Charlie Adelson is accused of conspiring to kill his sister’s ex-husband
www.wctv.tv
10/31/23
LIVE BLOG DAY 4 P.M.:
4 p.m.: The jury watches the first Dolce Vita recording
The prosecution played the first Dolce Vita meeting recording. The visual is distorted, but you can see Adelson sitting at a table.
The recording is about 45 minutes long, Cappleman said.
The prosecution handed out transcripts of most of these calls to the jury. They’re also scrolling on screens in the room along with the video.
“I don’t want someone paying visits to my parents.”
Charlie Adelson in the Dolce Vita recording
3:15 p.m.: The jury watches “the bump” video and subsequent calls between Charlie, Donna and Magbanua
Video of the 2016 bump is played in court.
In it, you see an agent approach Donna Adelson on the street outside her grandchildren’s elementary school.
The agent approaches her and says he knows the family has been “taking care” of Katie, and that “his brother” Rivera is serving time. He tells Donna he wants to make sure the family takes care of Rivera, too.
“Was there a strategic reason why the name Katie was used?” Cappleman asked.
He responded that the Adelsons were in “the limelight” due to the arrests and contentious divorce. The use of her nickname was part of an effort to seem like legitimate associates with Rivera.
“We felt like Katie’s name had to be put in there to let them know that it wasn’t just a random person,” he said.
The first person she called after the bump was Charlie. The prosecution played that call for the jury. Here are some excerpts of the talk:
“I got some paperwork hand-delivered to me,” Donna told Charlie.
“Is it the uh IRS?” Charlie asked.
“No,” she said.
“Can I asked you a question? Who is the paperwork sent from?” he asked.
“It was um something that came hand to hand as I exited the building today,” she said.
“Was it anonymous?” he asked.
“Oh no, not anonymous. I just don’t want to discuss it on the phone,” she said. “I would just like for you to review it and give me some feedback on what your thoughts are.”
The witness testified that Donna mentioned “a girlfriend” and said it’s about “us,” referring to Donna and Charlie.
Then the defendant called her back. Here are some excerpts again:
“So was it as it another bad review on yelp? he asked
“Particularly,” his mother said.
“We’re not- I’m not being sued,” he asked. She said no.
“If someone says you’re a bad dentist it doesn’t mean you’re a bad dentist,” Charlie said.
Donna said they should meet for dinner and Charlie should bring cash.
“Is the person - is the person like threatening you or anything?” he asked.
“Um you never really know how to interpret these things,” she said.
“Do you want to take a picture of the letter and send me what someone sent you?” he asked.
She said no.
“Is the person threatening you?” he asked.
“I don’t think we should, I don’t think we should talk,” she said.
“I mean if people threaten you you go to the police,” Charlie said.
Then he called her a third time. The jury heard that call, too. Here are some excerpts:
“Don’t talk about this in the apartment or any other place,” he told his mother.
“That’s really crazy. Are they trying to ask for money or something?” he asked.
“Um yeah, yeah,” Donna said.
“If it’s something like that it sounds probably like you go to the police,” he said.
“Did the person give you like any like timeframe or anything... What did they ask for?” he asked.
“The TV the was probably about five,” she responded. “...And mentioned, you know, an ex-girlfriend.”
After the recording was played, the agent testified that Donna bringing out a TV was important because Charlie had joked about buying a TV instead of a hitman in the past.
The prosecution also asked him multiple times to affirm that in none of these calls did Donna mention Magbanua or Dan Markel’s names.
Then, Charlie phoned Magbanua and told her about the interaction his mom had on the street that day. That recording was published in court, too. Here are some excerpts:
He explained to her what the interaction was about.
“Something regarding her son, something regarding his ex-girlfriend and the person asking my mom for some money,” he said.
“What?” Magbanua asked, seemingly in surprise.
“They spoke to her for a few minutes... They explained that they need to be paid some money,” he told Magbanua.
“For what?” she asked.
“My mom doesn’t want to talk about it on the phone,” he said.
“I feel for your mom, like what the hell,” Magbanua said.
“She was kind of like a little bit rattled,” he said.
Magbanua asked why he reached out to her.
“Why... me? You have a thousand ex-girlfriends,” she said. “...did you have a fight with any of your other exes?”
“I thought they mentioned your name,” Charlie said. He also said he’d called her because she was his last ex-girlfriend.
Charlie was planning to see his mother the next day. He and Magbanua made plans to meet afterward.
The agent testified after the recording ended that Magbanua was not Charlie’s last girlfriend.
Magbanua and Charlie did end up meeting, at Dolce Vita. Those recordings are next.
2:50 p.m.: Jury listens to phone recordings
“I’ve made a mess of a couple things,” Cappleman started. She asked to circle back on visitation between the Markels and the boys until 2022, when Magbanua’s retrial took place.
The agent testified that there were no visits until that time. Since then, there have been three visits, he testified.
It seems the “mess” is that she accidentally submitted the wrong evidence number, or label, before, so she submitted a new piece of evidence now.
The prosecution, defense, Adelson and the jury then put on headphones and began listening to a recorded phone call between Charlie and Donna Adelson. The call is also playing aloud in the room.
The call happened two years after Dan Markel’s death, the witness testified under Cappleman’s questioning.
“I can talk to Wendi differently than anyone can,” he told his mother in the call.
The discussion started off about Charlie sharing details of a conversation he had with Wendi about dating. He talks about not wanting to date someone with kids. He specifically talks about not wanting to date a 37-year-old with kids, seemingly alluding to that Wendi may struggle to date with the kids.
“No they’re my nephews, I love them, but as far as dating someone, hell no,” he said.
Charlie smiled as that part of the recording played.
“You don’t understand, you could never say that to her,” he told his mother in the call. “You would get thirty seconds to do your planned speech before she told you to butt out of her life.”
He discussed Wendi having a great opportunity. Here are some other quotes from Charlie on the call:
“I mean listen, she’s doing great considering everything she’s been through.”
“Most people don’t ever get an opportunity like this to begin with.”
“As much as you feel like knocking over the head, I feel like punching her and then knocking her over the head.”
“So what I’m telling you is that I’ll talk to her and I’ll do my best, and my best is very good.”
Charlie Adelson in a 2016 call with his mother
“Wendi, she loves Jeff. Wendi, I wouldn’t date Jeff in a hundred years because she’s 37.”
The prosecution moved on to another recording between Donna and Charlie.
“I don’t know if I told you this, I got Wendi to accept that job,” he told his mother.
They talked about Wendi some more.
“Wendi just doesn’t comprehend at all how lucky she is. It doesn’t register in her head how lucky she is. At all. At all. Not even like nothing. But at least she doesn’t see herself as a victim anymore,” Charlie said.
Next up, Cappleman asked the witness about “the bump.”
2:22 p.m.: Special Agent testifies on murder, Adelsons, Markels
The prosecution called another FBI agent to the stand.
He testified that Dan Markel was alive approximately 14 hours at the hospital after he was shot. Cappleman asked the witness if the Markels had “unfettered access to their grandchildren” since their son’s death, a characterization Wendi made of their visitation schedule.
The agent said that was not the case. He said the grandparents have had “less than a handful” of visits, and they only began in the last few years.
“After wendi got scared at the first trial for not allowing any visits, she allowed visits, right?” Cappleman asked.
The defense objected. The judge overruled the objection, but the prosecutor rephrased her question anyway.
“When was the first visit the Markel family with their grandchildren after their son was murdered?” she asked.
The witness testified it was shortly before Magbanua’s trial.
Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua’s phones were both wire tapped, and investigators intercepted “thousands” of calls, according to the witness.
A flashdrive of tapped calls was submitted as evidence.
The defense objected to the evidence, and then the prosecution asked for a moment to discuss. Rashbaum and Cappleman talked, and then she proceeded.
“Was there any evidence of Donna Adelson and Harvey Adelson meddling in Wendi Adelson’s life?” the prosecutor asked.
“Yes,” the witness said.
Under Cappleman’s questioning, the agent said that Wendi “pulled the plug” on buying a house in Tallahassee after persuastion by the defendant. Charlie was pushed to dissuade Wendi from making the purchase by his mother, the witness said.
He also said the date Wendi pulled out of the purchase, according to texts between Charlie and Donna, was significant. It was the same day Charlie allegedly first spoke with Katherine Magbanua about harming Dan Markel, the state and witness said.
While the jury is out, they’re playing some of the calls aloud in the courtroom. Cappleman told Dugan she “misspoke,” but it’s not clear about what.
2:12 p.m.: Adelson’s team objects again to the Dolce Vita transcript
In Magbanua’s retrial last year, the judge denied exhibiting a transcript of the Dolce Vita recording. But it was seemingly a key piece of evidence for the jury — they requested to hear the entire recording again during their eight-hour deliberation in her trial.
The defense is pleading with the judge to not allow a transcript for Adelson’s trial, too. But it seems that objection may be overruled. The judge and lawyers gathered for a sidebar to discuss. We’ll see what decision was made momentarily.
A former member of the FBI violent crimes force is on the stand. He reviewed physical and electronic surveillance of Charlie Adelson, he said.
Part of that role was to secretly record a conversation between Harvey and Charlie Adelson at Matsuri, a sushi bar. The agent said he didn’t record the pair enter or exit the restaurant or a conversation the Adelsons had outside the venue.
He was also there when the defendant was arrested, he testified.
The agent testified under the defense’s questioning that one agent got caught on a barbed wire fence beside Adelson’s property. He said he didn’t know if Adelson willingly allowed the agents to enter his home.
1:52 p.m.: Defense steps out to review Dolce Vita transcript
1:32 p.m.: Defense objects to Dolce Vita transcript, Dolce Vita enhancer testifies
The defense objected to the Dolce Vita meeting transcript. They said they haven’t had a chance to review the full transcript.
That won’t be exhibited just yet. The prosecution called an expert forensic engineer witness, Keith McElveen.
He is testifying on the audio and video related to the Dolce Vita meeting. McElveen clarified the audio.
There were two recordings of the meeting. One had better audio, one had better video, he testified under Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman’s questioning.
The witness said the audio was stronger in the recording obtained by the last witness, the agent whose equipment was in a leather bag.
He described the state of the audio when he obtained it:
“It was, frankly, a mess,” he said.
McElveen testified that he is able clean up the audio with special technology. He compared it to sharpening a photo. But he said it had more to work with, too.
“Fortunately, the device that had the better audio also had the longer audio,” he testified.
The prosecutor motioned to submit Dolce Vita evidence, which the defense objected to and Everett overruled.
“Was there any point in your methodology that changes the voices or adds words to the voices?” Cappleman asked.
The expert witness said no, and that the technology is set up before they begin work to not allow it.
Then Rashbaum stepped up and addressed Everett. The witness testified that he was asked to enhance the recording in early 2022.
“You agree with me that there’s 20-plus minutes of the recording that’s missing, right?” the attorney asked.
“What do you mean by missing?” the witness responded.
“The recording picks up in the middle of the conversation, right... the recording that you enhanced is not the beginning of the conversation, correct, between the participants?” he asked.
“Again, I don’t know when they began talking,” Everett replied.
The defense asked the witness to affirm that the female participant in the recording was “virtually inaudible.”
“I would say that the female participant talked very seldomly. More of her words are audible in the first segment rather than the second segment...” the expert said.
He testified that a lot of the time a listener can only hear half of the conversation.
The defense also touched on another restaurant recording, Matsuri, that the witness enhanced, and then he was released.
@Niner
www.youtube.com
