FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #14

[amicuscurie]

I do too. He told the whole truth I feel. And has no pretenses - like it is what it is period.

They have to call him, he talks about how Katie ordered Sig to do the murder, she knew all about it, etc.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Not sure what his purpose was for the defense...to backup the story about SF running CA off the road?

 

[nodamselindistress]

Just have to say this is one crazy trial so far!

 

[Blue Shakehead]

So weird that criminal mastermind Katie came up with the idea and the money and the shooters to go murder Dan Markel on the off-chance that Charlie wouldnt turn her in to the police, instead of just having her goons rob Charlie for the money.

 

[Mariposa]

They have to call him, he talks about how Katie ordered Sig to do the murder, she knew all about it, etc.

Right and he knew it was because of “the dentist”

I’m sure the defense attorney will try to make him say SG was jealous of “the dentist” to go with the blackmailing CA theory but I don’t think LR will play along with that foolishness.

 

[cottonweaver]

He said something bad about Charlie being a Jew. Like a slur.

yeah I just went back & replayed that section. ( have never heard that before)

 

[Gypsy Road]

So weird that criminal mastermind Katie came up with the idea and the money and the shooters to go murder Dan Markel on the off-chance that Charlie wouldnt turn her in to the police, instead of just having her goons rob Charlie for the money.

The idea gets more insane and ludicrous as time goes on. Lol

 

[Gypsy Road]

I don’t think reading Ryan’s texts out loud was a good idea for the defense! Lol. He threatened to call the FBI and called Charlie a murderer.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yeah! Luis! He’s a good witness. That’s all they have for him? Why is he being called for the defense? Why now?

 

[clearskies1]

Rivera has lost weight.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yeah! Luis! He’s a good witness. That’s all they have for him? Why is he being called for the defense? Why now?

I guess the judge just wanted to rule on what Rash could ask him?

 

[Mariposa]

Luis doing well.

 

[amicuscurie]

So…the blackmailers went to commit the crime knowing they would get paid a specific amount. Sure.

 

[amicuscurie]

Dbm

 

[cottonweaver]

So…the blackmailers went to commit the crime knowing they would get paid a specific amount. Sure.

900K less than Rushbaum's theory of the case!

 

[Montrealaise]

I agree. The prosecution has seemed off their game since this started. I thought Dugan sounded nervous and hesitant in her opening, and Georgia seems disorganized at times and over confident at others. She should NOT be making little asides, at least one has been stricken. I think they’ve tried this case twice and are overconfident.

They may be unprepared for this new theory. I think they may be flummoxed by the fact that the defense tactic is to neutralize most of their most damning evidence, like the phone calls and the money, by conceding to it. This leaves them with a limited area to focus on, and it’s not an area they focused on in the last two trials. They spent most of the time in the last two trials going over phone conversations and payments. They will probably do the same thing now, but now, the jury will be thinking the whole time “yes, but the defense has already explained that. Show us that Charlie planned it.” And what do they have to show planning on his part? The only thing they have that the defense can’t explain is Dolce Vita and what LaCasse says about Charlie, and one of those has been struck.

I also think that at this point, the state hates these people, they hate that they have to do this again, they hate that Wendi and Donna were never charged and might not be. And they are emotionally invested. And it shows.

Of course, the defense theory is completely ridiculous. Why wouldn’t he have gone to the police? Why is this the first we are hearing of it? If Charlie takes the stand, he’s toast. But he might not testify. Then it will be like Katie’s second trial, where she posited a theory in opening argument that she couldn’t back up. But, in that case, the evidence was not consistent with the theory. In this case, it is (arguably). Or at least the stuff that has been allowed in is.

Excellent points.

 

[amicuscurie]

900K less than Rushbaum's theory of the case!

Hey, it’s all cash, so you can’t really prove how much they got, right?

 

[amicuscurie]

Excellent points.

I said I was not a great lawyer, but I’m not the worst.

 

[amicuscurie]

Luis reads the Prawfs Blawg! Ha! (And could that name be more difficult to pronounce the way it’s written?)

 

[Gypsy Road]

So didn’t even think of that. No way LR was reading on Prof’s Blog. Lol