FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #13 *1 guilty*

[katiecoolady]

It could come in as not being offered to prove the “truth” that Wendi alerted them, but rather, to show the basis for KM’s understanding. In other words, the evidence could not be used to show wendy actually did this, but it would be admissible that Katie is saying Charlie told her this. The important thing is that Charlie made a statement and that statement would be against his interest. Because he is both a party and it is a statement against his interest it satisfies an exception to the hearsay rule.

Ok, now to extrapolate further, could this statement by Katie (potentially) be used against either Donna or Wendi if they are mentioned in the statement? (thanks for weighing in on this by the way)

 

[vislaw]

Ok, now to extrapolate further, could this statement by Katie (potentially) be used against either Donna or Wendi if they are mentioned in the statement? (thanks for weighing in on this by the way)

Technically the evidence could not be used against them and if they were named defendants the judge would instruct the jury that they may not consider the statement as evidence of guilt. However, lawyers always say “you cannot unring a bell” and it would be hard for jurors not to be influenced by such evidence.

 

[dotr]

Reminds me of CA's predicament.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Just bringing this old video here after SG’s conviction and what his lawyer, Samm Zangeneah, had to say about the countless deals both KM and SG were offered before their convictions. Not really important now, but still interesting to see again.

 

[vislaw]

Just bringing this old video here after SG’s conviction and what his lawyer, Samm Zangeneah, had to say about the countless deals both KM and SG were offered before their convictions. Not really important now, but still interesting to see again.

Very apropos to post this now and to get the perspective of a lead defense lawyer who knew what was going on. He was careful to observe his ethical obligations to his client but made clear that he believes the evidence will eventually lead to all three (Charlie, Donna, and Wendi) being charged. I'm fascinated with how strongly he expresses his belief that Wendi is culpable and it makes me wonder whether he knows what Katie is going to drop in her proffer.

All I want for Christmas are a couple more indictments.

 

[Niner]

Any one know IF Magbauna will be in court DA's office tomorrow? The transfer thing said 11/28 to 11/30 - is it one of those dates or ALL of them?

TIA!

 

[vislaw]

Any one know IF Magbauna will be in court DA's office tomorrow? The transfer thing said 11/28 to 11/30 - is it one of those dates or ALL of them?

TIA!

We know she was transported and most likely the additional days were provided for follow up if necessary. If a proffer is accepted, the State will require the defendant to cooperate by answering truthfully any questions about any subject. In this case Katie testified (no doubt lied) about many, many topics. If she is going to become a witness for the State, all of those answers become potential sources of impeachment and it will be imperative for the State to know what she is going to disclaim and what she will continue to endorse as being truthful. There are also a myriad of topics that the State will probably want to interrogate her on, such as how the defense was financed and what her communications with Garcia have been. My understanding is that her making a proffer would waive any claim to attorney client privilege now. They may need more than a day to cover this ground.

 

[DrQ]

IMHO Along with the tragedy of the murder of Dan is his betrayal of people in his life and the consequences that his children's have to suffer from those actions.

 

[Niner]

We know she was transported and most likely the additional days were provided for follow up if necessary. If a proffer is accepted, the State will require the defendant to cooperate by answering truthfully any questions about any subject. In this case Katie testified (no doubt lied) about many, many topics. If she is going to become a witness for the State, all of those answers become potential sources of impeachment and it will be imperative for the State to know what she is going to disclaim and what she will continue to endorse as being truthful. There are also a myriad of topics that the State will probably want to interrogate her on, such as how the defense was financed and what her communications with Garcia have been. My understanding is that her making a proffer would waive any claim to attorney client privilege now. They may need more than a day to cover this ground.

Thank you! So most likely all 3 days. I just want to know if I should post my stuff tomorrow for her.

 

[dotr]

Speculation, imo, fwiw.
If i understand correctly, everyone now wants KM to be perceived as honest and telling the truth this time?
Dare i suggest that if that is the case, she needs a slight appearance make-over before giving her new and improved testimony.

Start with making sure her CA's gift(s) are not busting out of her blouse, they only serve as a reminder of what a man's life is worth to some.

She should wear a blue jacket (true blue!) and soft colour top underneath (pink or similar to soften her black crow look and button up to her neck)

In the new mug shot it appears that her ^^eyebrows have been imo, wisely re-shaped away from the 'angry pumpkin' look, to a straighter, calmer shape.

No braids, on her they look creepy- half the time i wondered if they were encrypted with a code!

Video FBI tries to get more information on Markel’s murder: Part 7

An undercover agent approached Donna Adelson, the mother of Markel’s ex-wife on the street. She then called her son Charlie about the encounter, who then called Katherine Magbanua.

abcnews.go.com

The Dan Markel Case: Prosecutors Want To Know Who Paid For These Breast Implants - Above the Law

Here is the latest lurid twist in the ongoing investigation of a tragic killing.

abovethelaw.com

"People Magazine Investigates" Marked for Murder (TV Episode 2017) - IMDb

Marked for Murder: Directed by Stephen Schuster. With Daniel Markel, Wendi Adelson, Katherine Magbanua, Luis Rivera. In Florida, friends and family are stunned after an esteemed criminal law professor is executed in his garage; investigators follow a series of leads taking them on a statewide...

www.imdb.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/afro-colombian-women-braid-messages-of-freedom-in-hairstyles/2011/07/08/gIQA6X9W4H_story.html

''The message in the women’s braids “was the best way to not give back any suspicion to owner. He would never figure out such a hairstyle would mean they would escape.”

Not every woman who was planning to escape had the same braids.

“Always,” Asprilla Garcia says, “there was a big mother in the whole group.” Such matriarchs always had a distinctive hairstyle. “The rest would know what it meant.”

 

[Gypsy Road]

I’m getting anxious about what KM’s proffer may bring …or mostly - what it may not bring, and my mind is getting flooded on overload. When I’m in this anxious state, I may not always think logically so please forgive me for my rambling mind.

After all the lying she’s done, what could possibly come out of KM’s mouth now that would bring charges against Donna and Wendi at this point? KM is damaged and is so not credible that just her words now couldn’t possibly be enough to have Wendy and Donna charged could they? Wouldn’t she need to produce some type of pretty solid proof and receipts that she’s now telling the truth at this point? I wonder if any of her family will be questioned now, or offer up any evidence or proof? Will a grand jury be called after her proffer for a possible arrest for Donna and Wendi?

Ugh ….I just want this to happen!

 

[Marysmith]

I’m getting anxious about what KM’s proffer may bring …or mostly - what it may not bring, and my mind is getting flooded on overload. When I’m in this anxious state, I may not always think logically so please forgive me for my rambling mind.

After all the lying she’s done, what could possibly come out of KM’s mouth now that would bring charges against Donna and Wendi at this point? KM is damaged and is so not credible that just her words now couldn’t possibly be enough to have Wendy and Donna charged could they? Wouldn’t she need to produce some type of pretty solid proof and receipts that she’s now telling the truth at this point? I wonder if any of her family will be questioned now, or offer up any evidence or proof? Will a grand jury be called after her proffer for a possible arrest for Donna and Wendi?

Ugh ….I just want this to happen!

I hear you. I feel strongly too that unless they are arrested pretty quickly here it might never happen - and I can’t imagine that.

 

[vislaw]

I’m getting anxious about what KM’s proffer may bring …or mostly - what it may not bring, and my mind is getting flooded on overload. When I’m in this anxious state, I may not always think logically so please forgive me for my rambling mind.

After all the lying she’s done, what could possibly come out of KM’s mouth now that would bring charges against Donna and Wendi at this point? KM is damaged and is so not credible that just her words now couldn’t possibly be enough to have Wendy and Donna charged could they? Wouldn’t she need to produce some type of pretty solid proof and receipts that she’s now telling the truth at this point? I wonder if any of her family will be questioned now, or offer up any evidence or proof? Will a grand jury be called after her proffer for a possible arrest for Donna and Wendi?

Ugh ….I just want this to happen!

While Katie's prior perjury certainly damages her credibility, it doesn't eliminate her value completely. Georgia Cappleman has proven herself to be quite a chess player and I suspect she is evaluating Katie's testimony from several angles:

1) You ask, "After all the lying she's done, what could possibly come out of KM's mouth now that would bring charges against Donna and Wendi at this point?" Whether or not Katie is credible is a different question from whether or not her testimony might support charges. Let's say Katie now is willing to testify under oath that Charlie told her about family meetings with his mother and sister whereby they planned the murder. She further explains how Wendi was the "brains" behind the plan and that Wendi was insistent that they insulate her from any involvement or communication because she would have the obvious motive.

We can all agree that it would be difficult to convict Wendi or Donna on Katie's word alone in this case. On the other hand, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence and, quite frankly, almost NO other plausible suspect not named Adelson. Therefore, if Katie swears under oath that such a conversation occurred, it would almost certainly be more than enough to take to a grand jury with the rest of the circumstantial evidence to get an indictment against both Wendi and Donna. [And, yes, such testimony would be hearsay under the rule, but it would be admitted under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule].

My belief is that Georgia and her team want to bring charges against all three Adelsons to be tried together. Imagine that Katie does take the stand to describe in detail the foregoing. She would be savaged on cross examination, of course, but it would put enormous pressure on Wendi and Donna to take the stand to refute it and you can bet Georgia is salivating over the prospect of crossing Donna Adelson and Wendi now. Katie is damaged goods, but she could still be the link necessary to get the indictments. Remember, there is NO cross examination and NO defense participation in grand jury proceedings.

2) The second possibility is that Katie may have corroborating evidence. There may be family members or friends who she can have testify that they were aware of whatever facts she is now going to reveal. We just don't know. There might be documents or recordings that could be critical. It is a long shot, but there's still a possibility that there will be something incriminating behind the way the defense got financed. There could be a third-party unknown at this time who acted as an intermediary and who might be able to testify that the Adelsons were funding the defense and influencing Katie's decision-making.

3) Even if none of the foregoing is correct, you cannot overlook the fact that, to win, a trial attorney must tell a story that is both believable and engaging. My current company does a lot of work consulting with trial attorneys on the elements of persuasive science that cause people to make decisions -- and, specifically, how jurors make decisions. Katie is now a HUGE part of the story that will unfold in the upcoming trial(s). As a cooperating witness, she suddenly takes on a starring role in the new case and her testimony will unquestionably be riveting. She presents an intriguing picture as being both evil and despicable, while also being a sad broken doll who threw her life away, leaving innocent kids behind who we all will feel sorry for.

In many ways, a good trial lawyer is akin to a good movie director. Juries react to the story unfolding before them and a good trial lawyer casts his or her trial to tell that story as effectively as possible. Being able to present Katie within a controlled narrative using the resources and power of the state makes her extraordinarily valuable even if she's seen as a lying killer. We all are fascinated by such figures (see, e.g., Bundy, Dahmer, etc.). Trust me, Katie has already auditioned for the part, and I trust Georgia to know how to use her as a white pawn now.

 

[Mariposa]

I’m getting anxious about what KM’s proffer may bring …or mostly - what it may not bring, and my mind is getting flooded on overload. When I’m in this anxious state, I may not always think logically so please forgive me for my rambling mind.

After all the lying she’s done, what could possibly come out of KM’s mouth now that would bring charges against Donna and Wendi at this point? KM is damaged and is so not credible that just her words now couldn’t possibly be enough to have Wendy and Donna charged could they? Wouldn’t she need to produce some type of pretty solid proof and receipts that she’s now telling the truth at this point? I wonder if any of her family will be questioned now, or offer up any evidence or proof? Will a grand jury be called after her proffer for a possible arrest for Donna and Wendi?

Ugh ….I just want this to happen!

I would separate out WA and DA when thinking about persons that may potentially still be charged. There has been a lot of evidence implicating DA already (the wiretap convos with CA after the bump, her unhinged emails to WA about DM, and of course SIGNING KM’s CHECKS). IMO WA is the one who has a lot more evidence needed before charges are possible, that maybe KM would be key to provide.

FWIW, in this podcast

The Dan Markel Case: An Interview With Steven Epstein

Listen now | A litigator turned bestselling true-crime author, Epstein has written the definitive work about Markel's remarkable life and tragic death.

davidlat.substack.com

with book author Steven Epstein and David Lat they even discuss how SG could possibly reduce his sentence with a proffer as well. Who knows how much he was insulated from the “A” family members by KM but he might have something worthwhile to say. They talk about how unlike KM, SG has never testified so can’t be impeached someday on the stand by his own prior statements. It’s a little out there but I think they also talk about how he might be a cleaner witness than LR to some things because LR has given so many police interviews and multiple testimonies that have some contradictions. (Don’t know if I agree with that because my impression was SG was a drunken and coked up mess during the time period of the crime and actually LR has been a pretty credible witness throughout)

 

[Gypsy Road]

Thank you @vislaw!

I’m always appreciative of your wise and informative posts, so thank you for your long detailed post. I know we are all so anxious for the outcome of this proffer.

On another note, I worry and wonder about Dan’s boys right now. I can’t begin to understand what they must be dealing with psychologically. They’ve been raised by an evil family, but at the same time - it’s a family they, no doubt, love. I wonder if they will remain with Harvey if Donna and Wendy are arrested or if the Markels will finally have access to them. My heart aches for those kids. Jeez…I can even imagine.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I would separate out WA and DA when thinking about persons that may potentially still be charged. There has been a lot of evidence implicating DA already (the wiretap convos with CA after the bump, her unhinged emails to WA about DM, and of course SIGNING KM’s CHECKS). IMO WA is the one who has a lot more evidence needed before charges are possible, that maybe KM would be key to provide.

FWIW, in this podcast

The Dan Markel Case: An Interview With Steven Epstein

Listen now | A litigator turned bestselling true-crime author, Epstein has written the definitive work about Markel's remarkable life and tragic death.

davidlat.substack.com

with book author Steven Epstein and David Lat they even discuss how SG could possibly reduce his sentence with a proffer as well. Who knows how much he was insulated from the “A” family members by KM but he might have something worthwhile to say. They talk about how unlike KM, SG has never testified so can’t be impeached someday on the stand by his own prior statements. It’s a little out there but I think they also talk about how he might be a cleaner witness than LR to some things because LR has given so many police interviews and multiple testimonies that have some contradictions. (Don’t know if I agree with that because my impression was SG was a drunken and coked up mess during the time period of the crime and actually LR has been a pretty credible witness throughout)

I’ve wondered about SG and how insulated he might have been, and if he will talk now to corroborate anything KM has offered up to the State. I’m not a legal person or legal minded, but posts above thread suggest that he will not be needed. Time will tell I guess. I didn’t realize that he was also offered deals before he went to trial, but choose to protect Katie instead.

I just put Steve Epstein’s book in my Amazon cart the other day — I must read it. I’m off to order it now.

 

[Mariposa]

I’ve wondered about SG and how insulated he might have been, and if he will talk now to corroborate anything KM has offered up to the State. I’m not a legal person or legal minded, but posts above thread suggest that he will not be needed. Time will tell I guess. I didn’t realize that he was also offered deals before he went to trial, but choose to protect Katie instead.

I just put Steve Epstein’s book in my Amazon cart the other day — I must read it. I’m off to order it now.

One thing in the Extreme Punishment book I learned was that KM had a hung jury in 2019 because one juror refused to convict both SG and KM because she felt it was not fair to their kids. And that juror convinced at least one more juror of the same. Maybe it’s well known that happened but I might have missed it!

Also the book noted the 2019 jury generally was very negative about WA’s testimony. The book says one juror wrote “lying b—-h” on their notepad about her testimony.

 

[Weki]

One thing in the Extreme Punishment book I learned was that KM had a hung jury in 2019 because one juror refused to convict both SG and KM because she felt it was not fair to their kids. And that juror convinced at least one more juror of the same. Maybe it’s well known that happened but I might have missed it!

Also the book noted the 2019 jury generally was very negative about WA’s testimony. The book says one juror wrote “lying b—-h” on their notepad about her testimony.

Interesting. That’s the juror that Mentour Lawyer interviewed and I don’t remember her saying that was the reason during her interview but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were. I could tell she was incapable of making intelligent/serious judgments about the evidence. That would be a decision based on sympathy - the other jurors should’ve reported it and had her replaced by an alternate!

However, it’s interesting to contemplate whether trying KM with SG with LR as your star witness makes her an inadvertently sympathetic figure to some jurors. It’s hard to see KM as a mastermind with the likes of LR in the room. That’s something to consider if they try Wendi and Donna with Charlie. Who becomes the sympathetic figure there? Hm. I could see a juror or 2 feeling like wow we gotta send this whole family to prison? Even the grandma?

 

[Hiller]

This is my first post, but I am familiar with this case.

In my view, there is at least one immutable truth in this case: none of the Adelsons would ever, under any circumstances, take a chance that either of the two boys could be put in danger of physical harm while the plot was carried out or be present when their father was killed. Therefore, the plotters would have to know with absolute certainty that the boys were at school/pre-school at the time the murder took place, and not with their father (who had custody on the morning of the murder) or at his home.

Obviously, they were not going to rely on low-life murderers to confirm that the boys were not with their father. Nor do I think they would have been willing to assume that if neither of the boys was in the car when Dan returned home, it was impossible for one of them to have been at his home (e.g., sick home with a babysitter) while Dan was working out. They needed to be 100% sure that Dan dropped the boys off at school/preschool and that is where they were when Dan returned home from the health club.

Assuming that they did not involve third parties (e.g., Wendi’s friends) in the plot, there was only way to achieve that certainty and that was to have Wendi confirm to her satisfaction that the boys were indeed at school/preschool. And the only way to do that, given that Wendi was at home waiting for the smashed TV monitor repairman (her alibi), was for Wendi to communicate electronically with the school/preschool to confirm the boys’ whereabouts. ( I am not going to contemplate that she would rely on anyone else to go to the school(s) to try to confirm that the boys were there or to have someone else call the school(s) and raise suspicion).

I am sure that all of the above is well-known to the prosecution team and that they have explored all communications with the school/pre-school on the morning of the murder and interviewed staff at the school(s). I don’t think that these particular communications would have been focused on in the previous trials, as Wendi was not a defendant. I am certain that there had to be a final “go” communication to Garcia emanating from Wendy, almost certainly communicated to Garcia through KM. I wonder: will details of this be an important part of KM’s proffer?

I welcome comments/contrary opinions/correction of errors.

 

[vislaw]

This is my first post, but I am familiar with this case.

In my view, there is at least one immutable truth in this case: none of the Adelsons would ever, under any circumstances, take a chance that either of the two boys could be put in danger of physical harm while the plot was carried out or be present when their father was killed. Therefore, the plotters would have to know with absolute certainty that the boys were at school/pre-school at the time the murder took place, and not with their father (who had custody on the morning of the murder) or at his home.

Obviously, they were not going to rely on low-life murderers to confirm that the boys were not with their father. Nor do I think they would have been willing to assume that if neither of the boys was in the car when Dan returned home, it was impossible for one of them to have been at his home (e.g., sick home with a babysitter) while Dan was working out. They needed to be 100% sure that Dan dropped the boys off at school/preschool and that is where they were when Dan returned home from the health club.

Assuming that they did not involve third parties (e.g., Wendi’s friends) in the plot, there was only way to achieve that certainty and that was to have Wendi confirm to her satisfaction that the boys were indeed at school/preschool. And the only way to do that, given that Wendi was at home waiting for the smashed TV monitor repairman (her alibi), was for Wendi to communicate electronically with the school/preschool to confirm the boys’ whereabouts. ( I am not going to contemplate that she would rely on anyone else to go to the school(s) to try to confirm that the boys were there or to have someone else call the school(s) and raise suspicion).

I am sure that all of the above is well-known to the prosecution team and that they have explored all communications with the school/pre-school on the morning of the murder and interviewed staff at the school(s). I don’t think that these particular communications would have been focused on in the previous trials, as Wendi was not a defendant. I am certain that there had to be a final “go” communication to Garcia emanating from Wendy, almost certainly communicated to Garcia through KM. I wonder: will details of this be an important part of KM’s proffer?

I welcome comments/contrary opinions/correction of errors.

This is an excellent post and I agree with the author's conclusions. If the prosecution accepts the proffer I am confident they will make Katie tell everything she knows about this very issue.