GUILTY Fl - Dan Markel, 41, Fsu Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #5 *arrests*

[Cannonball3804]

I don't have a law degree, but my understanding from watching Law & Order is that she was free to leave at any time since she was not under arrest. Isn't Wendi an attorney?

I didn't say she was not free to leave. But she stayed until LE indicated that they were done with her for the time being. Obviously she could have left before they really wanted her to leave. If she had, would people have been more likely to consider that suspicious, or less likely?

 

[Bestbetts]

AND



We all want justice and to see movement in this long and slow moving process.


Not sure why we need to relitigate/rehash our views on KM's lawyers between each other like this. I have my views, and you have yours. I respect yours. We don't know the truth and are speculating here. That's what Webslueths is all about right?

Regarding the technicality of dates when KM's lawyers passed the bar, I was in the courtroom more than once and the lawyers appeared young to me, were corrected by the judge often in their defense and don't possess the "gray hair" aspect of a smooth, confident and experienced veteran.

Let me have my views, sheesh.

Really busy, nobody contributes more here than you do. I respect your views. Air away.

 

[MilNeumMom]

Funny given it's both short for Donna and a synonym for crime boss.

Sorry... I can't hold it in anymore... Bwahahahaha!! "The Don" !!!!!

 

[MissyS]

For every person like yourself who thinks her willingness to stay for hours is suspicious, I could find another person who, if the interview had been cut short, would think THAT was suspicious. After all, if she was innocent, why not stay as long as LE wanted her to, and have someone else pick up the kids?

So I think it's confirmation bias (respectfully). I don't know if she had anything to do with the murder - I just don't think that spending a lot or a little time in the interview room is going to tell us much.

I don't know if there is any probative value, but it would be interesting to know if WA ever went to the see DM in the hospital. DM was shot on a Friday and he died in the hospital sometime on Saturday. Did she ask to see him? Was she told that she wasn't going to be able to see him? Haven't seen any information on this small detail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whonos]

AND



We all want justice and to see movement in this long and slow moving process.


Not sure why we need to relitigate/rehash our views on KM's lawyers between each other like this. I have my views, and you have yours. I respect yours. We don't know the truth and are speculating here. That's what Webslueths is all about right?

Regarding the technicality of dates when KM's lawyers passed the bar, I was in the courtroom more than once and the lawyers appeared young to me, were corrected by the judge often in their defense and don't possess the "gray hair" aspect of a smooth, confident and experienced veteran.

Let me have my views, sheesh.

Sorry, I meant no offense.

I was actually using the American Bar Association’s determination of “young lawyer” as a gesture of deference to you and other lawyers posting here. I assumed that lawyers would have a definition similar to the ABA. I don’t know why that makes sense to me. My logic is just different I guess.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/awards_scholarships/on_the_rise.html

Eligibility (FOR THE ABA’S TOP 40 YOUNG LAWYERS)
Member of the American Bar Association
A licensed attorney in the U.S. or one of its territories
On August 30, 2017 nominee will be*36 years old or younger or admitted to practice for five years or less (born on*after August 30, 1981*OR admitted to the bar on or after August 30, 2012)

(CD AND TK are over 36 years)

<mod snip>

 

[reallybusy]

:loveyou: Thank you for all your contributions to the thread!

Sorry, I meant no offense.

I was actually using the American Bar Association&#8217;s determination of &#8220;young lawyer&#8221; as a gesture of deference to you and other lawyers posting here. I assumed that lawyers would have a definition similar to the ABA. I don&#8217;t know why that makes sense to me. My logic is just different I guess.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/awards_scholarships/on_the_rise.html

Eligibility (FOR THE ABA&#8217;S TOP 40 YOUNG LAWYERS)
Member of the American Bar Association
A licensed attorney in the U.S. or one of its territories
On August 30, 2017 nominee will be*36 years old or younger or admitted to practice for five years or less (born on*after August 30, 1981*OR admitted to the bar on or after August 30, 2012)

(CD AND TK are over 36 years)

<mod snip>

 

[dotr]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=braw...UICCgB&biw=1366&bih=659#imgrc=3soRJeHYc1BcZM:

 

[Pawns123]

Haven't seen much blogging by CA on his blog regarding dental health. He should start blogging on prison survival and the state of dental health in Florida Prisons. Heck he may be able to get a job in the prison dental clinic for $0.30 per day.

 

[86Violet]

With regard to Jennifer Mosley being added to the witness list - I don't think she is someone KM talked to in jail because according to public record she has been in Department of Corrections (transferred to prison from county jail) since 9/22/16 and KM wasn't arrested until 10/1 and wasn't transferred to Leon County Jail until a bit after that. So they wouldn't have been in LCJ at the same time unless Mosley was transferred back to LCJ for a while for some reason. Maybe she was someone who witnessed something with Rivera and Garcia when they were in Tallahassee?

 

[GordonX]

When one wealthy co-defendant pays for a lawyer to represent another co-defendant, with the intention of sacrificing that one for the benefit of himself, a serious and actual conflict arises that jeopardizes the representation.

“A serious risk of a conflict of loyalties arises when one co-defendant, who has implicated another co-defendant and who may wish to cooperate with the Government by testifying against the other co-defendant, is represented by counsel whose fees are being paid by the co-defendant against whom the first co-defendant may wish to testify. Even if the conflict is waived by all defendants upon the advice of counsel, the circumstances of the waiver may later be revisited on the theory that the waiver was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

U.S. v. Chapman, E.D. Pa. No. 99-375-2, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, *4 (Sept. 2, 1999).

Courts must be vigilant to protect against "the inherent dangers that arise when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by a third party," Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268-69, 67 L. Ed. 2d 220, 101 S. Ct. 1097(1981). One such risk is that “the lawyer will prevent his client from obtaining leniency by preventing the client from offering testimony against [the co-defendant] or from taking other actions contrary to [the co-defendant’s] interest.” Id.

“Accepting payment of clients' fees from a third party may subject an attorney to undesirable outside influence, particularly where the attorney is representing clients in criminal matters, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, and the third party is the head of a criminal enterprise of which the clients are members. In such a situation, an ethical question arises as to whether the attorney's loyalties are with the client or the payor.”

--

Every defendant in this case has the right to counsel free of conflict. The State must act now to protect this case from further tampering and criminal misconduct by a wealthy defendant trying to fix the outcome from the inside of his jail cell. The State has an ethical duty to bring that conflict to the attention of this Court and to move for disqualification if this Court finds that such a conflict exists and Defendants do not waive. The State’s interest is not merely in securing a conviction; it is doing so fairly and in a manner that protects Defendants’ rights, even from their own counsel.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2509183/drug-ring-motion.pdf

 

[reallybusy]

With regard to Jennifer Mosley being added to the witness list - I don't think she is someone KM talked to in jail because according to public record she has been in Department of Corrections (transferred to prison from county jail) since 9/22/16 and KM wasn't arrested until 10/1 and wasn't transferred to Leon County Jail until a bit after that. So they wouldn't have been in LCJ at the same time unless Mosley was transferred back to LCJ for a while for some reason. Maybe she was someone who witnessed something with Rivera and Garcia when they were in Tallahassee?

That's a really good point. If so, my guess would be someone affiliated the witness "crackhead" who sold SG and LR cocaine in Tallahassee.

Below is something I posted back in this thread. It's the same ID# and she looks much healthier than her mug shot. Not sure I am reading this correctly but this could be info that she was transferred to Leon County Jail. What do you think?

So the third? Discovery may suggest that the third is a woman and perhaps against Magbanua? I'm speculating it is, but of course can't say for sure it's the same woman, just found this through my sleuthing.

Jennifer Mosely, page 3. Booked in Leon County jail 10/27/16.
Right around the time Magbanua was arrested. Was she talking too? Hopefully, not over toilet wine.
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Booking+Report+10-28-16.pdf

 

[FigTree]

When one wealthy co-defendant pays for a lawyer to represent another co-defendant, with the intention of sacrificing that one for the benefit of himself, a serious and actual conflict arises that jeopardizes the representation.

“A serious risk of a conflict of loyalties arises when one co-defendant, who has implicated another co-defendant and who may wish to cooperate with the Government by testifying against the other co-defendant, is represented by counsel whose fees are being paid by the co-defendant against whom the first co-defendant may wish to testify. Even if the conflict is waived by all defendants upon the advice of counsel, the circumstances of the waiver may later be revisited on the theory that the waiver was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

U.S. v. Chapman, E.D. Pa. No. 99-375-2, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, *4 (Sept. 2, 1999).

Courts must be vigilant to protect against "the inherent dangers that arise when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by a third party," Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268-69, 67 L. Ed. 2d 220, 101 S. Ct. 1097(1981). One such risk is that “the lawyer will prevent his client from obtaining leniency by preventing the client from offering testimony against [the co-defendant] or from taking other actions contrary to [the co-defendant’s] interest.” Id.

“Accepting payment of clients' fees from a third party may subject an attorney to undesirable outside influence, particularly where the attorney is representing clients in criminal matters, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, and the third party is the head of a criminal enterprise of which the clients are members. In such a situation, an ethical question arises as to whether the attorney's loyalties are with the client or the payor.”

--

Every defendant in this case has the right to counsel free of conflict. The State must act now to protect this case from further tampering and criminal misconduct by a wealthy defendant trying to fix the outcome from the inside of his jail cell. The State has an ethical duty to bring that conflict to the attention of this Court and to move for disqualification if this Court finds that such a conflict exists and Defendants do not waive. The State’s interest is not merely in securing a conviction; it is doing so fairly and in a manner that protects Defendants’ rights, even from their own counsel.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2509183/drug-ring-motion.pdf

38 pages of

from the document -

Attorney-client privilege “does not protect the identity of a ‘benefactor’ so far as legal fees
are concerned.” In re Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 64 (2d Cir.1984). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena,
204 F.3d 516, 520 (4th Cir.2000) (“The identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the
identification of payment by case file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are
usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege”).

 

[86Violet]

Good catch, reallybusy. So it looks like she came back to LCJ from prison for whatever reason on 10/27, and they were in LCJ at the same time. Wish the letter they refer to in discovery was public record!

 

[reallybusy]

Good catch, reallybusy. So it looks like she came back to LCJ from prison for whatever reason on 10/27, and they were in LCJ at the same time. Wish the letter they refer to in discovery was public record!

Yes, re the letter. I hope this woman's testimony has legs. Like someone noted here before, if it were just one prisoner coming forward, but three and both for SG and KM? As you said too, it's baffling that these confessions happen in prison between inmates, but also I can't imagine how heavy the weight on people who are incarcerated must be and the need to vent must be incredible.

I also wonder what the process on the inside is when a prisoner comes forward. Do they alert a guard and then get pulled secretly into a room at the prison? Can't remember seeing this portrayed on TV or movies specifically and the details surrounding such a process.

 

[reallybusy]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-reg-fsu-slain-professor-confession-20170214-story.html

A play from Kellyanne Conway's playbook. LOL.
"David Oscar Markus, Charlie Adelson&#8217;s attorney, said Friday: &#8220;Even though Charlie wasn't involved, the prosecution has run a smear campaign against him and his family by using alternative facts created by people with quite a bit of time on their hands.&#8221;

Attacks on the SA. Dang.
&#8220;Her circular reasoning is offensive, especially for a governmental agency that must be objective,&#8221; DeCoste said. &#8220;Prosecutions like this are the root cause of the cases we see overturned years later."

From the jail confession of SG:
&#8220;He said, &#8216;I&#8217;m not going to let my old lady take the blame for something that I did,&#8217;&#8221; Jason McNair told the lead investigator in the case during an interview recorded Dec. 20. &#8220;He went on talking about it and explained what happened and it went from there.&#8221;

OMG! From SG's jailmate. DA tried before SG and LR!?!?
"Garcia said the same woman had paid $50,000 to two other people, but they took the money and never followed through with the killing, McNair said."

 

[GordonX]

"David Oscar Markus, Charlie Adelson&#8217;s attorney, said Friday: &#8220;Even though Charlie wasn't involved, the prosecution has run a smear campaign against him and his family by using alternative facts created by people with quite a bit of time on their hands.&#8221;

is Little Oscar referring to us?:laughing:

 

[GordonX]

OMG! From SG's jailmate. DA tried before SG and LR!?!?
"Garcia said the same woman had paid $50,000 to two other people, but they took the money and never followed through with the killing, McNair said."

interesting if true. it could explain why the alleged mastermind(s) took such a huge dumb risk in hiring a hitman within 1-2 degrees of separation of them. if they got burned twice and lost $100K, maybe they wanted to make sure they were not burned a third time by arranging the hit through someone they were "close" to. maybe frustration and impatience to get the job done (after two failed attempts and a lot of money lost) led to this one of many fatal mistakes.

 

[BSBC]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-reg-fsu-slain-professor-confession-20170214-story.html

A play from Kellyanne Conway's playbook. LOL.
"David Oscar Markus, Charlie Adelson’s attorney, said Friday: “Even though Charlie wasn't involved, the prosecution has run a smear campaign against him and his family by using alternative facts created by people with quite a bit of time on their hands.”

Attacks on the SA. Dang.
“Her circular reasoning is offensive, especially for a governmental agency that must be objective,” DeCoste said. “Prosecutions like this are the root cause of the cases we see overturned years later."

From the jail confession of SG:
“He said, ‘I’m not going to let my old lady take the blame for something that I did,’” Jason McNair told the lead investigator in the case during an interview recorded Dec. 20. “He went on talking about it and explained what happened and it went from there.”

OMG! From SG's jailmate. DA tried before SG and LR!?!?
"Garcia said the same woman had paid $50,000 to two other people, but they took the money and never followed through with the killing, McNair said."

The statements by the attorneys for the As and KM do absolutely nothing to convince me of their innocence. They seem to be highly skilled defense attorneys, and are doing everything they can for their clients -- as they should. But their statements to the Sun-Sentinel just emphasize that they are thinking solely like defense attorneys preparing for an argument before a jury, with a single goal: creating reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. All they have to do in that context is poke holes in the state's case. The burden of proof always remains on the state, and the defense is under no obligation to tell a convincing story (or, actually, to say anything at all).

But the public reading these articles (and this message board) are not jurors. We're entitled to think like normal human beings who simply want to know: What happened? What's the truth here? The evidence seems indisputable that SG and LR drove from Miami to Tallahassee and murdered DM. Given that truth, why? There was no robbery. SG and LR had no direct relationship with DM. They were not doing a drug deal with him. They had no reason to be angry with him. The pair's only connection with DM was that SG's ex was romantically involved with CA, whose sister used to be married to DM, and whose family had a motive to get DM out of the picture so that WA would be free to move to Miami with her kids.

I'd love for these reporters to ask the attorneys for the As and KM: What is your theory for why SG and LR killed DM? Why did they do it if not for the benefit of the As? There's been some speculation that they will argue that it was some sort of plot to extort the As. But how would that work? SG and KM plot to kill DM without the As' involvement, and then, once it's done, go to the As and demand payment in return for their silence? But that's absurd. For the extortion threat to be real, there would need to be a credible threat that the plotters would turn in the As to LE if they didn't pay. But the problem with that theory is that it would require the plotters to implicate themselves, thus subjecting themselves to lengthy prison sentences or even the death penalty. That's ridiculous. Again, the only remotely plausible theory for DM's murder that's been floated is that it was done for the benefit of the As. (I should say that, while I think it's possible that WA was involved in, or had foreknowledge of, the plot, the publicly-released evidence of such is extremely thin at this point, and certainly not enough for the state to obtain a conviction.)

Again, the attorneys for the As and KM have no obligation to tell a coherent story of DM's murder. But their utter failure to do so is telling, and, as people looking at this situation as human beings rather than jurors, we are perfectly free, based on their failure, as well as the extensive evidence that's been released to date, to draw conclusions of guilt.

 

[Gaius]

The State of Florida has a long and difficult fight because these "innocent until proven guilty Adelson's" are wealthy, sophisticated, and experienced persons: (1) Dr. Charles J. Adelson has experience with the court of law in other jurisdiction; (2) on 2/17/2017, the lawyer of GARCIA, SIGFREDO filed a motion "DEFENDANTS MOTION TO APPOINT AN ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE EXPERT" because they fight the TPD and FBI electronic evidences; and (3) today a motion "2/20/2017 MOTION FOR: MOTION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY" is filed in the case of Magbanua, Katherine.
I believe some persons in this forum would be happy to know that "2/20/2017 MOTION FOR: MOTION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY" may result in change of lawyers.

 

[whonos]

The statements by the attorneys for the As and KM do absolutely nothing to convince me of their innocence. They seem to be highly skilled defense attorneys, and are doing everything they can for their clients -- as they should. But their statements to the Sun-Sentinel just emphasize that they are thinking solely like defense attorneys preparing for an argument before a jury, with a single goal: creating reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. All they have to do in that context is poke holes in the state's case. The burden of proof always remains on the state, and the defense is under no obligation to tell a convincing story (or, actually, to say anything at all).

But the public reading these articles (and this message board) are not jurors. We're entitled to think like normal human beings who simply want to know: What happened? What's the truth here? The evidence seems indisputable that SG and LR drove from Miami to Tallahassee and murdered DM. Given that truth, why? There was no robbery. SG and LR had no direct relationship with DM. They were not doing a drug deal with him. They had no reason to be angry with him. The pair's only connection with DM was that SG's ex was romantically involved with CA, whose sister used to be married to DM, and whose family had a motive to get DM out of the picture so that WA would be free to move to Miami with her kids.

I'd love for these reporters to ask the attorneys for the As and KM: What is your theory for why SG and LR killed DM? Why did they do it if not for the benefit of the As? There's been some speculation that they will argue that it was some sort of plot to extort the As. But how would that work? SG and KM plot to kill DM without the As' involvement, and then, once it's done, go to the As and demand payment in return for their silence? But that's absurd. For the extortion threat to be real, there would need to be a credible threat that the plotters would turn in the As to LE if they didn't pay. But the problem with that theory is that it would require the plotters to implicate themselves, thus subjecting themselves to lengthy prison sentences or even the death penalty. That's ridiculous. Again, the only remotely plausible theory for DM's murder that's been floated is that it was done for the benefit of the As. (I should say that, while I think it's possible that WA was involved in, or had foreknowledge of, the plot, the publicly-released evidence of such is extremely thin at this point, and certainly not enough for the state to obtain a conviction.)

Again, the attorneys for the As and KM have no obligation to tell a coherent story of DM's murder. But their utter failure to do so is telling, and, as people looking at this situation as human beings rather than jurors, we are perfectly free, based on their failure, as well as the extensive evidence that's been released to date, to draw conclusions of guilt.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif
:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/im...websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif

This is supposed to be the emoji "clapping"