GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #11

[Mariposa]

I'm following this trial closely & also watched the first one, also read this entire thread.

I'm really struck by how everyone found Jeffrey Lacasse to be a good witness. I thought he was melodramatic and being a star witness at the center of now two trials and surely upcoming Charlie's has gone to his head. The difference between his demeanor and testimony at Magbanua's first trial and this one is amazing. Two years ago he was calm, restrained and believable. Now he's hyperbolic, self-pitying, going on and on about how Wendi is manipulative. deceptive, pathological, using the kids to jerk him around etc etc.

I do not believe he was set up to be a suspect by Wendi. I think, in many police interviews where he was getting attention & being pumped for more details, they co-created that narrative. Like the "owl necklace" and Bulleit bourbon (it sounds like bullet!!!) details, it smacks of overreach and conspiracy theory.

I watched Wendi's entire 5-hour police interview this weekend. She did not put Jeff forward as a suspect; her friend did. She had a friend come in for support & that friend, while they were brainstorming who would do this, mentioned Jeff. This friend knew him and also had been the one to suggest the week of no-contact after Wendi confided in her about their fight. The friend had been concerned about his jealousy and thought he was controlling in that he had gone through Wendi's datebook and phone. Wendi's response to her friend's suggestion is tepid, but then she castigates herself for not even thinking of it. The friend then leaves, but outside the room, puts Jeff forward as a suspect to the detective, who is in the hallway. We know this because the detective later references "what your friend said." When the detective comes back in he questions Wendi about Jeff & their relationship. At no time does she mention what car he drives or what time he was leaving on his trip. It's all about relationship dynamics and whether he might own a gun. I write this in such detail because if you only listened to Jeff's testimony it sounds like Wendi enthusiastically put him forward as a suspect and emphasized the time he was meant to be leaving town.

One more thing: Wendi wearing the exact same outfit. It was very smart. First, it makes her testimony visually indistinguishable on youtube, so fewer novelty views. It also psychologically designates almost a uniform, something separte from her life or real clothes, kind of like a dress you'd worn to a funeral and could never wear again. It also creates a continuity of circumstances. The subtext about her family is they are rich, they are materialistic. Some questions are about whether she benefited financially. A new outfit might play into that, and also in and of itself, given the interest in this case, might even fuel blogposts or youtube "reactions." She gave them nothing to talk about. Finally, subconsciously, she needs to be completely consistent with her previous testimony. The dress reinforces this sense that things are the same.

I’m a certified Lacasse fan but appreciate your points. In the interview video it is her friend (who says she introduced them) who is pushing him as someone the cops need to check out. WA raised the subject of CA and his hitman TV jokes and how her family didn’t like DM way before that.

Also the idea suggested that the hitman Prius was maybe selected due to somewhat resembling Lacasse’s Nissan (in color or shape of car body) seems far fetched. I don’t recall any testimony from Rivera that he was told to rent a certain type of car?

 

[MTW2011]

I can’t wait to catch up later on this after my workday ends. I’m very interested - even moreso from reading comments here - in hearing KM’s attorneys argue about the jail phone calls btwn Kawass and Garcia.

 

[friendlyobserver]

I'm following this trial closely & also watched the first one, also read this entire thread.

I'm really struck by how everyone found Jeffrey Lacasse to be a good witness. I thought he was melodramatic and being a star witness at the center of now two trials and surely upcoming Charlie's has gone to his head. The difference between his demeanor and testimony at Magbanua's first trial and this one is amazing. Two years ago he was calm, restrained and believable. Now he's hyperbolic, self-pitying, going on and on about how Wendi is manipulative. deceptive, pathological, using the kids to jerk him around etc etc.

I do not believe he was set up to be a suspect by Wendi. I think, in many police interviews where he was getting attention & being pumped for more details, they co-created that narrative. Like the "owl necklace" and Bulleit bourbon (it sounds like bullet!!!) details, it smacks of overreach and conspiracy theory.

I watched Wendi's entire 5-hour police interview this weekend. She did not put Jeff forward as a suspect; her friend did. She had a friend come in for support & that friend, while they were brainstorming who would do this, mentioned Jeff. This friend knew him and also had been the one to suggest the week of no-contact after Wendi confided in her about their fight. The friend had been concerned about his jealousy and thought he was controlling in that he had gone through Wendi's datebook and phone. Wendi's response to her friend's suggestion is tepid, but then she castigates herself for not even thinking of it. The friend then leaves, but outside the room, puts Jeff forward as a suspect to the detective, who is in the hallway. We know this because the detective later references "what your friend said." When the detective comes back in he questions Wendi about Jeff & their relationship. At no time does she mention what car he drives or what time he was leaving on his trip. It's all about relationship dynamics and whether he might own a gun. I write this in such detail because if you only listened to Jeff's testimony it sounds like Wendi enthusiastically put him forward as a suspect and emphasized the time he was meant to be leaving town.

One more thing: Wendi wearing the exact same outfit. It was very smart. First, it makes her testimony visually indistinguishable on youtube, so fewer novelty views. It also psychologically designates almost a uniform, something separte from her life or real clothes, kind of like a dress you'd worn to a funeral and could never wear again. It also creates a continuity of circumstances. The subtext about her family is they are rich, they are materialistic. Some questions are about whether she benefited financially. A new outfit might play into that, and also in and of itself, given the interest in this case, might even fuel blogposts or youtube "reactions." She gave them nothing to talk about. Finally, subconsciously, she needs to be completely consistent with her previous testimony. The dress reinforces this sense that things are the same.

Lacasse went through some good therapy, i am happy for him that he managed to come out of that terrible relationship with the murderous Wendi and be himself on the other side - i caught the attorney saying - at the time you didnt have kids, so it sounds like he is now married with kids? I think he is an excellent witness who also happens to be a social work professor so he is in fact an expert on personality and family disfunctions and he did a great job identifying all those with WA and her family and how she used the kids. She did nothing but harm the kids starting with the crazy way she separated, divorced, fought, didn't let Dan see the kids as much as he wanted (he was an amazing father), and then of course, helped in murdering him, and subsequently wrote about charlie "best uncle in the world" - effectively making him the father figure, and donna - and severing ties with Dan's family (and never allowing the kids, well before what she describes as a letter asking to take away her kids to foster care, which is clearly a misrepresentation of the facts -- the letter said in case she is arrested here's the arrangement until we, grandparents, can come down from canada to get them) -- but well before that, she never allowed her kids to be at any memorial service for Dan, where so many amazing people, colegues, friends, mentors, mentees spoke about the love Dan had for these two poor boys.

 

[Dorothy Jane]

I have watched the trial up to this point. I personally think the strongest evidence is the cell phone data between KM and SG and then the flurry of calls and texts etc . Sgt Corbitt was, I think, really amazing. His testimony wasn't boring and it was easily understandable and he was VERY careful to state exactly what it was and what it wasn't. He did this over and over, saying he was only tracing the cell towers and their most probable relation to the handsets of the phones of the various players.

When the defense atty CD did his cross, it became very hard to follow and the clear, concise explanation provided by Sgt Corbett was contrasted by the convoluted explaining of the "non cell phone data expert" atty. I really have to say, the bottom line is that the common sense explanation for all of it is the Sgt Corbitt version. No matter what else they introduce, the cell phone data reinforces the testimony of Rivera. Period. I don't care if Rivera is a criminal. His testimony is basically, "Katie made us do it and we did."

I felt the same about the bottle girl stuff. It is plain, from the testimony of KM's BEST friend, that making more than $200 per night on a "normal" night with a big haul of $500 every now and then was the rule at the Hollywood club. And the owner of the other club made it clear his club was pretty much a flop from the start, so making $1000 PER NIGHT, much less per week, was an obvious stretch.

The last jury in the previous trial voted 10-2 to convict her. The two jurors who couldn't decide were swayed by her personally, felt sorry for her, I think. The juror who was interviewed pretty much declared the cell phone data did it for them. The unfortunate part is the fact that all that data, those charts and whatnot, will not follow the jury into the deliberations. So, hopefully, someone on that jury is taking good notes.

I am someone who faithfully read Dan Markel's blog way back when. I remember I learned of his murder from Glenn Reynold's blog, Instapundit, and I remember the sadness and shock of learning he had been MURDERED. So, I have virtually followed this from the Monday after his death. I hope there will be justice - good, hard, RETRIBUTIVE justice for Dan. They all need to go down and I think Wendi as well. I used to think they did not tell her, but this trial has convinced me otherwise.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I think the cell phone evidence s strong. Also, I believe, if I’m not mistaken that Katherine testified in the first trial that she didn’t know Markel had been killed until SG was arrested. I think that the The Dolce video disputes her testimony and I hope jurors pick up on that.

 

[Twister2]

I am in the camp that believes that Donna and Wendi will eventually be arrested and tried for Dan's murder. There is more than enough evidence, IMO, to arrest them, try them, and from what I have seen in the first trial and now this one, I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt they could be convicted by a jury. I have no doubt all three Adelsons knew about Dan's murder before it happened and were the reason it happened.

I feel so sad for everyone else, especially the children. No doubt they love their mom, uncle, and grandmother, so if/when they eventually learn of everything that happened, their grief and pain and loss will surely be immense. They already lost their father, lost contact with their father's family, and they could possibly lose their uncle, grandmother, and mother to a lifetime in prison in the future.

 

[clearskies1]

I think the enhanced Dolce Vita audio -- with Charlie apparently saying to KM "if they had any evidence we would have already gone to the airport" -- will be key. The fact that there is currently no evidence of direct communication between CA and SG about the murder is also really significant. In that respect, Valazquez-Moscara's testimony today that the July 1 voice mail from SG to HA was about SG's jealousy and not about Markel was huge. We'll see what SG has to say about it all, but there is just a lot of evidence that the defense needs to explain away. JMO.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Markel Trial Day 6: Data expert, friend, employer, employees, and ex-girlfriend all spill T

Things the jury won’t hear, but matter.

floridapolitics.com

 

[Mariposa]

When KM’s friend testified today that KM told her that SG left a nasty voicemail for HA, getting the number out of KMs phone but thinking that he was leaving the voicemail for CA, is that new this trial? I don’t recall that info from the last trial and the “SG calling HA” thing always seemed so mysterious.

(Also why would KM have HA’s cell phone programmed in her phone? The friend testified that to her knowledge HA did dental work for KM but that’s all. Seems weird his personal cell would be in her contacts? I guess another innocent non- plot explanation could bethat she called him or got called by him incidentally while dating CA? Can’t remember if KM was asked about when she testified in her first trial)

ETA:
“She also provided an explanation for a phone call between Garcia and Harvey Adelson weeks before Markel was killed.

Garcia had recently confronted Magbanua and Adelson by parking in front of a car they were in and screaming at them. Garcia retrieved what he thought was the dentist's phone number from Magbanua’s phone but was instead Harvey Adelson’s.
“It wasn’t Charlie’s number,” Valazquez-Mascaro said. “It was actually his father and he leaves a voicemail. He thought it was Charlie he was calling, but it ended up being Harvey. She (Magbanua) was really embarrassed.”

From Dan Markel murder: Cell phone, money trail in Magbanua retrial spotlight on Day 4 | recap

 

[Marysmith]

When KM’s friend testified today that KM told her that SG left a nasty voicemail for HA, getting the number out of KMs phone but thinking that he was leaving the voicemail for CA, is that new this trial? I don’t recall that info from the last trial and the “SG calling HA” thing always seemed so mysterious.

(Also why would KM have HA’s cell phone programmed in her phone? The friend testified that to her knowledge HA did dental work for KM but that’s all. Seems weird his personal cell would be in her contacts? I guess another innocent non- plot explanation could bethat she called him or got called by him incidentally while dating CA? Can’t remember if KM was asked about when she testified in her first trial)

This is the first time I’ve heard this. And yes it seems odd that she would have his number…

 

[friendlyobserver]

can anyone post the link to the video of the trial from today

 

[Marysmith]

can anyone post the link to the video of the trial from today

 

[Mariposa]

can anyone post the link to the video of the trial from today

 

[clearskies1]

When KM’s friend testified today that KM told her that SG left a nasty voicemail for HA, getting the number out of KMs phone but thinking that he was leaving the voicemail for CA, is that new this trial? I don’t recall that info from the last trial and the “SG calling HA” thing always seemed so mysterious.

I watched her friend's (Yindra Mascaro's) testimony from the first trial and she was not asked it about then. But it is in LE's notes (on p. 2) of their August 2016 interview of Mascaro. https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Statement-of-Yindra-Mascaro.pdf

 

[Blue Shakehead]

I’m a certified Lacasse fan but appreciate your points. In the interview video it is her friend (who says she introduced them) who is pushing him as someone the cops need to check out. WA raised the subject of CA and his hitman TV jokes and how her family didn’t like DM way before that.

Also the idea suggested that the hitman Prius was maybe selected due to somewhat resembling Lacasse’s Nissan (in color or shape of car body) seems far fetched. I don’t recall any testimony from Rivera that he was told to rent a certain type of car?

I am a big Lacasse fan as well. Just looking at his testimony in a vacuum, he probably didn't score a lot of direct points against Magbanua. In the last trial, his testimony likely held more weight because the Defense did not agree to basic the facts of the case and so his timeline evidence around both trips to Tallahassee and how Wendi was acting was probably more important.

In the re-trial, the timing of his testimony, which was literally a minute or two after Wendi Adelson, laid waste to literally every nonsensical thing (e.g. relocation wasnt important) she tried to peddle to the court. And thats very important for the jury to make sense of the players and what they are capable of. This is a puzzle and they need to be able to put the pieces together. So Lacasse was a good witness on motive and basically as a negative character witness against both Charlie and Wendi. His direct testimony on how Wendi told him in confidence that her brother tried to hire hitmen to kill Dan Markel for instance - and that it made his stomach flip - was very important.

Surprisingly, his timeline testimony may in fact be even more important this time. The Defense has curiously chosen the day Lacasse met Charlie Adelson and Magbanua for dinner as the same day that Garcia confronted Charlie Adelson and it was at this critical date that the murder for hire plan was hatched between Garcia and Charlie (unbeknownst to Katie obviously). So Lacasse was able to testify that Charlie did not mention any physical altercation or event that happened when they met back up at Charlie's house. Rivera was also with Garcia at that same night and testified that this magical made up confrontation never happened. Its a bizarre defense...

 

[Blue Shakehead]

As to the question what kind of family does this, I am reminded of the Over My Dead Body podcast which interviewed the “other brother”, RA. It seemed loud and clear from him that there is a big character problem in the family and that is why RA is estranged from the others. He told an anecdote from a tennis tournament in his youth where he somehow accidentally got money back he shouldn’t and his family encouraged him to keep it when he wanted to be honest and return it — and they mocked him over wanting to be honest. He said when he heard about the DM murder he instantly felt like he knew what had happened.

That podcast and particularly the bits of Robert Adelson and his wife offered a very unique glimpse into the Adelson family dynamics and particularly just how far Donna will go to control and interfere with her adult children's lives, including Robert's. I believe he finally became estranged from the family after the murder and he was wanting to talk about who could have done it and none of the other Adelsons wanted to discuss it. They all thought he was strange for bringing it up and he thought THEY were strange (i.e., likely involved) for NOT wanting to discuss the case or who could have done it.

The 'Honest Abe' bit was just a small thing but its rather telling. It wasn't just Charlie that thought it was strange that he would return money to a cashier when he was undercharged - it was everyone. For normal people this is not an ethical dilemma at all - you give the money back. But the more we learn about the Adelsons and how they tried to deal in as much cash as possible (including Harvey), going so far as to offer discounts for cash payments on dental services - likely to defraud the government on taxes.

And so with a family like this....capable of murdering the father of those kids, one of the nightmare scenarios I think about is - if they are capable of that, what makes anyone think they aren't capable of bribing a juror? Something tells me they aren't at all bothered by the sanctity of justice. There is no ethical dilemma here or anywhere in life. They just want to win and they will do whatever it takes, whatever the cost.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Some final notes about today..

1. The revelation that the jailhouse phone calls were between Garcia and Magbanua as well as Garcia/ Magbanua/KAWASS is not getting enough headlines. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but these could be devastating to the Defense. So much so that Magbanua could have a legitimate claim for ineffective counsel. Cappleman signaled that she stopped listening once she knew that Kawass was a party to the calls as she wanted to wait for the Judge to give directions on how to handle it given that there could be privilege issues. However, she said if they are admissible, she would use it to impeach Garcia. She also came armed with case law arguing that these communications are not attorney-client privileged (because Garcia, a third party was on them) and and that even if the Defense argues that the calls should be protected by work-product privilege (i.e., basically statements made to defense by a witness) they are not privileged because they were warned that the calls were being recorded in advance, by the State, and as such there is no expectation of privacy. The Judge seemed to be leaning heavily towards the State's argument here too...and Kawass, who is usually the one armed with case law, had virtually nothing to say in response.

The only way this comes out good for Kawass is if she is doing some jedi-mind trick here and baiting the government to introduce them as evidence because they are helpful to the Defense. I very much doubt this. These calls are being translated now as we speak.

UPDATE/EDIT: I am now seeing from Florida Politics article that the judge ruled that some of the calls would be too prejudicial and that translation will take too long so only the english calls without Kawass on them will be allowed in. I would love to see a time stamp when this ruling was made as it makes very little sense, particularly about not wanting to get spanish calls translated. Crazy. What in the world is going on here?


2. Decoste, who I really thought was effective in the first trial, has been throwing tantrums this trial and lost on one of his sacred cows - which was on subscriber information for another phone owned by Rivera. Without this subscriber information, the State might not have been able to definitively say that one of the numbers in the case was attached to Rivera. Decoste argued the Defense was never given that information in discovery and asked for a Richardson hearing. The prosecution certified they had sent it to the Defense in November 2016. The Judge ruled in the State's favor here and went even further to say that if its found on appeal that he is wrong, he still would let it in because the Defense has known about the call and the prosecutions theory since the start.

Not a great day for the Miami dream team.

 

[Niner]

for Monday, May 23rd - Day 4:



Jada E. Williams
@JadaEWilliams
·
12h
Replying to
@JadaEWilliams
She says detectives got her words wrong. The document said she told them Charlie paid for the breast augmentation. She said she told them she didn't know who paid. The defense is trying to show flaws in how law enforcement handled the case.

#KatherineMagbanua's attorney also asks about what KM did when she found out Luis Rivera was cooperating, noting she never fled or started acting differently. Her friend says she never once mentioned the murder

Moving into redirect now.

Velazquez Mascaro is released but subject to recall.

link: https://twitter.com/JadaEWilliams

 

[Niner]

for Monday, May 23rd - Day 4

Jada E. Williams
@JadaEWilliams
·
12h
The state is recalling Yindra Mescaro. This is specifically to ask her about the exact night she watched #KatherineMagbanua's children. She says she posted a picture on Instagram. That date on the picture if July 18, 2014.

The next witness is Ramzi Naber. He's a South Florida restaurant owner.

Naber used to own Club Fate. #KatherineMagbanua briefly worked at Club Fate.

Naber says they didn't have a lot of high end customers Bottle service was about $100-$200/ bottle.

Naber says the employees averaged about a $1,000.


Umchinda says she aware of KM and CA's relationship only because of the relationship but he never told her about Katherine. She says she saw a text message with them talking about a car but that's the only interaction she knows of between the two while they were together.

She says Charlie kept large amounts of cash on him in his wallet and a safe in his room. She says the thousands she saw were hundred dollar bills. "I saw a staple but it's been so long ago. I never saw the money in the safe so I don't know."

"Did he give you a car after you broke up? Did he put you on the payroll after you broke up?" Umchinda answers no to both questions. She says he told her the family wanted to help Magbanua out so they gave her a car they no longer needed. The state is done with questioning.

Umchinda says in a conversation with Donna Adelson (the mother) she was upset about the case and her family being implicated.
Cappleman: "Did she say it feels like Dan's back from the grave haunting her?"
Umchinda: "I don't know if it was those words but something like that."

Charlie got Wendi's boyfriends nanny pregnant in 2018. Umchinda says that plus the ongoing trial was too much baggage for her to continue. She also found out he was cheating with another girl in the Philippines, but he hasn't admitted it "to this day".

"People mistake me for her sometimes." when talking about the resemblance between Umchinda and Magbanua. Says Adelson has a preference for Asian women.

“The night he met with Katherine, he lied to me about where he was that night.” “I put two and two together that he was acting suspicious.”

Wendi's ex-bf is Dave Aitel, who kept close company with Wendi/Charlie WELL AFTER the ALL INFO was released. On FBI wiretaps, Donna/Charlie discuss his ex-wife, Wendi isn't into him BUT should be bc of his $$. Shame #DaveAitel subjecting your domestic employee to Charlie Adelson.

Now we’re hearing from Erica Johnson. She worked front desk at the Adelson Institute. She handled the payroll.

Johnson says she knows of Magbanua as Charlie’s girlfriend and a patient and NOT an employee. She said she was hourly and paid biweekly. And only paid in advance is the family was going on vacation.

link: https://twitter.com/JadaEWilliams


She seemed to have skipped over Clariza Lebredo - as I don't see any tweets for this witness per the article posted above.

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, May 24th:
*Trial continues (Day 5) (@ 8:30am ET) - FL – Daniel Eric Markel (41) (shot to death July 18, 2014, Tallahassee) - *Katherine Magbanua (32/now 37) (Garcia's wife) arrested (Oct. 2016) & charged with 1st degree murder & 1 count conspiracy & 1 count solicitation of murder were brought together into one case on Tuesday (3/20/18). Plead not guilty. Held without bond.
Murder for Hire hit man. They split a $100K payoff for murder. KM has rejected several offers of immunity for her testimony.
First trial started on 9/23/19 & the jury started deliberations on 10/10-10/11/19 with a total of 11 hours of deliberations. They found Garcia guilty. A mistrial declared for Magbanua. (10-2 for guilty). Will remain in jail as a charged co-conspirator & the State will try her case again.
Re-Trial began on 5/16/22 with jury selection. 12 jurors & 2 alternates (7 women & 7 men). Trial began on 5/18/22. (should last 2-3 weeks).
Court info & trial from 9/23/19 thru 5/13/22 & Jury Selection Days 1-2 (5/16-5/17/22) & Trial Day 1-3 (5/18-5/20/22) reference post #483 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...hassee-18-july-2014-arrests-11.620240/page-25
5/23/22 Monday, Trial Day 4: State witness: TPD Sgt. Chris Corbett, cell phone data analyst on cross-exam.
for more info see post #489 & 491 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...hassee-18-july-2014-arrests-11.620240/page-25
State played a statement made by Magbanua back in October 2019.
for more info see post #494 & 511 (page 26) here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...hassee-18-july-2014-arrests-11.620240/page-25
State witness: Yindra Velazquez-Mascaro, a childhood friend of Magbanua.
for more info see post #503 & 511 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...hassee-18-july-2014-arrests-11.620240/page-26
State witness: Yindra Velazquez-Mascaro, a childhood friend of Magbanua continued.
for more info see post #521 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...hassee-18-july-2014-arrests-11.620240/page-27
State witnesses: The state is recalling Yindra Mescaro. Ramzi Naber, was the prior owner of Club Fate, where Magbanua briefly worked in Hallandale Beach inside the Gulfstream Casino plaza. June Umchinda was dating Charlie Adelson in 2016 at the time the FBI bump rattled his family & led to multiple arrests. Clariza Lebredo, former employee of the Adelson Institute. Erika Johnson, former employee of the Adelson Institute.
for more info see post #511 (Page 26) & 522 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...hassee-18-july-2014-arrests-11.620240/page-27
Trial continues on 5/24/22. Tuesday is expected to include forensic financial records, audio & video of the FBI bump & more & testimony from Rivera’s wife.
Accomplices:
*Charles Jay Adelson (45) – First appearance & bond hearing on 4/26/22. 4/26/22: Bond denied. Defense attorney asks for an Arthur hearing. No further info or dates yet as 5/15/22.
*Sigfredo Garcia (34) – 10/10/19: found guilty of 1st degree murder. Guilty of conspiracy. Not guilty of solicitation. Sentenced to LWOP for murder plus 30 years for conspiracy charge. 11/4/19: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel: Mauricio Padilla; Motion to Withdraw as Counsel: Saam Zangeneh.
*Luis Rivera (33) charged with 1st degree murder. Took a plea deal (Oct. 2016) & plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. Will testify against Garcia & Magbanua. Will receive 19-year sentence to run concurrently with his 12 year Federal time, which he is already serving.
POIs: Wendi Adelson (ex-wife of Markel), her mom Donna Sue Adelson (68) & father Harvey Adelson. Investigators have not charged any of these people in the Adelson family in connection with Markel’s death, except Charlie; but say Adelson’s mother & brother – Donna & Charlie Adelson – paid $100K to have Markel killed following the couple’s contentious divorce so their two young sons could move to South Florida.