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

[lulu212]

I still don't understand why CA was told to remain seated by the Judge, and not to stand as the jury entered the room. What was the purpose? If it was to hide the fact that he was cuffed, the jury had already reached their verdict, so it would not have had any impact. Can any explain this to me?

His ankles were also cuffed -- I think that's why they told him not to stand.

 

[alexwood]

His ankles were also cuffed -- I think that's why they told him not to stand.

But yet, he walked all the way from the holding area outside the courtroom, presumably with hands and ankles shackled. Seems that standing would not be a problem. Besides, he had to stand once he was being removed from the courtroom after he received his verdict. Maybe the judge felt sorry for him and wanted to ease his burden in a very small way?

 

[Seattle1]

Judge in Charlie Adelson trial denies defense request to interview jurors

The judge who presided over the murder trial of Charlie Adelson denied a request by his defense lawyer to interview jurors over a "group chat" that they reportedly created.

news.yahoo.com

Nov 10, 2023

[..]

"Given the extensive publicity surrounding this case, and the intense media and community interest in its outcome, we believe that an interview of the jurors ― either by this court or by undersigned counsel — is required to ensure the integrity of the jury's verdict in this case," Rashbaum wrote.

Tim Jansen, a prominent local attorney who provided daily analysis of the trial for the Democrat, said he didn't expect the defense motion to be granted. He also questioned why the alternate juror went to Adelson's lawyer rather than the clerk or judge.

"It doesn’t reach the threshold for the court to do anything," Jansen said. "There is no allegation of wrongdoing. The jurors are allowed to communicate with each other. They have breaks together and can have lunch together. Nothing prohibits them from talking or communicating. It’s obvious this alternate juror has an agenda."

[..]

 

[Seattle1]

But yet, he walked all the way from the holding area outside the courtroom, presumably with hands and ankles shackled. Seems that standing would not be a problem. Besides, he had to stand once he was being removed from the courtroom after he received his verdict. Maybe the judge felt sorry for him and wanted to ease his burden in a very small way?

IMO, the decision by Judge Everett not to have CA stand when the jury entered the room most likely goes back to Constitutional law and a defendant's civil right that provides for a defendant not to appear in court before his jurors wearing jail garb, including not appearing restrained before a verdict is delivered.

Naturally, there are always exceptions for safety and security reasons. Courts have gone through great efforts over the years to disguise a defendant's appearance in court while wearing restraints during the trial.

Also, for appellate purposes, I believe the trial being broadcast via multiple platforms around the world may have also influenced the decision.

Without a doubt, CA will appear shackled and wearing his jail jumpsuit when he next appears for sentencing!

I'm currently following Kaitlin Armstrong's trial in Austin, Tx where this defendant not only fled the country following the alleged murder of Mo Wilson but she also tried to escape a week before trial started! A known runner, you'd think she would be chained to the defense table! I think she's probably wearing some heavy shackles beneath her pant suit legs everyday that that she walks into court. JMO.

 

[ilovewings]

Thanks for the info. will be watching!!!

Watching now- OMG the Adelson family- so toxic

 

[turaj]

I am watching too. I don't think there is any media that does not think more arrests are down the line...I hope they move fast.

 

[srp]

Why didn’t the police identify Magbanua sooner? Lacasse and Wendi both mentioned the hit man joke and Charlie. Wouldn’t the police have probable cause to get Charlie’s phone records that would have showed the flurry of calls around the time of the shooting between Charlie, Magbanua and Donna.

 

[amicuscurie]

They would be much better off being Markel...that move by Wendi was just another indication to me that she is involved.

Dbm

 

[amicuscurie]

Why didn’t the police identify Magbanua sooner? Lacasse and Wendi both mentioned the hit man joke and Charlie. Wouldn’t the police have probable cause to get Charlie’s phone records that would have showed the flurry of calls around the time of the shooting between Charlie, Magbanua and Donna.

They should have at the very least gone down to South Florida and interviewed some of Charlie’s associates if he wouldn’t talk to them. Would have led to Katie in a hurry, and she might have talked before the whole bump went down and the family lawyered up.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Watching now- OMG the Adelson family- so toxic

So weird, it’s not on in Canada but is scheduled for tomorrow night.

 

[turaj]

So weird, it’s not on in Canada but is scheduled for tomorrow night.

It is well worth watching...a really complete look at the whole story and makes me hope more arrests are imminent. Donna is a really awful person as portrayed in this show.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Why didn’t the police identify Magbanua sooner? Lacasse and Wendi both mentioned the hit man joke and Charlie. Wouldn’t the police have probable cause to get Charlie’s phone records that would have showed the flurry of calls around the time of the shooting between Charlie, Magbanua and Donna.

So wild that Tamara Demko and especially Jeff Lacasse essentially solved this case a few days in.

On the one hand, identifying and interviewing Magbanua might have cracked the case sooner but it also could have ruined the whole thing if she lawyered up. Which seems likely given that she’s serving LWOP and still not telling anyone anything. And if she did lawyer up, the chances of a successful undercover and wiretap operation would be effectively zero. Still - it’s a great counterfactual.

I think TPD had the Adelsons firmly on their sights the second they fled Tallahassee in the embassy evacuation and lawyered up. That’s not what innocent people do when someone in the family with no vices or enemies gets assassinated. It’s like the angry husband who won’t search for his missing wife while hundreds of strangers are out doing grid searches through swamps. You’re guilty.

The Adelsons post-murder behaviour is one of the most surprising aspects of this case. They lawyered up and fled Tally. Wendi relocates forever. Charlie doesn’t show for the funeral. Change the kids last names and Bens middle name. Do a podcast calling the victim names and proclaiming yourself a victim, trying to get the Go Fund Me and trying to take over power of attorney of the estate. It’s almost like they’d rather go down for murder than even outwardly pretend that Dan Markel didn’t deserve it.

 

[alexwood]

IMO, the decision by Judge Everett not to have CA stand when the jury entered the room most likely goes back to Constitutional law and a defendant's civil right that provides for a defendant not to appear in court before his jurors wearing jail garb, including not appearing restrained before a verdict is delivered.

Naturally, there are always exceptions for safety and security reasons. Courts have gone through great efforts over the years to disguise a defendant's appearance in court while wearing restraints during the trial.

Also, for appellate purposes, I believe the trial being broadcast via multiple platforms around the world may have also influenced the decision.

Without a doubt, CA will appear shackled and wearing his jail jumpsuit when he next appears for sentencing!

I'm currently following Kaitlin Armstrong's trial in Austin, Tx where this defendant not only fled the country following the alleged murder of Mo Wilson but she also tried to escape a week before trial started! A known runner, you'd think she would be chained to the defense table! I think she's probably wearing some heavy shackles beneath her pant suit legs everyday that that she walks into court. JMO.

Thanks for this, Seattle1. This makes perfect sense now that you've explained it. Maybe Kaitlin Armstrong has been outfitted with a taser vest under her clothes. If she tries to run, they'll zap her! {Now, I'm off to the U.S. Patent Office to file my invention; hopefully, someone hasn't already laid claim to the concept. (Lol)}

 

[clearskies1]

So wild that Tamara Demko and especially Jeff Lacasse essentially solved this case a few days in.

On the one hand, identifying and interviewing Magbanua might have cracked the case sooner but it also could have ruined the whole thing if she lawyered up. Which seems likely given that she’s serving LWOP and still not telling anyone anything. And if she did lawyer up, the chances of a successful undercover and wiretap operation would be effectively zero. Still - it’s a great counterfactual.

I think TPD had the Adelsons firmly on their sights the second they fled Tallahassee in the embassy evacuation and lawyered up. That’s not what innocent people do when someone in the family with no vices or enemies gets assassinated. It’s like the angry husband who won’t search for his missing wife while hundreds of strangers are out doing grid searches through swamps. You’re guilty.

The Adelsons post-murder behaviour is one of the most surprising aspects of this case. They lawyered up and fled Tally. Wendi relocates forever. Charlie doesn’t show for the funeral. Change the kids last names and Bens middle name. Do a podcast calling the victim names and proclaiming yourself a victim, trying to get the Go Fund Me and trying to take over power of attorney of the estate. It’s almost like they’d rather go down for murder than even outwardly pretend that Dan Markel didn’t deserve it.

LE definitely had Charlie in their sights as of 2016, but the State Attorney, Willie Meggs, would not move forward with LE's probable cause affidavit. Documents detail potential links to Markel's in-laws

 

[floridafreshsqueez]

Ugh, can't believe I missed the new 20/20 coverage!

Does anyone know when it'll be available online? I expect it'll be available on Hulu eventually.

 

[B4igo2it]

Ugh, can't believe I missed the new 20/20 coverage!

Does anyone know when it'll be available online? I expect it'll be available on Hulu eventually.

will be available on Hulu tomorrow

 

[B4igo2it]

I found the ABC 2020 airing this evening to be factual and of good quality.

 

[cottonweaver]

The Adelsons post-murder behaviour is one of the most surprising aspects of this case. They lawyered up and fled Tally. Wendi relocates forever. Charlie doesn’t show for the funeral. Change the kids last names and Bens middle name. Do a podcast calling the victim names and proclaiming yourself a victim, trying to get the Go Fund Me and trying to take over power of attorney of the estate. It’s almost like they’d rather go down for murder than even outwardly pretend that Dan Markel didn’t deserve it.

snipped just to jump off this paragraph's sentence

We discussed the planning for the 'Aftermath' phase and when it kicks in.
Wendi tees it up with her posed question to Jane MacPherson ( doctoral student, now Professor) ' Who's next Jane?' ( at timestamp) soon after Jane enters the room.

a few more examples-
-Harvey 'frantic planted in a chair in case somebody comes to shoot-up the house' ( Rashbaum trial 3)
- DA & HA, at memorial service, ask TPD for police protection,
- Adelson's leave Tally ( claim it's for safety)
- CA's CCTV purchase receipts.


timestamp 2hrs 33 ' who's next Jane?'

July 2014 statement from Wendi’s lawyer ( Victim & one who's in fear for her life. 'Aftermath' phase narrative)
"She's a basket case...She's scared to death for her children. She's scared to death for herself."
"Gone from having children with two parents to children with one parent with no warning.

WA Podcast 'Why ….I should be treated like a murder suspect and not the mother of two fatherless boys'

Tamara Demko July 2014 to Isom ' Wendy is brilliant at redirection'

 

[cottonweaver]

BTW, if you look at that timestamp of the interview & scroll forward a few mins, there's that reference to Jane assuming DM had assaulted her and Wendi replying wtte ' I think that's what Lisa thought too'
( OFC Wendi has told Isom that Danny never owned a gun so why would she immediately think Lisa thought Dan had shot Wendi?)

Also - can somebody check this next point?

At 2.46pm WA: I just listened to my voicemail' ( Rashbaum said the interview started around 2.45pm)
Isom - 'yes that’s what it’s about - sorry you had to hear this way
WA: I'm sorry ( sorry for playing/hearing it & not waiting for Isom to tell her officially ?)
Isom: - do you want to play it again?'.. ( Lisa Carey's voicemail replayed again)
---
But ...surely she hasn’t just listened to it, call logs shown at Trial 3 show that she possibly listened to voicemail at 2.14pm, before Isom picked her up??
( screen shot from Trial 3. the full call log screenshot is too large to post)

 

[amicuscurie]

snipped just to jump off this paragraph's sentence

We discussed the planning for the 'Aftermath' phase and when it kicks in.
Wendi tees it up with her posed question to Jane MacPherson ( doctoral student, now Professor) ' Who's next Jane?' ( at timestamp) soon after Jane enters the room.

a few more examples-
-Harvey 'frantic planted in a chair in case somebody comes to shoot-up the house' ( Rashbaum trial 3)
- DA & HA, at memorial service, ask TPD for police protection,
- Adelson's leave Tally ( claim it's for safety)
- CA's CCTV purchase receipts.


timestamp 2hrs 33 ' who's next Jane?'

July 2014 statement from Wendi’s lawyer ( Victim & one who's in fear for her life. 'Aftermath' phase narrative)
"She's a basket case...She's scared to death for her children. She's scared to death for herself."
"Gone from having children with two parents to children with one parent with no warning.

WA Podcast 'Why ….I should be treated like a murder suspect and not the mother of two fatherless boys'

Tamara Demko July 2014 to Isom ' Wendy is brilliant at redirection'

Yep. None of this has ever made sense to me. Yes, Dan was shot. But Isom tells her their belief is that Dan was was targeted, and when she expresses fear for the boys, he expressly tells her there is no reason to believe anyone else is in danger. He tells her this very early on. It’s just a gut feeling I have, I’ve never been in that situation so I don’t know how I would react. Hypothetically, wouldn’t the natural impulse be to believe this was something related to Dan‘s own life, which he has led without you for two years? Why would the whole family be targeted, let alone the EX wife? Its not an intact family, and hasn’t been for two years. Even if someone didn’t like Dan, why go after his EX wife? They live in different houses, so the killers would know they’re not together. Who would have a vendetta against a broken family with two households? What would that vendetta be? It’s another weirdness. IMO.

Also, Katie testified that Charlie when she got to his house after the murder was very frightened and upset, had a gun, and took a Xanax. What was that about? Did he think the killers might come after him? I know she isnt the most truthful, but there’s no reason for her to lie about this.