GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #12

[vislaw]

100% agreed. If Charlie Adelson was tried using the same evidence used vs. Magbanua (including her cell phone call logs to the killers and location data), Magbanua's financial records and her no-show job, Jessica Rodriquez testimony and Yindra Velazquez-Mascaro's testimony -- the prosecution's case against Charlie Adelson might actually be stronger than it was against Magbanua. So thats why the defense will be trying to exclude a lot of the "Magbanua" evidence. And also why this evidence is so important against Charlie (and why Magbanua's defense, who had been delaying Katie's case for years also finally agreed to rush to trial after Charlie's arrest to avoid a scenario where those two were tried together).

All the post-bump wiretap evidence, especially the enhanced Dolce audio is extremely damaging to Charlie whereas against Magbanua it was far less so, as we couldn't hear her at all. We could only use Dolce against Magbanua for what she DIDN'T do - which is call the cops, angrily profess her innocence and lack of involvement, run out of the room. Meanwhile, for Charlie, the evidence of evasion is very incriminating and we have plenty of it. The secret meetings with his parents outside of their apartment buildings because they thought Donna's place could bugged (not just with Donna, but with Harvey and Donna!). The talking in code. Personally phoning the FBI extortionist, celebratory phone calls with DA and KM about how he figured out it was the police and not gangsters.

We have to remember that several mob bosses have been taken down by saying less on wires - talking in code about murders.

So Charlie should be done.

Bingo. Beautifully summarized. I think you could write the closing argument for the prosecution quite well.

 

[vislaw]

I'll just say one last time, I believe there's a lot we haven't seen. In 2016, this thread blew up with insiders (many lawyers from Tally), and specifics were discussed. If you're right that the prosecution put forth everything they have, then Charlie's discovery file won't include any new important information over the next few months.

Good points and I would love for you to be right. What possible categories of new evidence could you imagine might exist? New witnesses? New documents? I'm really curious after this much time and two trials what could possibly be held back.

 

[BearWatcher]

Is it possible there is What’s App data out there that was obtained and not used because it did not include Katy but went between CA, DA, and WA that are yet to be shown at trial? I thought WA implied that was possible during her testimony at trial this time when she looked like she might vomit.

 

[vislaw]

Is it possible there is What’s App data out there that was obtained and not used because it did not include Katy but went between CA, DA, and WA that are yet to be shown at trial? I thought WA implied that was possible during her testimony at trial this time when she looked like she might vomit.

It appears clear to me that law enforcement was not successful in retrieving any What's App messages.

 

[Weki]

I enjoy civil discussions like this and I respect your opinions. I do think it is important to note that Cappleman made it very clear after the last trial that the original offer of full immunity was no longer an option. They made the offer before they had any convictions and when they hoped to proceed to trial against the Adelsons. Magbanua and Garcia made that impossible when they both refused to cooperate.

It is a completely different world now with three convictions and the functional portion of the conspiracy now established. Many people believe circumstantial evidence is somehow inferior to direct evidence. Any prosecutor will tell you that a strong circumstantial case is equal to a case founded on direct evidence. In fact, murder (which requires proof of specific intent or a mental state) almost always rests upon circumstantial evidence.

The easy test, in my opinion, is to do a thought exercise and imagine what the defense closing argument would be on behalf of Charlie. Unless he takes the stand, his defense is going to have to have some plausible explanation for his extremely interwoven involvement with convicted murderer Magbanua. I respectfully don't understand how you can feel the Dolce Vita audio may not "move the needle." I'm not arguing with you. I'm just really curious whether you seriously have ANY doubt that Charlie was involved in the conspiracy and, if you do, why you harbor such doubt. If you don't have any doubt that Charlie was involved, why would you feel a jury might?

The defense will be simple - argue there’s reasonable doubt. There’s no doubt in my mind that CA is guilty! The evidence they have is enough for me! I’m just not confident they have enough for beyond a reasonable doubt for 12 jurors who don’t follow true crime like we do. Also CA will be tried alone. These jurors will not be steeped in the details like we are. Some jurors want everything tidy, the proverbial smoking gun. KM turning would be real tidy! I agree full immunity is def off the table now. At that time when full immunity was offered they had everything but the enhanced Dolce Vida tape. I guess that’s a game changer but there was no doubt in my mind even before the enhanced audio that CA ordered the hit! But clearly the state didn’t think they could prove the case back then. Obv now they think they can. We’ll see. It’s just my sense. I could be completely wrong ofc! I’m just a rando on the Internet.

I do agree with you there’s likely no more evidence - we’ve seen it all.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I too believe that we’ve seen all the evidence.

The recent jail calls that Georgia Cappleman wanted to bring into evidence but was unable to - they are sealed now I believe, correct? Will they always remain sealed, or can they be unsealed and in any way used in CA’s trial? Are there any circumstances that they could be unsealed? What if there are calls or correspondence between KM and SG in the future that point to Charlie being the ring leader? Could they be used? I would think KM and SG are going to be more careful from here on out, but they could slip up.

As a side note, I watched about an hour of Wendi’s police interrogation last night, and couldn’t help but notice that right after the interrogator asked Wendi if she would hand over her phone - she blurts out almost immediately that Charlie did joke about hiring a hitman but bought her a tv instead. She then admits that she even told the tv repairman that story earlier that morning. It caught my attention and I thought maybe she blurt that out at that moment because she wondered if she and Charlie had discussed that “joke” in a text and wanted to get it out front before TPD saw it. Just a thought.

 

[BearWatcher]

It appears clear to me that law enforcement was not successful in retrieving any What's App messages.

This article in Rolling Stone indicates it is more available than previously thought by LE. FBI Document Says the Feds Can Get Your WhatsApp Data -- in Real Time. Why then did GC bring this topic up when questioning WA if they haven’t been able to find VALUABLE information?

 

[Weki]

100% agreed. If Charlie Adelson was tried using the same evidence used vs. Magbanua (including her cell phone call logs to the killers and location data), Magbanua's financial records and her no-show job, Jessica Rodriquez testimony and Yindra Velazquez-Mascaro's testimony -- the prosecution's case against Charlie Adelson might actually be stronger than it was against Magbanua. So thats why the defense will be trying to exclude a lot of the "Magbanua" evidence. And also why this evidence is so important against Charlie (and why Magbanua's defense, who had been delaying Katie's case for years also finally agreed to rush to trial after Charlie's arrest to avoid a scenario where those two were tried together).

All the post-bump wiretap evidence, especially the enhanced Dolce audio is extremely damaging to Charlie whereas against Magbanua it was far less so, as we couldn't hear her at all. We could only use Dolce against Magbanua for what she DIDN'T do - which is call the cops, angrily profess her innocence and lack of involvement, run out of the room. Meanwhile, for Charlie, the evidence of evasion is very incriminating and we have plenty of it. The secret meetings with his parents outside of their apartment buildings because they thought Donna's place could bugged (not just with Donna, but with Harvey and Donna!). The talking in code. Personally phoning the FBI extortionist, celebratory phone calls with DA and KM about how he figured out it was the police and not gangsters.

We have to remember that several mob bosses have been taken down by saying less on wires - talking in code about murders.

So Charlie should be done.

Good synopsis! You make a persuasive case. I was just trying to play out how he could explain all the evasion stuff and it’s gonna be hard.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Maybe it was a matter of not getting the request out in time? I’m not familiar with how WhatsApp works, but I do remember during this trial that they weren’t able to get Instagram postings or messages because LE didn’t send an inquiry to IG within 7 days.

 

[vislaw]

I too believe that we’ve seen all the evidence.

The recent jail calls that Georgia Cappleman wanted to bring into evidence but was unable to - they are sealed now I believe, correct? ...

Although sealed, the recordings could be used in the upcoming trial(s) if the foundational elements are there. It sounded like some of the Katie/Kawass calls were deemed privileged. Clearly, the Garcia calls were going to be used only for impeachment if he testified. All the calls would be problematic as being hearsay, of course.

 

[vislaw]

One thing that I believe will be important next time is to get a damn transcript of the Dolce Vita recording into evidence. The prosecution stumbled by not providing sufficient basis to admit the transcript this time. I found a very good and thorough law review article that discusses this point along with a lot of legal precedent providing a basis to give a transcript to the jury. You'll recall in the first trial the agent testified extensively as to the passages he could make out (and he did a pretty damn good job of it when you compare the new transcript). Certainly, as a participant to the conversation, Katie would be permitted to endorse a transcript, should she decide to cooperate. If not, they really do need to prepare a transcript with an appropriate witness having credentials.

Interestingly, many courts view such transcripts as being useful as a "guide" to the jury and they suggest that if the opposition disagrees with the prepared transcript they should prepare their own and the court will give the jury both guides.

 

[clearskies1]

They convicted Katie on the theory that CA conspired with her to pay SG/LR to kill Dan! CA stands no chance of an acquittal. None. The talking in codes. The dolce tape, it goes on and on. A mountain of circumstantial evidence -- just like Katie. They sought the death penalty against SG. They can very well seek it against CA. They may not get it but they can seek it. JMO.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Do any of you all wonder if the state will soon call a grand jury to decide about Donna’s involvement? Or will they not need a grand jury and just arrest her at some point without a grand jury (if they feel that confident they can get a conviction?)

Say they do take it to a grand jury, and the grand jury decides there is not enough evidence to support an indictment - what happens then ??? Does the state keep working on the goal to find more evidence to arrest her, or do they move on?

 

[Hapworth]

Thank you FO for your friendly observations, which make me understand DM and his family dynamic better.

This last part resonated for me.
I did the same as DM when asked by a former wife - to help her get an academic position at a university that offered me a job, when there was little or no chance she could get it on her own.
She was delighted to make to move to the new university and to set up her operation. I was delighted to have helped.
Yet, as the years went by she held it against me - as if it was somehow denigrating to her that I had helped her.
Her memory had changed, when in fact there was no chance she could have gotten that job, and she knew it.
She even demanded that we have equal salaries -- ha! so I took a pay cut to make that happen.
If there is a psychologist on the board - they could probably describe it clinically.
To me, she was supremely insecure (and ungrateful).

Well, at least she didn't try to kill me... but there were times...
This is a bad spiral in academia.

Thanks JBC for telling your story.

 

[clearskies1]

Thank you FO for your friendly observations, which make me understand DM and his family dynamic better.

This last part resonated for me.
I did the same as DM when asked by a former wife - to help her get an academic position at a university that offered me a job, when there was little or no chance she could get it on her own.
She was delighted to make to move to the new university and to set up her operation. I was delighted to have helped.
Yet, as the years went by she held it against me - as if it was somehow denigrating to her that I had helped her.
Her memory had changed, when in fact there was no chance she could have gotten that job, and she knew it.
She even demanded that we have equal salaries -- ha! so I took a pay cut to make that happen.
If there is a psychologist on the board - they could probably describe it clinically.
To me, she was supremely insecure (and ungrateful).

Well, at least she didn't try to kill me... but there were times...
This is a bad spiral in academia.

I'm not at all speaking about the specifics of your situation, but universities are often in towns and small cities where there are not many viable employment options for the spouse (other than the university itself). This can make it difficult for the spouse when they move there. JMO.

 

[vislaw]

Do any of you all wonder if the state will soon call a grand jury to decide about Donna’s involvement? Or will they not need a grand jury and just arrest her at some point without a grand jury (if they feel that confident they can get a conviction?)

Say they do take it to a grand jury, and the grand jury decides there is not enough evidence to support an indictment - what happens then ??? Does the state keep working on the goal to find more evidence to arrest her, or do they move on?

The state always has the option of having a defendant arrested and then proceeding with an arraignment where a judge will decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Of course, it has long been a famous axiom that a good prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. I would be shocked if the prosecution could not get an indictment against Donna. I do remain concerned about the evidence available to indict Wendi.

 

[Gypsy Road]

The state always has the option of having a defendant arrested and then proceeding with an arraignment where a judge will decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Of course, it has long been a famous axiom that a good prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. I would be shocked if the prosecution could not get an indictment against Donna. I do remain concerned about the evidence available to indict Wendi.

Thanks so much for replying, Vislaw. I appreciate you explaining it and educating me.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Video from Deep Dive True Crime after CA’s arrest - if anyone would like to view it. Interesting info - I didn’t know CA had been a an automobile accident that, he says, caused him the inability to work full time. His insurance denied the claim. More info too - and not too long of a video. Worth watching.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Good synopsis! You make a persuasive case. I was just trying to play out how he could explain all the evasion stuff and it’s gonna be hard.

It will be hard. And Im not sure I was very persuasive, its just an interesting counterfactual.

The only defense I could imagine is the one I mentioned, where Charlie's defense theory is that Magbanua/Garcia/Rivera killed Markel as part of some scheme to extort the Adelsons. That theory falls apart on logical (and evidence) grounds rather quickly....but its still not quite as ridiculous as Katie's defense theory in this last trial where Charlie and Garcia hatched the plan behind Katie's back.

Katie has been allowed to represent herself as a sympathetic character to this point whereas she will be the villain in the Charlie Adelson defense. And there's quite a bit to chew on there. For instance, I don't think anyone - neither the prosecution, nor the defense, or even any of us spectators who aren't burdened by admissibility rules - can logically explain how this murder plot was hatched and the reason we can't is because of how deceptive and manipulative Magbanua actually is.

Charlie and Katie start dating at the end of 2013. Charlie and the rest of the Adelsons needs someone to kill Dan Markel. Katie knows some people might be able to pull it off. Katie agrees to help stick-handle the operation and manage the interactions with the killers. Dan Markel is killed and everyone gets paid and then spends money on *advertiser censored* and toys. Charlie and Katie stop seeing each other around Jan/Feb of 2015. Garcia and Katie get back together in May 2015.

But what does Charlie know about Garcia, and what does Garcia know about Charlie? Who did Garcia think he was killing Dan Markel on behalf of? In early July 2014, Garcia tries to run Adelson and Magbanua off the road the day they were trying to go jetskiing. He then calls Harvey Adelson and leaves a nasty voicemail. This is in between the first trip he took to Tallahassee to kill Dan Markel and the second trip to Tallahassee later in July when he actually kills Dan Markel.

The only person that could possibly explain these logical gaps is Katie Magbanua, and if she isn't testifying in the next trial for the Prosecution or the Defense, you can be damn sure Magbanua will be the target for the defense. And she wont have Kawass or Decoste there to sympathize for her.

 

[AlferdPacker]

To clarify "new evidence" could be old evidence provided to the defense that wasn't presented at trial.
They effectively presented the conspiracy, but if they presented everything in the file at trial, they would've been there for a month.