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

[Honeynut]

They can put her phone at a tower to see where she was, but I guess if she wasn’t calling anyone between 10 and 12:30 theoretically it wouldn’t ping. It pings at 12:30 near her house, and then it pings later near the liquor store. They do have her phone records, they probably know if she made any calls after 10 and where she made them from. And she gave them the computer which had time stamps for what she was working on that morning. She was quick to volunteer that.

Explain why WA testified ( which trial) she was on overseas call to a friend , while running by Dan's & headed to liquor store & lunch.
Jus me but when I call anyone in a distant time zone to catch up ( per her), Im at home in my jammies w a glass of wine. not while running errands with a pending appointment ( lunch).

 

[alexwood]

People are assuming this is some kind of a normal family. They are not.

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

 

[TrialLurking]

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

The kids grew up and new people entered their lives. Mama was not going to lose control of her own children to a spouse.

 

[Teche]

I just posted referring to the article, but I don't know how to post it. Thank you. I was just saying how it very well explains why WA was talking on a recorded line about her plans to unalive herself as an excuse to say why she was putting all their assets in trusts so that they can't be sued now.

Does that mean that Donna won't have access to their money because the money is in trust? It'll be sweet if she has to be represented by public defenders. I'm not putting public defenders down.

 

[Orange Tabby]

They were going to be called as witnesses, but then they took the fifth and refused to be interviewed and the state dropped it. I can’t imagine they would have showed up, JMO

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?

 

[Missyrocks5]

Does that mean that Donna won't have access to their money because the money is in trust? It'll be sweet if she has to be represented by public defenders. I'm not putting public defenders down.

They're so slippery. i expect they have money overseas & i bet tons of cash around here in addition to making themselves judgment- proof.

 

[amicuscurie]

I just posted referring to the article, but I don't know how to post it. Thank you. I was just saying how it very well explains why WA was talking on a recorded line about her plans to unalive herself as an excuse to say why she was putting all their assets in trusts so that they can't be sued now.

I think they probably were doing that, good point.

 

[amicuscurie]

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?

Yeah, we agree. I just couldn’t write all that as well as you did.

 

[skyedaze]

Looking at her mugshot, I wonder if she even regrets that. She probably saw the writing on the wall for a while starting with CA"s arrest. The lady in the mugshot looks steely and resigned--even defiant (consider by contrast CA's mugshot, in which he looked equal parts terrified and nearly crying). She's not ancient but she's lived a long and full life. One possibility is that she's like, "Hey, I won. I got rid of that a$$hole who was trapping my precious daughter and grandkids in Tallahassee, spent over a decade with them, and now they're all safely ensconced in SoFla with a shitload of money." This may seem insane and pathological, but then again we're talking about a woman who orchestrated a murder to get what she wanted. Insane and pathological does not seem farfetched at all to me. And so I could totally see her saying "I got what I wanted, and if that means I now have to spend the rest of my (relatively short at this point) life in prison, so be it." Not to mention the possibility that some rich Miami lawyer may, just may be able to manufacture pity and/or RD in one of twelve jury members.

Lots of speculation, of course, but seeing how hard she looked in her mug shot compared to CA's lost-boy almost-weeping mugshot has really made me think more about their relative character. In particular, it makes me think she was the tough guy all along and his tough-guy act was just overcompensation for being a momma's boy.

Oh I agree. I still think she regrets getting caught...but not the death of Dan Markel. She got what she wanted and does not regret that at all.

 

[amicuscurie]

Explain why WA testified ( which trial) she was on overseas call to a friend , while running by Dan's & headed to liquor store & lunch.
Jus me but when I call anyone in a distant time zone to catch up ( per her), Im at home in my jammies w a glass of wine. not while running errands with a pending appointment ( lunch).

i my opinion, she might have wanted to have a way to say she was distracted, or to create some kind of record of what she was doing. I wonder if they have interviewed this person. I wonder if she said anything at all about a roadblock on that call.

 

[Ferpo]

The Adelsons had $8M cash in 2014. Assuming the emancipation year for the children is ~2027 (13 years total), it would have been easy for DA/HA to:

• Buy a really nice condo in Tallahassee ($300K) in 2014 and sell at a profit in 2027.
• Keep a Lexus up there too ($50K)
• Buy a 26-pack of round-trip airline tickets to/from Tallahassee per year for each of them, for every other weekend when WA had the kids. $400 x 2 x 26 x 13 years = $270K
• Assume worst-case that WA is underemployed or unemployed in Tallahassee the whole 13 years. She was making $115K/year at FSU so if DA/HA paid her that much as an allowance, that would be $1.4M total.

Estimated total outlay over 13 years = $2M with the hope that if the kids really liked them, they could move to South Florida on their own after emancipation and be close to DA/HA during their golden years. That $8M in the bank, of course, would have grown over the years, covering a good portion of these outlays.

It's incomprehensible how and why they schemed this murder. It won't be anytime soon but I hope that both CA and DA will allow prison psychologists to fully examine them someday and report on their findings.

 

[jennyjenny]

Did she really welcome everyone in French? If you are just joking, I give you credit for it -- hilarious!

100% ... she really did!! I loved it!

 

[amicuscurie]

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

I don’t think they were ever a normal family, JMO

 

[Knitpicker]

trying to catch up ... not sure if this has been answered but I have these screen shots taken from video that Carl Steinbeck put together. Also, @ghibercz on YT has a really good one.

View attachment 462158View attachment 462159View attachment 462160

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?

 

[amicuscurie]

The Adelsons had $8M cash in 2014. Assuming the emancipation year for the children is ~2027 (13 years total), it would have been easy for DA/HA to:

• Buy a really nice condo in Tallahassee ($300K) in 2014 and sell at a profit in 2027.
• Keep a Lexus up there too ($50K)
• Buy a 26-pack of round-trip airline tickets to/from Tallahassee per year for each of them, for every other weekend when WA had the kids. $400 x 2 x 26 x 13 years = $270K
• Assume worst-case that WA is underemployed or unemployed in Tallahassee the whole 13 years. She was making $115K/year at FSU so if DA/HA paid her that much as an allowance, that would be $1.4M total.

Estimated total outlay over 13 years = $2M with the hope that if the kids really liked them, they could move to South Florida on their own after emancipation and be close to DA/HA during their golden years. That $8M in the bank, of course, would have grown over the years, covering a good portion of these outlays.

It's incomprehensible how and why they schemed this murder. It won't be anytime soon but I hope that both CA and DA will allow prison psychologists to fully examine them someday and report on their findings.

And that is the worst case scenario. Nothing is forever, and I think it is reasonable to speculate that the situation might possibly have changed or worked itself out somehow, perhaps with Dan possibly getting a job somewhere else or even eventually agreeing to let her move once tempers had cooled (she filed that relocation motion pretty early in the divorce process, while he might have been still reacting to the shock of the divorce and they might not have really settled into their new arrangements. That may be why the attorney thought it would not be granted). But to me, it seems like they were unable to see beyond what they wanted right then.

 

[amicuscurie]

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?

The video says the tape was attached to a pole right next to Dan’s mailbox and shows a lot of police officers, cars, lights, and emergency vehicles right in front of it. If that video is accurate, it looks to me like unmistakably a crime scene.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, but how would LR see that from his vantage point? He said he pulled in behind DM's car and was sitting behind the wheel when SG shot DM. I'd think the area around the rear window and the seat back would block his view of much of anything except SG doing the shooting.

I think he said he was close enough behind the car to see. I’d have to review that testimony.It was 11:00 and I believe the sun would have been behind them as Dans front faced east and the sun would have been east at about 11 am.

 

[Marysmith]

The Adelsons had $8M cash in 2014. Assuming the emancipation year for the children is ~2027 (13 years total), it would have been easy for DA/HA to:

• Buy a really nice condo in Tallahassee ($300K) in 2014 and sell at a profit in 2027.
• Keep a Lexus up there too ($50K)
• Buy a 26-pack of round-trip airline tickets to/from Tallahassee per year for each of them, for every other weekend when WA had the kids. $400 x 2 x 26 x 13 years = $270K
• Assume worst-case that WA is underemployed or unemployed in Tallahassee the whole 13 years. She was making $115K/year at FSU so if DA/HA paid her that much as an allowance, that would be $1.4M total.

Estimated total outlay over 13 years = $2M with the hope that if the kids really liked them, they could move to South Florida on their own after emancipation and be close to DA/HA during their golden years. That $8M in the bank, of course, would have grown over the years, covering a good portion of these outlays.

It's incomprehensible how and why they schemed this murder. It won't be anytime soon but I hope that both CA and DA will allow prison psychologists to fully examine them someday and report on their findings.

It is incomprehensible!!

 

[Orange Tabby]

She has said different things. When she first gets to the police station, she says she turned off Centerviile, drove down Trescott and saw the tape but thought it was a downed tree. At one of the trials, she said she saw the tape from Centerville so she didn’t even turn onto Trescott at all. At another trial (maybe Charlie‘s), she said she turned onto Trescott, saw the tape right there when she turned, and then did a K turn and went back to Centerville.

Wow. Just wow. Wendi is a lawyer yet she engages in such an incredibly elastic account of the facts over time.

I’m relatively new to this case and am astonished on a daily basis by all the posts here on WS showing Wendi’s utter disregard for consistency, let alone simple truths.

You, amicuscurie, who are clearly immersed and deeply conversant in the the facts and granular details of the murder and all three trials, have proved time and again how WA treats the facts like a jazz solo: a time to improvise for the audience, offering new flourishes as they occur to her.

Shameful.

And deeply incriminating.

 

[jennyjenny]

To make it easier for people, it starts at 2hrs 24minutes here. Jane laughs ' okay sweetie' and then laughs again after WA says ' that's all I know' ( by this point Jane knew there'd been a shooting)

Hey cottonweaver, using your link ... around the 4:51 mark WA - "I don't want those kids away from me like what if there's like a deranged gunman in town" ?!? On the loose, running loose, running wild, out there, roaming free, might not have caught my ear? Even deranged gunman in THIS town sounds better than IN town!! Maybe a slight Freudian slip??