming down the pike. Not legally admissible in court but common sense tells you that she had an idea that "this time, it will really happen."
Marvin Berry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 434
That's an interesting hypothesis. I wonder if a 20 minute call between Wendi and Charlie during the workday was a normal occurrence. I agree that it is just circumstantial evidence, but it would likely be admissible in court. It alone does not prove anything, but coupled with other evidence could help tip the scale.
I definitely think she knew. I also thought the 20 minute phone call with Charlie was strange. I'd be interested to see how often she spoke with him on the phone during the day. And it wasn't a bottle of wine - it was bulleit rye whiskey. Who grabs a bottle of whiskey for an evening party at NOON on the way to meet friends for lunch? And not to seem stereotypical but what woman brings a straight-up bottle of whiskey to a dinner party?
Not only that, she tried to go to Dan's house at noon only to be thwarted by what she describes as a fallen tree. Her reasoning she as in the neighborhood.....to get
a bottle of booze. But she got an eyeful as she had hoped. She knew.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
O/tish, Looking for new info. on the case, brought me to this strange, true tale.
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-...illed-her-boyfriend-by-forced-heroin-overdose
Sept 26 2016
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-...illed-her-boyfriend-by-forced-heroin-overdose
Sept 26 2016
Sorry to refer to my own post but... I am trying to track WA'S movements on the day of the murder and I get everything labeled and then routes to and from but I can't get it to show on the map so I can send it for everyone to view. (I have tried and experimented for the past 2 hours with no luck......so if I give the points, could someone track it on a map to share?
1.WA leaves her place around noon at 3303 Aqua Ridge Way
(thanks to Miss Elizabeth)
2) She was going to go past 2116 Trescott Drive (Dan's house) but couldn't get through due to police cars (per her video taped interview with TPD)
3). She then went a back way to get to ABC Liquor on Thomasville Road where she bought a bottle of Rye per her video interview with TPD.
4) Not sure if she went directly to lunch with friends but her lunch destination was at The Market Place at Timber Lake. And she was picked up there by police.
5). Just for fun, track from WA'S place to The Market Place at Timber Lake.
You will see that to take Trescott was out of the way, even to get to ABC Liquor.
You will also see that there is a much more direct route from her place to The Market Place.
Certainly there had to be other liquor stores along the way from her place to the Market Place that didn't require her to go near Dan's place so she could buy her rye.
And it's ok if no one wants to map this but her route to ABC was.......out of the way.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
In a WAy, she likely did think there was a fallen tree.
One felled not by old age, disease or weakness, but a strong healthy tree cut down in its prime, because it got in the way of the sunshine(s).
imo, speculation.
Oh man! For a minute there I thought you'd gone off your rocker! Am happy to know you haven't.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
- Status