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

[katiecoolady]

In CA's motion for bail, in footnote 7, CA's lawyer writes that "upon information and belief" before her retrial KM was "offered immunity for the charges against her" if she testified against CA, which she rejected. The motion can be accessed here: Charlie Adelson appears in court Friday

This seems crazy given that the original trial was 10-2 against and the state's case was only stronger the second time around (not least because they were prepared for KM's testimony). Why would the state offer such a great deal then and, even crazier, why would KM turn it down? It seems unbelievable. On the other hand, lawyers can't just lie about their information and belief.

This will go down as one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of court history. Unless she fesses up and tells the whole story, including the why.

 

[katiecoolady]

I am convinced that the State gleefully said "Nope - no deal! Don't need it and shoulda taken it when offered." This sets a STRONG precedent on if a deal is offered by Cappelman you better damn take it with a yes ma'am. Otherwise you will have all these crooks and their council thinking they can take a chance at trial and if they lose, they can still cut a deal. We all see Kawass crying and emotional for KM but SHE blew it. She shoulda advised taking the deal 2 yrs ago and in the end Kawass has now dumped KM on appeal as the $$ spigot has been turned off.

The bold part made me laugh out loud.

 

[Wishbone]

In CA's motion for bail, in footnote 7, CA's lawyer writes that "upon information and belief" before her retrial KM was "offered immunity for the charges against her" if she testified against CA, which she rejected. The motion can be accessed here: Charlie Adelson appears in court Friday

This seems crazy given that the original trial was 10-2 against and the state's case was only stronger the second time around (not least because they were prepared for KM's testimony). Why would the state offer such a great deal then and, even crazier, why would KM turn it down? It seems unbelievable. On the other hand, lawyers can't just lie about their information and belief.

Upon information and belief means “based on secondhand information that [the asserting party] believes to be true.” Menard v. CSX Transp., Inc., 698 F.3d 40, 44 n.5 (1st Cir. 2012)....This about sums up what I could find regarding that phrase. How much actual weight it carries is something I don't know.

 

[Bongo]

Yeah, that overly dramatic explanation about why Katie's family was not there didn't make sense at all -- and she didn't even need to address it. It's not like we didn't just watch the trial where certain people's identities were protected and shielded. I thought she was going to say it was because they had to be working so hard to pay her bills but she didn't even try with that.

I missed the explanation of why she didn't have family there....what was it?

 

[dotr]

I am convinced that the State gleefully said "Nope - no deal! Don't need it and shoulda taken it when offered." This sets a STRONG precedent on if a deal is offered by Cappelman you better damn take it with a yes ma'am. Otherwise you will have all these crooks and their council thinking they can take a chance at trial and if they lose, they can still cut a deal. We all see Kawass crying and emotional for KM but SHE blew it. She shoulda advised taking the deal 2 yrs ago and in the end Kawass has now dumped KM on appeal as the $$ spigot has been turned off.

Welcome to Ws @The Dude Lebowski, cheers!

White Russian

How to make a classic White Russian cocktail. Made with vodka, Kahlua (coffee liqueur), and cream it's super easy to whip up and makes the perfect after-dinner drink.

preppykitchen.com

​

 

[GDP]

Upon information and belief means “based on secondhand information that [the asserting party] believes to be true.” Menard v. CSX Transp., Inc., 698 F.3d 40, 44 n.5 (1st Cir. 2012)....This about sums up what I could find regarding that phrase. How much actual weight it carries is something I don't know.

Thinking about this some more, it's quite possible that the CA's lawyers were loose with their language. The full footnote reads as follows:

"Upon information and belief, shortly before Magbanua's retrial in May 2022, the State may have offered to consent to Magbanua's pretrial release on a bond if Magbanua agreed to delay her retrial so that the State could try Magbanua and Mr. Adelson jointly. Also upon information and belief, before Magbanua's retrial, the State offered to provide Magbanua with immunity for the charges against her, if Magbanua agreed to cooperate with the State and to testify against Mr. Adelson. Magbanua rejected the immunity offer and was convicted at her retrial."

The first sentence refers to "shortly" before the retrial; the second sentence just says before the retrial. Perhaps the reference is to the long-rumored immunity offer before the original trial. If that's the case, it's technically a true statement (it was before the retrial) but quite misleading. The above-the-line text to which the footnote is attached is: "Mr. Adelson is in a unique position [from KM], factually and legally, for the purposes of his request for pretrial release." That sentence is trying to argue that the issues for bail between KM and CA are different. I'm not sure of the relevance of either claim in the footnote to that assertion.

So either the State made a crazy immunity offer between the two trials and KM even more absurdly turned it down, or CA's lawyers accidentally wrote a misleading sentence, or CA's lawyers intentionally wrote a misleading sentence. If I had to bet, I'd bet on the last theory. And the idea would be that they are trying to get into the judge's mind that the case against CA is so weak the State had to resort to offering to allow a murderer to go free to get him.

 

[katiecoolady]

I missed the explanation of why she didn't have family there....what was it?

She claimed it was because of the cameras...the media...somehow to protect the kids. Meanwhile we all watched the same trial where multiple witnesses were shielded from the cameras at their request. And it's not like they were going to bring the children to court. More Kawass BS.

 

[Weki]

Thinking about this some more, it's quite possible that the CA's lawyers were loose with their language. The full footnote reads as follows:

"Upon information and belief, shortly before Magbanua's retrial in May 2022, the State may have offered to consent to Magbanua's pretrial release on a bond if Magbanua agreed to delay her retrial so that the State could try Magbanua and Mr. Adelson jointly. Also upon information and belief, before Magbanua's retrial, the State offered to provide Magbanua with immunity for the charges against her, if Magbanua agreed to cooperate with the State and to testify against Mr. Adelson. Magbanua rejected the immunity offer and was convicted at her retrial."

The first sentence refers to "shortly" before the retrial; the second sentence just says before the retrial. Perhaps the reference is to the long-rumored immunity offer before the original trial. If that's the case, it's technically a true statement (it was before the retrial) but quite misleading. The above-the-line text to which the footnote is attached is: "Mr. Adelson is in a unique position [from KM], factually and legally, for the purposes of his request for pretrial release." That sentence is trying to argue that the issues for bail between KM and CA are different. I'm not sure of the relevance of either claim in the footnote to that assertion.

So either the State made a crazy immunity offer between the two trials and KM even more absurdly turned it down, or CA's lawyers accidentally wrote a misleading sentence, or CA's lawyers intentionally wrote a misleading sentence. If I had to bet, I'd bet on the last theory. And the idea would be that they are trying to get into the judge's mind that the case against CA is so weak the State had to resort to offering to allow a murderer to go free to get him.

Thanks for the follow up!

The state put on evidence that KM was trying to evade arrest so it seems odd to me that they would’ve been open to pretrial release on bond. I would put KM at high risk for skipping bond.

It also seems extremely odd to me that they would offer her full immunity after they had already gone through the trouble of going to trial and receiving a 10-2 guilty jury poll. They have all the leverage at that point to make her plea to a lesser charge in exchange for her testimony.

 

[Wishbone]

Thinking about this some more, it's quite possible that the CA's lawyers were loose with their language. The full footnote reads as follows:

"Upon information and belief, shortly before Magbanua's retrial in May 2022, the State may have offered to consent to Magbanua's pretrial release on a bond if Magbanua agreed to delay her retrial so that the State could try Magbanua and Mr. Adelson jointly. Also upon information and belief, before Magbanua's retrial, the State offered to provide Magbanua with immunity for the charges against her, if Magbanua agreed to cooperate with the State and to testify against Mr. Adelson. Magbanua rejected the immunity offer and was convicted at her retrial."

The first sentence refers to "shortly" before the retrial; the second sentence just says before the retrial. Perhaps the reference is to the long-rumored immunity offer before the original trial. If that's the case, it's technically a true statement (it was before the retrial) but quite misleading. The above-the-line text to which the footnote is attached is: "Mr. Adelson is in a unique position [from KM], factually and legally, for the purposes of his request for pretrial release." That sentence is trying to argue that the issues for bail between KM and CA are different. I'm not sure of the relevance of either claim in the footnote to that assertion.

So either the State made a crazy immunity offer between the two trials and KM even more absurdly turned it down, or CA's lawyers accidentally wrote a misleading sentence, or CA's lawyers intentionally wrote a misleading sentence. If I had to bet, I'd bet on the last theory. And the idea would be that they are trying to get into the judge's mind that the case against CA is so weak the State had to resort to offering to allow a murderer to go free to get him.

I wouldn't be surprised that KM was offered various deals earlier in the investigation if she would come clean and name names and give details. But to have recently made an offer for complete immunity from charges just to get CA doesn't compute. It's a guess as to what and when CA's attorney heard and believed. Found an old article about a deal being offered in 2017.

Markel murder suspects could be tried together

The state says it intends to request that Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia be tried together for the murder of FSU professor Dan Markel.

www.wctv.tv

 

[KidonGadol]

There are a lot of flags here that suggest Katie is at least trying to cut a deal. Florida law provides that the judge can grant relief from a sentence if the defendant cooperates and the state recommends it. My reading of the tea leaves:

1) Georgia spoke very little in spite of the fact that the Markel family was watching. To me, she acted the way I would expect someone to behave if negotiations were going on in the background. Otherwise, I would have expected her to have some choice words for Katie who put the state and the Markel family through so much hell and expense with no cooperation. Both sides seemed to be on idle rather than in first gear this morning.

2) The case has been handed off to the public defender and Katie is now officially declared indigent for purposes of the appeal. This suggests the money spigot has been shut off and the defense may be negotiating a deal. It also emphasizes that any appeal is going nowhere in this case. The trial was clean and error free. Katie surely realizes she's going to die in prison if she doesn't cooperate now.

3) Kawass was uncharacteristically conciliatory towards the Markel family and did nothing to suggest Katie is still proclaiming her innocence. This may have been an attempt to curry favor with the judge to get a small reduction in the two minor counts, but she certainly knows the chance of a successful appeal is pretty much nil, so that a reduction in sentence for the minor accounts would be meaningless. If she or her client held out any hope for appeal she would have been expected to posture accordingly.

The big question for me is whether Katie could come up with anything of value that would cause Georgia to cut her a deal.

I thought your analysis of the situation was very well put.

KM potentially could fill in the following;

1. Did CA provide her with information on Dan Markel's movements on the 18th Jul 2014 (NY trip) ? Did she send that information on to SG. When did she send it on ?

2 . Was there a provision to call off the killing on the 18th if Wendi suspected the children were not dropped off at day care ? (The fact that SG kept his phone active at Premier Fitness suggests this).

3. When CA rang her on the 18th July at 11:30am, just after the murder, which was forty minutes earlier, what did he tell her ?

4. Did she have to contact CA to prompt him for the money for Rivera or did he contact her ?

5. How precisely was she introduced to Tara Kawass, given that she had TK's number on her cell phone at time of arrest ? If she had some sort of formal meeting with TK, who paid for it ?

6. Did Jessica Rodriguez ever feed back to her the suggestion that Rivera was having discussions with investigators while in prison ? If so, what action did she take ?

7. Did she contact CA when SG was taken for questioning in 2016 ?

8. Does she know why the first trip north failed to kill DM ?

(I don't believe KM had any interactions with Donna Adelson so there are no questions relating to that. )

 

[Marysmith]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1553083624794333186

 

[Weki]

This is getting bizarre. Kawass is saying the jury got it right (essentially)

 

[Marysmith]

This is getting bizarre. Kawass is saying the jury got it right (essentially)

It is bizarre!

 

[jbc]

Perhaps Katie will say why she didn’t take the immunity deal. Like many, I am vexed by this.

 

[katiecoolady]

I thought your analysis of the situation was very well put.

KM potentially could fill in the following;

1. Did CA provide her with information on Dan Markel's movements on the 18th Jul 2014 (NY trip) ? Did she send that information on to SG. When did she send it on ?

2 . Was there a provision to call off the killing on the 18th if Wendi suspected the children were not dropped off at day care ? (The fact that SG kept his phone active at Premier Fitness suggests this).

3. When CA rang her on the 18th July at 11:30am, just after the murder, which was forty minutes earlier, what did he tell her ?

4. Did she have to contact CA to prompt him for the money for Rivera or did he contact her ?

5. How precisely was she introduced to Tara Kawass, given that she had TK's number on her cell phone at time of arrest ? If she had some sort of formal meeting with TK, who paid for it ?

6. Did Jessica Rodriguez ever feed back to her the suggestion that Rivera was having discussions with investigators while in prison ? If so, what action did she take ?

7. Did she contact CA when SG was taken for questioning in 2016 ?

8. Does she know why the first trip north failed to kill DM ?

(I don't believe KM had any interactions with Donna Adelson so there are no questions relating to that. )

I like your list! Can we sprinkle a little Wendi and in there even vicariously?

I did not know she had Kawass' phone number on her at time of arrest. Wow.

 

[katiecoolady]

This is getting bizarre. Kawass is saying the jury got it right (essentially)

What's next? She's sucked up to the Markels, flattered the jury, now what? Doing an ad for those glasses the Judge wore with a tribute to him in it? Tweeting publicly to Georgia Cappelman where she got her shoes? Asking Jeffrey LaCasse out on a date?

 

[katiecoolady]

Accidental double post.

 

[Wishbone]

Perhaps Katie will say why she didn’t take the immunity deal. Like many, I am vexed by this.

This is what her attorney said about the matter:
Kawass said if Magbanua was guilty, she would have made a deal to gain immunity on day one. She’s been in jail for six years and had COVID twice, Kawass said, and has chosen to testify at trial twice.

Jury now deliberating in Katherine Magbanua retrial

The jury in Katherine Magbanua’s retrial started deliberating just before one p.m. Friday.

www.wctv.tv

 

[Marysmith]

This is what her attorney said about the matter:
Kawass said if Magbanua was guilty, she would have made a deal to gain immunity on day one. She’s been in jail for six years and had COVID twice, Kawass said, and has chosen to testify at trial twice.

Jury now deliberating in Katherine Magbanua retrial

The jury in Katherine Magbanua’s retrial started deliberating just before one p.m. Friday.

www.wctv.tv

I wonder if she regrets that now. It’s got to be a very brutal reckoning for Katie today.

 

[Wishbone]

I wonder if she regrets that now. It’s got to be a very brutal reckoning for Katie today.

Regrets she got caught most likely. She had so little regard for the life of a man she didn't even know. I can't begin to understand her, the kings and especially the so called upstanding A's. There has to be more justice.