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

[opt]

Regarding DA and CA I’m reminded of the quip that behind every successful man is a woman who made it necessary. But CA was more successful as a dentist than as a criminal.

I wonder if the IRS is interested in all those stapled stacks of cash.

 

[Ferpo]

Was Garcia set to testify that he ran the entire show? Did the defense know or strongly suspect that the mysterious recent prison phone calls would have contradicted that testimony? And if the prison phone calls reveal that Katie was the actual ringleader, why would Kawass still appear to believe strongly in Katie’s innocence?

Unknown why SF was brought over, and what the plans were for him. There is a lot of speculation in here that the phone calls torpedoed the defense plans, maybe it will come out someday. We'll see too if SF is involved with the CA trial.

 

[Marysmith]

The defense opened with a promise to prove Katie’s innocence. Why would they have made such a promise and then why would they not have kept it?

Was Garcia set to testify that he ran the entire show? Did the defense know or strongly suspect that the mysterious recent prison phone calls would have contradicted that testimony? And if the prison phone calls reveal that Katie was the actual ringleader, why would Kawass still appear to believe strongly in Katie’s innocence?

Great questions!

 

[Ferpo]

Is Wendi the Golden Child, which is also transferred to her kids.

Pretty much. She was the valedictorian of her Coral Springs, FL HS and also voted most likely to succeed.

 

[vislaw]

The defense opened with a promise to prove Katie’s innocence. Why would they have made such a promise and then why would they not have kept it?

Was Garcia set to testify that he ran the entire show? Did the defense know or strongly suspect that the mysterious recent prison phone calls would have contradicted that testimony?

I think what occurred is pretty clear. It was a bit of a bombshell when the defense gave notice that Garcia would be testifying. He had previously written a letter to Katie after his own conviction where he essentially pledged his love to her forever. When Tara Kawass stood up on opening promising to do "something unusual" and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Katie did NOT know anything about the murder before it occurred, it was clear that Garcia was going to provide the proof. She and Decoste also implied that Garcia would explain how he communicated with Charlie. If you were watching when the trial opened you saw the defense freak out when Cappleman handed them jailhouse recordings made that included recordings of Garcia. The judge inquired and it became clear that these recordings would be used to impeach Garcia if he took the stand.

You can draw your own conclusions why Garcia evaporated as a defense witness from that moment forward.

... And if the prison phone calls reveal that Katie was the actual ringleader, why would Kawass still appear to believe strongly in Katie’s innocence?

It is important to understand that a good defense attorney is committed to defending a client and the client's guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant to that commitment. I understand many people cannot understand this, but it is the mark of a truly professional trial attorney. Defense attorneys I admire and respect truly believe that they are part of a system that protects everyone's rights. It is their DUTY to do everything within the rules to get a client acquitted and it is not their job to help the prosecution -- just the opposite. Tara Kawass apparently truly believed she could at least get one juror to hang (and those of us in the live stream chat can attest there were many people who stated they would vote to acquit). Kawass felt devastated to have failed and I'm sure she feels very close to Katie, who faces life in prison now. Part of her job was to unwaveringly defend her client and profess her innocence.

In the end, Kawass did her best but the system worked. I do agree that we all should want a system that makes the prosecution prove its case. Only if we have truly independent and vigorous defense attorneys will the prosecution be held to its responsibility of proving guilt. If the prosecution doesn't do its job well enough (I'm looking at you Marsha Clark and Chris Darden) guilty people will be acquitted. It isn't pleasant, but it is a price we pay for a truly working adversary system of justice.

We probably will never know, but I suspect she feels significant guilt because Katie could have cooperated and unquestionably had a chance to return to her children. It would only be natural to have doubt and questions over how you handled a case that comes to this outcome for your client.

 

[Mariposa]

A old (2016) but interesting article reporting WA’s own words as recorded in a 2015 podcast

Ex-Wife Whose Family Police Tied to Professor's Murder Tells 'My Side' of Story

Wendi Adelson talked about Dan Markel's killing, and being a suspect, more than a year before police alleged a link to her family

people.com

 

[MTW2011]

Statement from Ruth and Phil Markel, released through their attorneys who have been representing them and their family pro bono for years since the murder.



Seen at

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530366761538883586

 

[clearskies1]

Seemed like Katie taking the stand was a Hail Mary after Garcia got pulled as a witness. JMO.

 

[Weki]

I can’t believe defense thought they could bring Garcia to say “I communicated directly with CA and KM had nothing to do with it! He would’ve been destroyed on cross. Even if he had testified the outcome would remain the same. Obv he would lie to protect her!

 

[clearskies1]

I can’t believe defense thought they could bring Garcia to say “I communicated directly with CA and KM had nothing to do with it! He would’ve been destroyed on cross. Even if he had testified the outcome would remain the same. Obv he would lie to protect her!

It did seem absurd/desperate to me. JMO.

 

[FreddyG]

I'm not one to celebrate a guilty verdict in a murder trial, it seems like a somber moment rather than a joyous one (though I don't begrudge the Markels and Cappelman their reactions--different strokes and plus they're far closer to this than I am). But last night was clearly the right result and a measure of justice after a long wait. Well done to the jury and the state. Nice to see that sometimes the system does work.

@vislaw The conspiracy point is really interesting. It's been a while since I thought about crim but once you prove the crime you need only prove an act in furtherance to convict conspirators, right? If that's the case then I agree the case is a lot better, but still not sure whether the cryptic statements of DA alone meet the RD standard. Ditto the WA evidence, though if Lacasse is to be believed (and he sure seemed eminently credible to me), then she seemed to be helping to frame him, which is probably an act in furtherance. Related, I can see the efficiency upsides of a trial for all three, though of course the lawyers for WA and DA would likely move to bifurcate. But just arresting DA and WA would be very satisfying.

I wasn't that impressed with the defense lawyers, especially Decoste. Their IG presence struck me as unprofessional, though maybe I'm just old and associate that medium with jr high school kids so to me it looks juvenile and not serious especially when your client is on the hook for murder. But from the posts I think they both passionately believed Katie was innocent. That just proves how much people are led by what they want to believe, or what's useful to believe, rather than what the evidence shows. It must be hard to defend someone zealously knowing they are guilty as sin.

I have no idea whether Katie will flip. I was surprised she didn't flip years ago, and remain puzzled. So one would think that staring at LWOP she'd finally sing, I wouldn't bet on it because her refusal to cooperate has surprised me at every turn up til now. I'd certainly like to see that though to the extent it would help the case against the Adelsons. My first thought though is that she'd be a garbage witness having insisted on her non involvement then saying the opposite in a subsequent trial, but serious crim experts seem to think that's not a problem. I don't see how, but crim is not my thing, so I hope that's true.

Finally: I don't have access to the docket, would someone tell me why CA is suing a life insurance company? That's separate from his disability claim v the state right? (The latter is clearly an attempt to recoup the losses of his massive business losses since he's become known as a murderer.)

 

[FreddyG]

I think CA was not the scapegoat child (that would be RA who CA even talks some trash about on the wiretaps/video). I’m having trouble finding it but on the last thread someone made a great point about CA’s role in the family. He is the protector and the one who fights the world on behalf of WA, DA, HA and won’t allow people to mess with them, on penalty of death if needed. In this view WA and DA are hysterical emotional messes guzzling pepto. HA, we don’t know much about him but he’s elderly and their have been references by WA that his health is fragile. So CA is the swashbuckling multimillionaire cowboy, his steed is his Ferrari he drives around south Florida in to cash only dental jobs, he will go to the dark criminal side to make the others happy. He is a middle child too.

For the best account of Adelson family dynamics, check out the Wondery podcast "Over My Dead Body." ‎Over My Dead Body: Tally | 'Til Life Do Us Part on Apple Podcasts

I think @Mariposa has it about right. CA was the middle child and second son but assumed a protector/provider role, in his case equal parts dutiful dentist son and edgy quasi-criminal--like the nice dentist in a suburban home mixed with some Tony Soprano.

WA was the baby who was elevated to an absurd, idealized degree by her family. There was/is a room in the Adelson family home devoted solely to her accomplishments and trophies, like a shrine. But she was, despite what Lecoste said on cross, not at Dan's elite level professionally and academically. Hence he saw her as somewhat below him, which is unkind but not inaccurate by the very hierarchical standards of that profession. He was a tenure-track professor who went to Harvard and made law review; she was a non-tenure-track prof who got the job as a "trailing spouse" and was a good not great student at a good not great law school.

This was the dynamic that ultimately ruined their relationship. WA was used to being worshipped, taken care of, and catered to by her family. But Dan saw her as someone who should worship, take care of, and cater to him. This was not what she expected in a husband, and for all of the evil BS that the Adelsons did, I can see why she was unhappy. He thought of himself as above her, and went off to do his (more important) job while expecting her to stay back in Tally to raise the kids and do her (less important) work when time permitted. It's hard to be happy in a marriage when your spouse doesn't see you as a respected equal.

So I can see WA's objection to how things were in the marriage, and maybe the divorce was an unfortunate but necessary move. But the vitriol that followed and of course the murder plot are insanely terrible manifestations of this. Marriages end badly all the time. What makes this situation pathological is that WA and her family could not just accept that things didn't go as they wanted and make peace with a less than ideal situation. As Lacasse said, they let their hatred for Dan become an overriding obsession. So this whole sad story is a good reminder that approaching difficult people and situations with goodwill is an act of mercy to ourselves as much as it is to them.

 

[Florida_marlin]

I think CA was not the scapegoat child (that would be RA who CA even talks some trash about on the wiretaps/video). I’m having trouble finding it but on the last thread someone made a great point about CA’s role in the family. He is the protector and the one who fights the world on behalf of WA, DA, HA and won’t allow people to mess with them, on penalty of death if needed. In this view WA and DA are hysterical emotional messes guzzling pepto. HA, we don’t know much about him but he’s elderly and their have been references by WA that his health is fragile. So CA is the swashbuckling multimillionaire cowboy, his steed is his Ferrari he drives around south Florida in to cash only dental jobs, he will go to the dark criminal side to make the others happy. He is a middle child too.

The below is all my personal opinion.

Being one of the “other” children in a situation like DA/WA is very troubling. When you’re a kid, you’re desperate to feel as loved as the favorite, the over-connected child. But, one day you will grow up to be an adult. You have to make your own choices. You have to break that child co-dependency and become an adult. If not, then you will be an adult child,which is one of the most terrifying creatures on Earth. It sounds like RA, bless his heart, was able to remove himself from the morass, and become a whole person independent of that dysfunctional mess. CA? He became the adult child, forever trying to become the favored and big shot in the family. He’s learning the hard way that his way won’t work. He’s learning that he can go to any extreme and WA will still be the precious one. Just wait until DA throws him under the bus to protect WA.

 

[Florida_marlin]

It is important to understand that a good defense attorney is committed to defending a client and the client's guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant to that commitment. I understand many people cannot understand this, but it is the mark of a truly professional trial attorney…

I think it is a hallmark of our adversarial system, and it protects all of us. Have you ever watched a defense attorney and thought, “I hate that person?” I have, and the one I hate the most is the one I want standing for me if I ever needed it!

 

[vislaw]

... I agree the case is a lot better, but still not sure whether the cryptic statements of DA alone meet the RD standard. Ditto the WA evidence, though if Lacasse is to be believed (and he sure seemed eminently credible to me), then she seemed to be helping to frame him, which is probably an act in furtherance. Related, I can see the efficiency upsides of a trial for all three, though of course the lawyers for WA and DA would likely move to bifurcate. But just arresting DA and WA would be very satisfying.

Obviously, the more evidence, the better. This is why Katie's testimony could be useful even if she is damaged goods. Regarding Donna Adelson, I would highly recommend that anyone interested in her potential guilt listen to every call recorded between her and Charlie. All calls are conveniently collected at the bottom of this article. She makes so many comments and statements that are inculpatory. If she were the only defendant it would be a different story, but I think she goes down with Charlie's ship if she is a co-defendant in a trial with him.

Yes, the defense counsel will attempt to avoid having them tried together, but it is highly likely their cases will be combined. This occurred in the Lori Vallow/Chad Daybell case and the court denied a request to bifurcate their trial. In that case, however, it looks like Lori may succeed in separating her case by invoking her constitutional right to a speedy trial. Chad waived his speedy trial leading the case to be set in February 2023. The court is in a jam now and may have to let Lori go to trial in October since she is insisting on it. That is one reason I believe we will see Donna and possibly Wendi arrested soon. The state is going to want to try them together.

... I wasn't that impressed with the defense lawyers, especially Decoste. Their IG presence struck me as unprofessional, though maybe I'm just old and associate that medium with jr high school kids so to me it looks juvenile and not serious especially when your client is on the hook for murder. But from the posts I think they both passionately believed Katie was innocent. That just proves how much people are led by what they want to believe, or what's useful to believe, rather than what the evidence shows. It must be hard to defend someone zealously knowing they are guilty as sin.

Don't mistake their strident protestations of their clients' innocence as being genuine. This is most definitely part of their playbook and one they roll out for every major case. For instance, they are both defending the rapper Hakeem Robinson (Ksoo) in Jacksonville. Ksoo is charged with two murders of two rival rappers. He has boasted about killing them online, has used photos of the decedents in an album cover, has publicly laughed at and taunted the mother of one victim who appeared tearfully in a television interview (he imitated her tearful voice even). His DNA was found in the getaway car and his fingerprints were found on a pistol in the car. The driver of the car was recorded describing the murder and Ksoo's role in it by an informant wearing a wire. Then, last week, Ksoo's father flipped on his son and is now testifying against him for the state. Even with all of that (and more) both Kawass and Decoste have posted loud claims of innocence and their belief Ksoo is being wrongfully prosecuted. ... It is all a strategy they employ for their clients and it sometimes works apparently.

 

[clearskies1]

I'm not one to celebrate a guilty verdict in a murder trial, it seems like a somber moment rather than a joyous one (though I don't begrudge the Markels and Cappelman their reactions--different strokes and plus they're far closer to this than I am). But last night was clearly the right result and a measure of justice after a long wait. Well done to the jury and the state. Nice to see that sometimes the system does work.

@vislaw The conspiracy point is really interesting. It's been a while since I thought about crim but once you prove the crime you need only prove an act in furtherance to convict conspirators, right? If that's the case then I agree the case is a lot better, but still not sure whether the cryptic statements of DA alone meet the RD standard. Ditto the WA evidence, though if Lacasse is to be believed (and he sure seemed eminently credible to me), then she seemed to be helping to frame him, which is probably an act in furtherance. Related, I can see the efficiency upsides of a trial for all three, though of course the lawyers for WA and DA would likely move to bifurcate. But just arresting DA and WA would be very satisfying.

I wasn't that impressed with the defense lawyers, especially Decoste. Their IG presence struck me as unprofessional, though maybe I'm just old and associate that medium with jr high school kids so to me it looks juvenile and not serious especially when your client is on the hook for murder. But from the posts I think they both passionately believed Katie was innocent. That just proves how much people are led by what they want to believe, or what's useful to believe, rather than what the evidence shows. It must be hard to defend someone zealously knowing they are guilty as sin.

I have no idea whether Katie will flip. I was surprised she didn't flip years ago, and remain puzzled. So one would think that staring at LWOP she'd finally sing, I wouldn't bet on it because her refusal to cooperate has surprised me at every turn up til now. I'd certainly like to see that though to the extent it would help the case against the Adelsons. My first thought though is that she'd be a garbage witness having insisted on her non involvement then saying the opposite in a subsequent trial, but serious crim experts seem to think that's not a problem. I don't see how, but crim is not my thing, so I hope that's true.

Finally: I don't have access to the docket, would someone tell me why CA is suing a life insurance company? That's separate from his disability claim v the state right? (The latter is clearly an attempt to recoup the losses of his massive business losses since he's become known as a murderer.)

Regarding the lawsuit -- All I know is that it's classified as a breach of contract claim. Maybe CA had disability insurance with Berkshire Life Insurance and Berkshire denied a claim? Disability Insurance. (The footnotes on that Guardian Disability Ins page say this about the connection between Berkshire and Guardian: "Individual disability income products underwritten and issued by Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America (BLICOA), Pittsfield, MA or provided by Guardian. BLICOA is a wholly owned stock subsidiary of and administrator for The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), New York, NY. Product provisions and availability may vary by state.")

 

[Mariposa]

Regarding the lawsuit -- All I know is that it's classified as a breach of contract claim. Maybe CA had disability insurance with Berkshire Life Insurance and Berkshire denied a claim? Disability Insurance. (The footnotes on that Guardian Disability Ins page say this about the connection between Berkshire and Guardian: "Individual disability income products underwritten and issued by Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America (BLICOA), Pittsfield, MA or provided by Guardian. BLICOA is a wholly owned stock subsidiary of and administrator for The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), New York, NY. Product provisions and availability may vary by state.")

My guess based on the info visible in the link (description of motions etc) was CA was suing an insurance company saying they wrongfully denied coverage on a disability insurance policy claim. The visible info included the names of potential expert witnesses for the insurance company and they appeared to be orthopedic type doctors.
So I’d wager CA claims some sort of orthopedic condition or injury maybe affecting his hands, arms, neck, and or back, that is preventing him from performing dental work, and he thinks it is a violation of his insurance policy contract that they refuse to pay out on his claim.

 

[clearskies1]

My guess based on the info visible in the link (description of motions etc) was CA was suing an insurance company saying they wrongfully denied coverage on a disability insurance policy claim. The visible info included the names of potential expert witnesses for the insurance company and they appeared to be orthopedic type doctors. So I’d wager CA claims to some sort of orthopedic condition or injury maybe affecting his hands, arms, neck, and or back that is preventing him from performing dental work and he thinks it is a violation of his insurance policy contract that they are nor paying out on his claim.

Yes, that's what I thought: alleged wrongful denial of disability insurance claim -i.e., breach of contract. JMO.

 

[Weki]

Lots of insightful observations about the family dynamic here and the marriage. Lawyers are very hierarchal and I can totally see Dan making Wendi feel inferior. That’s what it seems like and it makes sense but I also am uncomfortable saying it because with narcissistic types like Wendi who are great at controlling the narrative you never really know. She most certainly was unreasonable and didn’t want to be an equal partner. She also knew how he was before she married him. I can imagine that his reasonable view of their roles within the family was just unacceptable to Princess Wendi. She doesn’t seem that bright or ambitious to me honestly. People who have been coddled like her tend to be entitled.

She was probably mirroring him a lot at the beginning. I bet he had no idea who she really was. Then 2 kids later reality set in and she wanted out.

 

[Mariposa]

The below is all my personal opinion.

Being one of the “other” children in a situation like DA/WA is very troubling. When you’re a kid, you’re desperate to feel as loved as the favorite, the over-connected child. But, one day you will grow up to be an adult. You have to make your own choices. You have to break that child co-dependency and become an adult. If not, then you will be an adult child,which is one of the most terrifying creatures on Earth. It sounds like RA, bless his heart, was able to remove himself from the morass, and become a whole person independent of that dysfunctional mess. CA? He became the adult child, forever trying to become the favored and big shot in the family. He’s learning the hard way that his way won’t work. He’s learning that he can go to any extreme and WA will still be the precious one. Just wait until DA throws him under the bus to protect WA.

Also thinking that of the three children WA became a lawyer, CA a dentist like dear old dad… but the other brother, the estranged brother, he became a MD. And he is in a very competitive, elite medical specialty. Which, to the status obsessed, would probably be THE accomplishment.