FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #15

[vislaw]

Could someone take a stab at how the defense is going to explain why CA and DA didn't notify authorities after LR, SG, and KM were locked up? I'm genuinely curious. Also, what's the plausible explanation for not advising WA? Obviously, they have to come up with something. I'm fascinated to hear what you guys and your deviant minds would come up with if you had to invent a story that might convince a jury it raises reasonable doubt.

 

[Seattle1]

The payments from the HA dental practice to KM are likely to be more significant this time around given the CA defense theory. As noted by a previous poster,these periodic payments may be characterized by the defense as consistent with extortion. I recall that the reason KM wanted on-the-books payments had to do with health insurance for her children. Depending on KM's other income this makes sense. If KM's income was too low, she would not have qualified for an Obamacare policy with a subsidy. Rather she would have been forced to apply for Medicaid, which likely would have been much inferior to an Obamacare policy in terms of quality of care,choice of doctors, hospitals, specialists, etc.). (It is not well-known that if your income is below a certain level related to the current federal poverty level, you cannot qualify for an Obamacare subsidy and must either apply for Medicaid or pay the full cost of the policy which presumably you can't afford.) I wonder if the prosecutors will address this.

Good question -- was KM really on the Corporate health plan by ADI? I'm surprised this was not previously verified (to my knowledge) during KM's trial!

If true that KM received health coverage benefits for her two children, it follows that she would begin receiving a check from ADI versus cash payments, and their Corporate records compliant by showing a premium deduction from faux employee KM.

 

[vislaw]

Yes, I was wondering how the state is going to address the dental institute’s payments to Katie as well, because the only reason we know about the health insurance issue is because Katie testified about it. If she doesn’t testify in this trial there will be no explanation for it because I don’t think her prior testimony is admissible against Charlie.

Assuming Charlie testifies he could certainly lay out the scenario as being Katie's request to him.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Could someone take a stab at how the defense is going to explain why CA and DA didn't notify authorities after LR, SG, and KM were locked up? I'm genuinely curious. Also, what's the plausible explanation for not advising WA? Obviously, they have to come up with something. I'm fascinated to hear what you guys and your deviant minds would come up with if you had to invent a story that might convince a jury it raises reasonable doubt.

I got NUTHIN’

 

[DeDee]

WA is the sadistic manipulator. CA is the complicit facilitator. DA is the plot's financier.

GC is getting pertinent answers for the jury's questions of who, what, when, and how. JL is a great witness against WA. I noted a moment of contemplation on CA when JU was on the stand as if he remembered better days with the tinge of regret. Has this trial implicated WA as much as it has CA in Dan's horrific murder?

WA removed $350,000 when she blindsided Dan by secretly leaving the marital home with the children while Dan was out of town. Did she use any of that money to help fund the death of her husband? Was the state able to perform a forsensic audit on her financial activities?

 

[clearskies1]

Assuming Charlie testifies he could certainly lay out the scenario as being Katie's request to him.

yes, but per the post I was responding to, I was thinking about how the state will deal with it and what is in the state’s control. Katie and Charlie testifying is not in their control.

 

[clearskies1]

Could someone take a stab at how the defense is going to explain why CA and DA didn't notify authorities after LR, SG, and KM were locked up? I'm genuinely curious. Also, what's the plausible explanation for not advising WA? Obviously, they have to come up with something. I'm fascinated to hear what you guys and your deviant minds would come up with if you had to invent a story that might convince a jury it raises reasonable doubt.

Re the first question, I assume it’s going to have to do with the Latin Kings. Not saying it’s a reasonable argument but that’s all I’ve got. Did the judge make a pre-trial ruling about reference to the Latin Kings? I think Rashbaum may have asked LR a question about the Latin Kings outside the presence of the jury. Just my thoughts… maybe someone knows more.

 

[MTW2011]

Could someone take a stab at how the defense is going to explain why CA and DA didn't notify authorities after LR, SG, and KM were locked up? I'm genuinely curious. Also, what's the plausible explanation for not advising WA? Obviously, they have to come up with something. I'm fascinated to hear what you guys and your deviant minds would come up with if you had to invent a story that might convince a jury it raises reasonable doubt.

It’s a good question, only thing I can think of at the moment is during some of the recorded phone calls btwn CA and KM, CA mentions his jet skis being stolen incident & how even with that he didn’t want to get police involved; maybe some line of he didn’t want people getting in trouble, he didn’t know if it was even a real thing to worry about….I don’t know?

It seems incredulous to me but maybe something along those lines of like “CA had a history of trying to solve issues himself, look at this jet ski incident he didn’t want to go to the police then…” CA had said “I wouldn’t want to catch the guy who stole my jet ski, why?….it’s grand theft, I don’t want to put anyone in jail who knows what we’re f^%*-ing with…”

Problem with presenting anything along those lines to the jury, is that the State could point out how some of the other recorded phone calls have him and KM saying “you & I will both go to the cops, this is bull#%*#”

 

[vislaw]

yes, but per the post I was responding to, I was thinking about how the state will deal with it and what is in the state’s control. Katie and Charlie testifying is not in their control.

My opinion is that the state has more than enough to work with no matter what Katie and Charlie testify to. The prosecution has a proffer from KM and knows what her testimony is. From the opening statements we've heard that CA is going to try and present these payments as being part of a post-murder shakedown to some degree. Under any scenario it would necessarily mean that both KM and CA knew who murdered Dan and for 9 years hid that fact and many others from the authorities. This despicable behavior paints both of them in a poor light and makes both of them less than credible. KM swore to tell the truth and looked at a jury twice to say that she turned down an offer of immunity because she was innocent. That's all dust now and the jury is entitled to consider the motives and credibility of both KM with all her lies and CA's craven failure to speak truthfully over almost a decade. I personally don't think the state is worrying too much about how to deal with this. Their theory sure looks pretty solid based on all the evidence no matter what CA or KM try to spin.

 

[clearskies1]

My opinion is that the state has more than enough to work with no matter what Katie and Charlie testify to. The prosecution has a proffer from KM and knows what her testimony is. From the opening statements we've heard that CA is going to try and present these payments as being part of a post-murder shakedown to some degree. Under any scenario it would necessarily mean that both KM and CA knew who murdered Dan and for 9 years hid that fact and many others from the authorities. This despicable behavior paints both of them in a poor light and makes both of them less than credible. KM swore to tell the truth and looked at a jury twice to say that she turned down an offer of immunity because she was innocent. That's all dust now and the jury is entitled to consider the motives and credibility of both KM with all her lies and CA's craven failure to speak truthfully over almost a decade. I personally don't think the state is worrying too much about how to deal with this. Their theory sure looks pretty solid based on all the evidence no matter what CA or KM try to spin.

Agree the state has a lot of evidence.

 

[amicuscurie]

Assuming Charlie testifies he could certainly lay out the scenario as being Katie's request to him.

Maybe it’s true. Maybe they are just that dumb, that they didn’t realize how it would look to be writing checks to someone you hired to solicit a murder. I mean, why would they pay for the murder in checks easily traceable to the business? Maybe they said to themselves “well, if the police ask, we can just say this was to get Katie’s kids health insurance.”. Maybe they thought the police would accept that and not think Katie was involved in the murder? Without those checks, there’s nothing linking Donna to Katie. Maybe they thought they had an explanation for the checks, so the police wouldn’t suspect them? Maybe the checks really were because Katie needed insurance. But they led the police to investigate further, because of course any payments to Katie would be suspect. The A’s didn’t figure on that. They weren’t looking at the big picture. Because, seriously, who pays for a murder with checks?

BUT- if that were the case, the defense would probably make it part of their case, I stead of arguing that the checks were part of an extortion plot. So maybe the checks were for the murder? It’s all so confusing. Maybe it was both. The checks were for health insurance, but they agreed to do it because Katie knew about the murder and they wanted to keep her happy.

 

[Weki]

With respect to why CA and DA didn’t go to the police once the 3 were arrested. I think the defense rebuttal to this is that they knew there was Latin King involvement and they were afraid of retaliation if they provided evidence against the 3. Charlie will say that they didn’t feel like the threat was over. Hence why Rashbaum wants to bring in Rivera’s Latin Kinng affiliation. The judge said he will allow that for the PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING THE DEFENSE VERSION OF EVENTS (not those exact words but something along those lines). The “second extortion” helps this idea that they were in perpetual fear. JMO

JMO

 

[clearskies1]

Maybe it’s true. Maybe they are just that dumb, that they didn’t realize how it would look to be writing checks to someone you hired to solicit a murder. I mean, why would they pay for the murder in checks easily traceable to the business? Maybe they said to themselves “well, if the police ask, we can just say this was to get Katie’s kids health insurance.”. Maybe they thought the police would accept that and not think Katie was involved in the murder? Without those checks, there’s nothing linking Donna to Katie. Maybe they thought they had an explanation for the checks, so the police wouldn’t suspect them? Maybe the checks really were because Katie needed insurance. But they led the police to investigate further, because of course any payments to Katie would be suspect. The A’s didn’t figure on that. They weren’t looking at the big picture. Because, seriously, who pays for a murder with checks?

BUT- if that were the case, the defense would probably make it part of their case, I stead of arguing that the checks were part of an extortion plot. So maybe the checks were for the murder? It’s all so confusing. Maybe it was both. The checks were for health insurance, but they agreed to do it because Katie knew about the murder and they wanted to keep her happy.

Yes, they will argue would we really be so stupid as to write traceable checks in a murder for hire? (Of course, some might answer, yes!) They will argue that the traceable checks support the extortion defense. JMO.

 

[cottonweaver]

BTW
AALegal Focus has been scouring through Prawfs Blog to look for any way that the assassins could have gleaned his schedule. There's no way anybody could have found out the day he was leaving. ( Compare that to Luis Rivera proffer interview I posted where Luis categorically states they'd been told he must be murdered today as he was leaving tomorrow)

That proffer interview is very long but I watched it all again. Another notable thing is the way Katie told them that the pay-off was coming from the lady. Very rare for Luis to mention Charlie as the hirer. This insulation had to have been part of Charlie & katie's explicit plan when communicating to the assassins

 

[Seattle1]

Tara Kawass speculated in the video I posted last thread that SG won’t flip because he will have it very rough in prison if he turns state witness. Prisoners do not like informants and make their lives more difficult. But who knows why he won’t!? It could be a factor, but who knows. Jeez…now the lyrics of that song “Free your mind the rest will follow!” Just popped into my head. They all need to just stand up and tell the truth once and for all and give the Markels some Justice and send all involved Adelsons to the slammer!

Great question -- who knows why they (SG/KM) didn't or won't?

Although I've long questioned SG's intellect, I'm convinced there must also be a cultural component at play here for both KM and SG in how they NEVER did one thing (cooperate and/or snitch) to help themselves when it mattered -- not even for the sake of their two, minor children!

For SG, he's always seemed to me a martyr mentality where he believes he was first protecting the mother (KM) and also his children by remaining silent.

Even in his first appeal, I recall he alleged a discovery violation where the state's witness changed their testimony at trial as being different than the discovered report provided to SG's defense that supported SG was too tall to be the shooter (i.e., the shooter had to be LR). IMO, SG was also making this appeal argument with LR's blessing given LR's plea agreement was already a done deal.

Regardless of whether or not SG was the shooter, his presence with LR makes him just as liable! (Back to questioning SG's intellect)...

As to KM, she was offered immunity by the State and turned it down only to gamble with a trial where she ultimately received the harshest penalty of the three co-defendants (30 years for one of her charges was NOT a concurrent sentence)!

MOO

 

[cottonweaver]

A few snippets on the custody wranglings
From the Donna emails
- she has another moniker for Dan which I'd forgotten. It was ' Elvis'
- Donna suggests more threats Wendi can use such as ..... suggest that Elvis requires 'psychological testing' because he is so ' off' and that this should be raised before any plan to take the boys to Canada to see the Merkels.

 

[clearskies1]

DBM -- discussing outdated ruling.

 

[Weki]

I was trying to remember what the ruling was regarding the Latin Kings. I found the order and it's very favorable to the state. The judge granted the state's motion in limine regarding LR's gang affiliation and prior bad acts and said that the defense may explore LR's bias regarding his concurrent federal and state sentences but may not mention his gang affiliation or the prior bad acts which were the subject of his federal RICO charge. This really hems in the defense.

I also noticed that the court is not allowing the court reporter's transcription of the Dolce Vita recording. The poor jurors will have to listen to it with no transcript.

When Luis Rivera took the stand on Friday before the jurors were brought in, Rashbaum did a proffer & asked 2 questions about his Latin King affiliation. After that the judge ruled that he would allow the Latin King affiliation for the limited purpose of supporting the defense’s version of events.

 

[Chelly]

Just caught WA's testimony. She is a tough as nails.
It's frustrating to me that she won't be charged, and don't get me started on those parents of hers ! moo

 

[clearskies1]

When Luis Rivera took the stand before the jurors were brought in, Rashbaum did a proffer & asked 2 questions about his Latin King affiliation. After that the judge ruled that he would allow the Latin King affiliation for the limited purpose of supporting the defense’s version of events.

Thank you! I saw the proffer but missed the ruling. I'm wondering what the pre-trial ruling was all about. I guess things changed. Sorry for not realizing that! ETA: Just realized it was allowed after the pretrial ruling because of the extortion defense stated in opening.