GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #18

[jennyjenny]

Ok but there are no houses in that visual. Isom said 4 houses and Brannon 2 I think. Then the video you mention says it was AT DAN’ house. So not sure where the tape is there. Why are no houses on that map?

Knitpicker ... not sure if I've linked correctly. These show houses

 

[Knitpicker]

Knitpicker ... not sure if I've linked correctly. These show houses

 

[cottonweaver]

It looks possible with that vehicle that he might have been able to see something to the left of the seat, but with DM being in the garage (and it being darker) it seems to make it quite difficult for LR to make out anything DM might have done.

maybe so - dark garage makes it harder to see movements & silhouettes.
It's so long since the first trial, I can't recall much about the plausibility of state's ballistics expert other than he'd been at pains to prove the shooter was very tall rather than very short. ( Trajectory) No recollection at all of how Sig Garcia's lawyer attacked that

 

[cottonweaver]

I have heard other judges saying -- after a conviction -- good luck to you. (Just saying.) As to the "stupor" -- seriously, if DA had been prescribed benzos by a physician (and, if so, may have been taking them for many years), she could have been under the sedative effects of such medication. I know it is quite dangerous to stop these benzodiazepines "cold turkey." If she had been prescribed benzos, and had an active prescription, I would think that they would have to give her that medication (or be sued, and DA would definitely sue).

Agree. I also think she will get her prescription refilled - she's not a convict and afaik different rules apply to convicts & meds vs indicted awaiting trial.

(I keep hearing it said - Donna will fall apart , Donna won't make it to trial etc and that issue of meds is given as the main cause.)

ETA. To be clear, after a guilty verdict, post sentencing, I believe different rules apply and she'd be on the cheapest substitute meds

 

[Orange Tabby]

Yeah, we agree. …

SBM

I’m absolutely certain there are of gobs of people who have a deeper understanding of the many details and ramifications of this case because of you and the the time you take to post details and comments. I am one of them.

Thanks for all you do; amicuscurie, you rock!

 

[cottonweaver]

The “They” above refers to DA and HA.

I would summarize the situation a little differently. Perhaps we agree completely and I am only offering more detail.

The defense put CA and DA on their witness list at the last minute. When the prosecution said they wanted to interview the two of them, they had no choice but to request an investigative subpoena to interview them, as CA and HA would not speak to the state voluntarily, or perhaps at this stage the pair had specifically said they would invoke the Fifth.

The defense objected, arguing that the request for such a subpoena was too late. The prosecution countered by saying that they acted as soon as the parents were placed on the witness list, either implying or saying outright that the defense was trying to game them by putting the ‘rents on the witness list at the very last minute.

The judge then agreed to issue the the investigative subpoena. I’m not certain (lawyers and case experts can weigh in on this, particularly if I am wrong), but I believe such an investigative subpoena in Florida protects the witnesses in such interviews to the same use immunity and derivative use immunity that WA has had as a testifying witness in all three trials of the murderers of DM. So CA and HA would not have had the option of invoking their Fifth Amendment rights during the questioning the prosecution was about to conduct subject to the judge-approved subpoena.

The next thing the public learned was twofold: (1) CA and HA were removed from the defense witness list; and (2) the prosecution had withdrawn its investigative subpoena. This was an agreement by both parties.

Who benefited more from this outcome? I’m not sure. But there’s a case to be made that the state came out ahead. I say this because it meant that neither DA nor HA could get on the stand and issue enormous whoppers, small lies, and a plethora of “I don’t remembers” to benefit CA. The prosecution also benefited because CA and HA would likely have told them little during the investigative questioning and if they did, the limited immunity could well have posed a problem in ensuring that the two of them faced criminal consequences from the meager fruits of the questioning.

It’s a very interesting idea that had they remained on the witness list, they would have scampered rather than testify on Charlie’s behalf. You suggest that the family that murders together does not voluntarily face the prosecution together! A most interesting proposition and speaks volumes about the Adelson family.

ETA: Had they tried to run during the trial and had been subject to subpoena, could they have been arrested for attempting to evade a subpoena?

Bumping this post because it's a more even-handed analysis than many I've seen from commentators in the media

also because of this point, which is perfect for the Adelsons :

the family that murders together does not voluntarily face the prosecution together! A most interesting proposition and speaks volumes about the Adelson family.

 

[Weki]

@Orange Tabby Re Wendi doing a jazz solo with the facts - beautifully put! You must be a writer?

Regarding, Donna and Harvey being on the defense witness list and all the drama that ensued between the parties…..it’s hard for me to believe that Rashbaum was ever planning to call either of them to testify! They were never gonna appear in court at CA’s trial! Never! Because let’s not forget if they had testified on Charlie’s behalf they would be subject to cross examination by the state and would NOT be entitled to immunity! I wonder why Rashbaum did it? To try to see what the state would do to gauge whether DA was gonna be arrested too?

Or was it done to manipulate Charlie? Rashbaum was Donna and Harvey’s lawyer first so I believe he is enmeshed in the family drama. I wonder if they did it to make Charlie feel like “mom and dad are here for you, we’re gonna stick together through this.” All the while knowing full well testifying was out of the question! That would explain why Rashbaum tried to sneak it in to avoid the investigative subpoena.
JMO

 

[Wishbone]

Knitpicker ... not sure if I've linked correctly. These show houses

Viewing the video showing the crime scene at Dan's house and seeing all the activity around it, I wondered how WA could not have been emotionally or physically affected by it when she saw it all. To carry on with her "errands" and lunch and then the police interview and to maintain her composure it seems would be difficult. She must be one cool cucumber and colder than I even imagined.

 

[turaj]

But weren't they once a normal family? I just can't imagine . . . what happened!?

Maybe from the outside looking in they were a normal family at one time but then again who really knows?

 

[Knitty]

Thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #19