GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #17

[B4igo2it]

Florida Politics, April 25, 2022 - At this time, Charlie has been arrested. Preparations for Katie's May 16, 2022 trial are in progress. "The state has said they want the two trials joined, but Magbanua’s defense disagrees." (I'm glad this didn't happen). I have found Florida Politics to be spot on and one of the best sources of journalism throughout this horrific crime. Going forward and hoping for more convictions, see snipped and bolded tidbits:

"One particular family connection — the former chief judge of Broward County and longtime State Senator — is Wendi’s godfather, Peter Weinstein. And his son, Michael Weinstein, was not only Charlie’s lifelong friend but also his lawyer at the time of the murder, providing advice to Charlie following the bump and defending the family on local and national television shows."

"Charlie and Wendi have other powerful connections.... At the time of the bump, Wendi was working as a clerk in a federal court. Charlie and Donna discuss this on a wiretap, revealing that Wendi’s judge was getting information from a Tallahassee judge to share with her about the case. Other current and former state legislators, local judges, and political advocates are in Adelson circles, too. ...Wendi was seen in a video with her current employer, Jason Feldman of Vault Health, and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. She has received public support from her former employer, Miami billionaire Mike Fernandez, and has been seen mingling with billionaire Mike Bloomberg."

"...the Jan. 21, 2022 motion the State Attorney’s Office wrote: “The evidence will show that the Adelsons, specifically Charlie Adelson, Wendi Adelson, and Donna Adelson, are co-conspirators to the murder and the ones who had the motive, and initiated the plot, to kill Mr. Markel. This was the first time Wendi herself had been publicly named by law enforcement as implicated in this crime."

"Dan’s mother, Ruth Markel, was asked what message, if any, she would want to send to the Adelson family following Charlie’s arrest. Her response is chilling. “I wouldn’t send them a message, but I believe this is a time for reflection,” Ruth said. “I would ask them, “Was it worth it? Was it worth it to kill my son?”

Motives, codewords, wiretaps, and persistence: Backstory of Charlie Adelson’s arrest

What’s to come in the Dan Markel murder case?

floridapolitics.com

 

[lulu212]

Just my opinion, but I don't think prosecutors will go after WA, and probably not DA. IMO it's already been a huge struggle to get KM and, they hope CA. Those two were the ones who made the murder happen, along with the driver and shooter.

A trial is to punish actions, not thoughts or words. Whatever WA/DA wanted or said, there is no evidence that they met with the killers, or gave direct instructions to the killers, or promised/gave money to the killers. Therefore, they are not legally responsible for the murder.

It's also possible that they were manipulated by CA, who was in the dominant personal/social/ financial position to them both.

JMO

I don't think it was much of a struggle -- Georgia took them down 1x1 with grace and ease, and the heavy fact-gathering phase is over. I also think the evidence is so stacked against DA (at a minimum) that letting her go would be a true miscarriage of justice.

 

[Cedars]

Donna wrote and signed checks, there is evidence to suggest she was at Charlie’s house the night of the murder to drop off the money. She doesn’t get a pass.

ETA Donna was driving this. Read her emails. She sounds positively unhinged, and consumed with hatred for Dan and the desire for Wendi and the boys to move to South Florida.

No doubt she wanted it. No doubt WA wished her ex was dead (not exactly the only person going through a custody dispute who has wanted that)

But was CA Donna's puppet, did he take orders from Mom? Did KM meet with DA?

Or was CA motivated for his own reasons, was he capable of deciding for himself what he wanted to do, and how to go about making it happen.

IIRC Donna was the bookkeeper. So she was the one who would normally write cheques, etc.

Again, I'm not declaring the two women morally innocent, I just doubt prosecutors will try to prove legal guilt.

JMO

 

[GordonX]

Just my opinion, but I don't think prosecutors will go after WA, and probably not DA. IMO it's already been a huge struggle to get KM and, they hope CA. Those two were the ones who made the murder happen, along with the driver and shooter.

A trial is to punish actions, not thoughts or words. Whatever WA/DA wanted or said, there is no evidence that they met with the killers, or gave direct instructions to the killers, or promised/gave money to the killers. Therefore, they are not legally responsible for the murder.

It's also possible that they were manipulated by CA, who was in the dominant personal/social/ financial position to them both.

JMO

DA cut the murder checks, DA talked in code, DA had the motive, DA drove the train.

 

[Cedars]

I don't think it was much of a struggle -- Georgia took them down 1x1 with grace and ease, and the heavy fact-gathering phase is over. I also think the evidence is so stacked against DA (at a minimum) that letting her go would be a true miscarriage of justice.

It's been 9 years...if it had been easy/simple this would have been done at least 7 years ago

JMO

 

[amicuscurie]

No doubt she wanted it. No doubt WA wished her ex was dead (not exactly the only person going through a custody dispute who has wanted that)

But was CA Donna's puppet, did he take orders from Mom? Did KM meet with DA?

Or was CA motivated for his own reasons, was he capable of deciding for himself what he wanted to do, and how to go about making it happen.

IIRC Donna was the bookkeeper. So she was the one who would normally write cheques, etc.

Again, I'm not declaring the two women morally innocent, I just doubt prosecutors will try to prove legal guilt.

JMO

I get it. Charlie set it up. But there is actual evidence against Donna. She’s legally culpable. When the bump happens, she says it’s about “the two of us.” This was something the two of them cooked up.

 

[ilovewings]

Just my opinion, but I don't think prosecutors will go after WA, and probably not DA. IMO it's already been a huge struggle to get KM and, they hope CA. Those two were the ones who made the murder happen, along with the driver and shooter.

A trial is to punish actions, not thoughts or words. Whatever WA/DA wanted or said, there is no evidence that they met with the killers, or gave direct instructions to the killers, or promised/gave money to the killers. Therefore, they are not legally responsible for the murder.

It's also possible that they were manipulated by CA, who was in the dominant personal/social/ financial position to them both.

JMO

I agree- they are not going to have the evidence necessary to convict WA beyond a reasonable doubt. I give law enforcement much credit for their hard work over many years to get those who made the murder happen. I just hate to see the instigator walk away scott free-- but that is the way it is. So be it.

 

[amicuscurie]

I agree- they are not going to have the evidence necessary to convict WA beyond a reasonable doubt. I give law enforcement much credit for their hard work over many years to get those who made the murder happen. I just hate to see the instigator walk away scott free-- but that is the way it is. So be it.

I’m thinking we don’t know all they have on Wendi. We saw more in this trial than in previous, there may be even more. The state limited its questioning of her because they couldn’t use anything against her in a future trial. That says to me that maybe there will be a future trial. But who knows. I do know that if more does come out, it will be shocking, because so many people believe she didn’t know. They did a good job of giving her plausible deniability.

 

[stamplewie]

If I'm reading the latest docket entry correctly, it looks like the court has denied CA's motion to interview the jurors. The order itself is sealed.

View attachment 459406

Yup, you are reading it right. State's opposition is sealed and so is the trial court's Order denying defense's request to interview the jury. This means that, at the trial court level, Charlie is out of cards. He played them all. He can appeal his murder conviction just as Katherine and Siegfredo have appealed, but it is effectively over for Charlie.

 

[ilovewings]

Yup, you are reading it right. State's opposition is sealed and so is the trial court's Order denying defense's request to interview the jury. This means that, at the trial court level, Charlie is out of cards. He played them all. He can appeal his murder conviction just as Katherine and Siegfredo have appealed, but it is effectively over for Charlie.

I guess Charlie doesn't mind being thrown under the bus by his sister, spending the rest of his miserable life in prison--- for Wendi----being manipulated to do her dirty work. Oh well----

 

[Cedars]

I just hate to see the instigator walk away scott free--

IMO, psychology is too complex to jump to conclusions without knowing the family dynamics and individual personalities.

For examply, CA may have loathed his brother-in-law for purely personal reasons: arrogance on either side, his profession, his personality, his new girlfriend, etc.

CA may have long harboured a desire to kill various people he hated, but held back because he didn't want to get caught.

CA may have loved shows like the Sopranos, the Godfather, Breaking Bad, and leapt at the chance to get involved in something like that, for real.

We just don't know what unusual forces propelled these people into this extraordinary situation.

ETA Doesn't matter how deeply I loath my ex, no way is my brother going to arrange to kill him for me. And he'd laugh in derision if my mother'd asked.

JMO

 

[amicuscurie]

IMO, psychology is too complex to jump to conclusions without knowing the family dynamics and individual personalities.

For examply, CA may have loathed his brother-in-law for purely personal reasons: arrogance on either side, his profession, his personality, his new girlfriend, etc.

CA may have long harboured a desire to kill various people he hated, but held back because he didn't want to get caught.

CA may have loved shows like the Sopranos, the Godfather, Breaking Bad, and leapt at the chance to get involved in something like that, for real.

We just don't know what unusual forced propelled these people into this extraordinary situation.

JMO

Probably a little bit of everything. The perfect storm. If any one factor was missing, it might not have happened. Charlie Meeting Katie. Katie knowing Sigfredo. Luis agreeing to go to Tallahassee. Charlie being who he is. Donna being who she is. The relocation motion being denied. Dan taking a job in Tallahassee. Wendi never breaking away from this enmeshed family. Anything. I think all crimes are like that.

 

[stamplewie]

I guess Charlie doesn't mind being thrown under the bus by his sister, spending the rest of his miserable life in prison--- for Wendi----being manipulated to do her dirty work. Oh well----

WA did NOT need to say at CA's trial on direct that she HEARD his extortion defense for the first time that morning but did not know whether it was true. She could have said she heard it for the first time in Court but did NOT need to add that sentence which sounded like she was questioning its viability. GC made sure to note that in her closing.

 

[justice1960]

It's been 9 years...if it had been easy/simple this would have been done at least 7 years ago

JMO

You know what they say "Better late than never"

"If you want peace, work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

 

[amicuscurie]

WA did NOT need to say at CA's trial on direct that she HEARD his extortion defense for the first time that morning but did not know whether it was true. She could have said she heard it for the first time in Court but did NOT need to add that sentence which sounded like she was questioning its viability. GC made sure to note that in her closing.

Yep. That was a weird thing to say. That and mentioning him during the police interview. Weird. Weird. Weird.

 

[clearskies1]

Regarding possible charges against other people, the State could charge conspiracy to commit murder, as opposed to murder. For conspiracy, the prosecution must prove: (1) the intent of the defendant was that the offense would be committed; and (2) the defendant agreed, combined, or confederated with another person to cause the offense to be committed by either of them, or by one of them, or by some other person. For conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that the defendant did any act in furtherance of the offense conspired. The agreement and intent alone are sufficient for a conviction.
JMO.

 

[stamplewie]

Yep. That was a weird thing to say. That and mentioning him during the police interview. Weird. Weird. Weird.

the difference between these two weird WA comments is that I think mentioning CA in the interview was all part of the plan ... that is, Wendi said it with full knowledge that her co-conspirators thought it would play as reverse psychology -- it couldn't be Charlie bc he wouldn't say it if that is what he intended and she wouldn't repeat it. i think all of them thought it was funny that the TV became the alibi. so twisted. but WA comment in open court at CA's trial which seemed to question the underlying truth of his extortion defense appeared entirely unplanned and it was a rare moment that she seemed caught off guard. in that instance, she seemed to throw him under the bus.

 

[clearskies1]

the difference between these two weird WA comments is that I think mentioning CA in the interview was all part of the plan ... that is, Wendi said it with full knowledge that her co-conspirators thought it would play as reverse psychology -- it couldn't be Charlie bc he wouldn't say it if that is what he intended and she wouldn't repeat it. i think all of them thought it was funny that the TV became the alibi. so twisted. but WA comment in open court at CA's trial which seemed to question the underlying truth of his extortion defense appeared entirely unplanned and it was a rare moment that she seemed caught off guard. in that instance, she seemed to throw him under the bus.

My impression of her trial testimony was that she was saying she had no knowledge of anything -- meaning questions to her about whether the defense was valid would be futile because she had zero knowledge and did not talk to him or anyone else about it. This would cut off further questioning on the topic. JMO.

 

[Cedars]

Regarding possible charges against other people, the State could charge conspiracy to commit murder, as opposed to murder. For conspiracy, the prosecution must prove: (1) the intent of the defendant was that the offense would be committed; and (2) the defendant agreed, combined, or confederated with another person to cause the offense to be committed by either of them, or by one of them, or by some other person. For conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that the defendant did any act in furtherance of the offense conspired. The agreement and intent alone are sufficient for a conviction.
JMO.

Yes, and CA was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, which underlies the conviction of 1st degree murder. IMO he was convicted because KM testified she was in a conspiracy with him.

KM was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, which underlies the conviction of first degree murder, because the driver testified against her that they were in a conspiracy to commit murder.

So, IMO, if they can get CA to testify that DA and WA were in the conspiracy with him, then they will be charged.

JMO

 

[clearskies1]

Yes, and CA was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, which underlies the conviction of 1st degree murder. IMO he was convicted because KM testified she was in a conspiracy with him.

KM was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, which underlies the conviction of first degree murder, because the driver testified against her that they were in a conspiracy to commit murder.

So, IMO, if they can get CA to testify that DA and WA were in the conspiracy with him, then they will be charged.

JMO

The testimony of one conspirator against another conspirator is not needed to prove the crime. Other evidence of an agreement/conspiracy can be enough. It's just a question of how strong the evidence is. JMO.