I am new to Websleuths. I got interested in this case and landed here after listening to the Over My Dead Body podcast. I have been amazed at the insights and links to documents and other materials that members have posted here.
I recently finished watching the videos of the Garcia/Magbanua trial. I purposely did not read the probable cause documents or review other evidence before watching the trial because I wanted to come to an opinion of guilty/not guilty based on the same evidence presented to jurors. Here are my thoughts. Please keep in mind this is based on my recollection of the trial evidence without fact checking what was said or reviewing evidence.
I found Rivera's testimony to be credible. The defense kept trying to point out inconsistencies in his statements. However, I felt like the inconsistencies were petty and not substantial to the case. I felt like the other evidence presented corroborated his story and weighed way more in my mind than his testimony alone.
I did not find Katherine Magbanua's testimony to be credible. Based on her demeanor alone, I thought she did a good job in her own defense as she didn't seem nervous or flustered to me. However, her words I didn't find credible. Her own attorney's questions seem to be leading to me. There seemed to be a lot of confusion or not remembering. I kept thinking to myself how can she not remember since she has been sitting here listening to all the testimony. If I was on trial for my life after being in jail for two years, you can be sure I would be going through all the information in detail to try to help myself especially if I was innocent. She admitted that she didn't work for the Adelson Institute. Honestly, that really turned me off from her lawyer's arguments. I felt like they kept hammering three points: 1. Why are the Adelsons not on trial? Yes, they should be held accountable, but the jury was there to decide on Garcia/Magbanua so to me this was a nonissue in coming to a verdict. 2. The government didn't properly investigate. I thought Detective Isom and Agent Sanborn did a good job explaining how their investigation led them to the evidence and defendants to refute this point. 3. Her money came from legitimate work for the Adelson Institute and working for clubs. After hammering the other witnesses that she could have worked remotely and was doing customer care, I thought this was a blow to her credibility to say she was Charlie's personal assistant. Why wouldn't you tell your own lawyers that if it was true rather than have them hammer this story that you contradicted on the stand. Also, none of the testimony supported making that much doing bottle service. Again, why would you not have any evidence or witnesses if this is your main argument for your cash deposits.
As one of the other posters commented, I was surprised by the ages of the jury members. I have a 20 year old who has almost no life experience, and I'm not sure he would be able to test the veracity of the witness statements. Among other things, he has never filed a tax return or had to get health insurance so he would not have picked up on any discrepancies with this testimony. I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) by profession so I deal with banking information, tax documents and employment files routinely as part of my job. As such, I thought the state did a good job presenting that evidence.
I thought GC did a good job, and I would have voted guilty for Magbanua with the evidence presented. I am wondering if a new trial will be even more difficult since she will again have to present evidence related to all the other players to establish the conspiracy and Ms. Magbanua's involvement. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?