FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #16

[Gypsy Road]

I found CA to be credible. If he wasn't, he would've been stumbling over his words.

I found him to be a high functioning rehearsed narcissist.

 

[cottonweaver]

I found him to be a high functioning rehearsed narcissist.

Just like his sister

PS I know you're working this morning, but if you get chance have a listen to Joel W's comments which are 5 mins before the end of their live show today. See what you think?

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I was a trial lawyer for 14 years before changing careers to establish a company that conducts forensic documentation of crime scenes and forensic visualization for trial teams. We've worked with many jury consultants, and I've testified in many cases (in fact, I testified in a major murder trial last week). Despite all that experience I'm very aware that juries are unpredictable. Nevertheless, I personally view a hung jury likelihood at less than ten percent in this case. I view an acquittal as virtually nil.

As frustrating as a hung jury would be, I also agree with Tim on Surviving the Survivor that a re-trial would likely include Donna as co-defendant and the odds of conviction would be higher.

While I believe Georgia missed some opportunities, I also feel she exposed a number of glaring weaknesses in the defense. I would bet a reasonable amount of money she will get a conviction.

Thank you, it's always nice to see an expert opinion.

What do you consider a reasonable amount of money....say like a 1/3 of a million? LOL

 

[GoJacks]

Georgia is dealing with a well-rehearsed psychopathic liar. Usual cross-exam technique won't work, i.e., trying to trip him up so he stumbles. He's too good a liar. So instead, she his letting him hang himself by running on with obviously rehearsed answers. As long as the jury is smart this should work.

I’m behind -

but did anyone else catch that she almost tripped Charlie up when asking him about the wet money?

She said something like was the money you gave Katie wet

and he said …”I didn’t give Katie any money….(pause)…that was wet…it came from my safe”

Oop.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

After Charlie admitted to coincidences, Georgia should have asked if its a coincidence that HIS money was paid to Dan Markels killers the morning after he was killed?

And is it a coincidence that the killers happened to kill his family's arch-nemisis? Why would the killers think they could extort HIM for a murder THEY did?

Is it a coincidence that law enforcement's 1000s of hours of wiretaps never captured one word about him getting extorted? Is it a coincidence that the only conversations about you being extorted were the ones they didn't happen to capture?

 

[amicuscurie]

I found him to be a high functioning rehearsed narcissist.

He seemed to me like he had no remorse and was only upset because he, himself, could face unpleasant consequences. That’s essentially what his last statement to the court was, and it struck me as not helpful to his case. (I know others disagree).

He said so many callous things that show no regard for anyone other than himself, like how he keeps referring to July 18 as “what happened to me,” or how he was concerned that someone might run over his puppy so THEN he went to the police (but not when Dan was killed), how “it wouldn’t bring Dan back.” I hope it sounds as awful to the jury as it does to me.

He came forward not to help solve a murder, but because his butt was on the line. He said that repeatedly. That he would leave Katie (who he still believed was helping him) to take the fall, that he would not tell his sister he knew who killed her husband, all of it I don’t think would play well. He sounded, on cross, a lot like the person on the tapes. At times, he appeared to be lecturing the prosecutor, with the knowledge of “how it’s done.”

Another thing, it really didn’t come across that he was genuinely afraid or upset by the extortion. He SAID he was. But the emotional truth of that just didn’t come through like it would if it were something that really happened. He kept saying “I was extorted” just with no emotion.

He also sounded a lot like a small child caught in a lie and making up stories that don’t make sense. He had no explanation other than “coincidence” for the TV code. He had no real explanation for a lot of things, though he kept providing what he thought was one, that he “was being extorted.”

All of this is my opinion, of course.

 

[amicuscurie]

After Charlie admitted to coincidences, Georgia should have asked if its a coincidence that HIS money was paid to Dan Markels killers the morning after he was killed?

And is it a coincidence that the killers happened to kill his family's arch-nemisis? Why would the killers think they could extort HIM for a murder THEY did?

Is it a coincidence that law enforcement's 1000s of hours of wiretaps never captured one word about him getting extorted? Is it a coincidence that the only conversations about you being extorted were the ones they didn't happen to capture?

She did go into that a little bit.

 

[vislaw]

Glad to hear all that

PS Do you know why their odds would be higher if CA & DA were tried together next time?

Because Charlie’s testimony is now locked and the state will be better prepared (see e.g. Katie Magbanua second trial and cross). Plus Donna is much less likely to handle cross as well as Charlie.

 

[vislaw]

I wish Georgia would have asked Charlie what his mother meant by referring to the TV and five. It would be completely unbelievable for him to say he has never asked her when this has been a major issue in the case for years.

 

[Orange Tabby]

One thing I’ve noticed since I recently began following this case is that many people—including journalists and at least one lawyer commenting on the case—use extortion and blackmail interchangeably.

During cross-examination by GC, CA pushes back when GC says he (CA) was being blackmailed. He testifies he was being extorted, not blackmailed.

I agree with him to this extent: CA’s defense story is only about extortion and not about blackmail. This is because blackmail involves the threat of exposing a secret, the threat of exposing a truth which would reflect badly on the person being blackmailed. In this case, the secret is that CA was part of a conspiracy to commit murder and the money that changed hands was payment for a crime he commissioned.

CA has thought thoroughly about his defense, retrofitted to explain the evidence, right down to the legal distinction between these two crimes. He is working overtime to insist he was only extorted.

This is because he never, ever wants anyone to be able say that he admits he has a secret which would implicate him in a murder. Even though this is actually the truth.

But he’s also smart enough not to explain the distinction between extortion and blackmail to the jury because that only highlights how he tortures the facts in order to align them with his unbelievable defense. CA knows to do so only tells the jury that he is tip-toeing around the crime he committed yet denies and the crime he claims others committed.

Here’s one legal site discussing the difference between extortion and blackmail. (IANAL and I do not know if Florida law makes these same precise distinctions, but based on Charlie’s pushback, I’m guessing that it does.)

Difference Between Federal Blackmail and Extortion - Scrofano Law

Here’s a discussion of Florida law, including the Scottish origin of the term blackmail.

https://www.acquitter.com/blog/2021/07/floridas-extortion-laws-a-primer/

Admittedly this is a minor point in this case, yet to me it is telling.

 

[amicuscurie]

I wish Georgia would have asked Charlie what his mother meant by referring to the TV and five. It would be completely unbelievable for him to say he has never asked her when this has been a major issue in the case for years.

She did ask about why she used that word. He said she was trying to be careful, and it was just a coincidence that she used that word.

 

[amicuscurie]

One thing I’ve noticed since I recently began following this case is that many people—including journalists and at least one lawyer commenting on the case—use extortion and blackmail interchangeably.

During cross-examination by GC, CA pushes back when GC says he (CA) was being blackmailed. He testifies he was being extorted, not blackmailed.

I agree with him to this extent: CA’s defense story is only about extortion and not about blackmail. This is because blackmail involves the threat of exposing a secret, the threat of exposing a truth which would reflect badly on the person being blackmailed. In this case, the secret is that CA was part of a conspiracy to commit murder and the money that changed hands was payment for a crime he commissioned.

CA has thought thoroughly about his defense, retrofitted to explain the evidence, right down to the legal distinction between these two crimes. He is working overtime to insist he was only extorted.

This is because he never, ever wants anyone to be able say that he admits he has a secret which would implicate him in a murder. Even though this is actually the truth.

But he’s also smart enough not to explain the distinction between extortion and blackmail to the jury because that only highlights how he tortures the facts in order to align them with his unbelievable defense. CA knows to do so only tells the jury that he is tip-toeing around the crime he committed yet denies and the crime he claims others committed.

Here’s one legal site discussing the difference between extortion and blackmail. (IANAL and I do not know if Florida law makes these same precise distinctions, but based on Charlie’s pushback, I’m guessing that it does.)

Difference Between Federal Blackmail and Extortion - Scrofano Law

Here’s a discussion of Florida law, including the Scottish origin of the term blackmail.

https://www.acquitter.com/blog/2021/07/floridas-extortion-laws-a-primer/

Admittedly this is a minor point in this case, yet to me it is telling.

That makes a lot of sense. They thought the bump was a blackmailer. He’s now saying he thought it was an extortionist. If you don’t explain the difference, then it looks like the wiretaps fit his theory.

ETA- he says “is someone blackmailing you” on one of the first calls to Donna. Blackmail.

 

[Seattle1]

If that text was before the murder, then Katie didn’t just mention it after the murder, like he said yesterday. That contradicts his whole explanation of why he told Donna and when. Puts the lie to the post-murder extortion story. The payroll deal with Katie was planned BEFORE the murder.

Sure hope the state brings this out on cross, and shows the text again.

^^rsbm

Actually, I think it follows that KM could have legitimately discussed needing health insurance for her kids prior to the July 2014 murder date, i.e., the need was independent of the murder, essentially due to provisions in *Obamacare* that first became effective Jan 1, 2014.

IMO, KM, a born scammer, was already struggling with the latest bureaucracy for Medicaid eligibility, and probably did not see herself steadily employed after July 18, 2014 (due to pending windfall and the possibility of living on the run if not looking over her shoulder), and by taking care of setting up that paystub for herself, she could check that burden for her kids off of her list. For purposes of discussion, seemed to me KM's scam worked perfectly for two years.

ETA: More recently, it was clarified that KM's children were never insured by ADI's health plan but by Florida Medicaid.

**While many of the ACA's major regulatory provisions were established or introduced earlier, January 1, 2014 marked the official starting point for most of them. In many states, Medicaid eligibility was revised and expanded to include those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level – childless adults included.

ACA in 2014

 

[cottonweaver]

Blackly comic

A few memes doing the rounds:

 

[cottonweaver]

Fingers crossed that every juror views CA's defense as ridiculously ....

 

[amicuscurie]

^^rsbm

Actually, I think it follows that KM could have legitimately discussed needing health insurance for her kids prior to the July 2014 murder date, i.e., the need was independent of the murder, essentially due to provisions in *Obamacare* that first became effective Jan 1, 2014.

IMO, KM, a born scammer, was already struggling with the latest bureaucracy for Medicaid eligibility, and probably did not see herself steadily employed after July 18, 2014 (due to pending windfall and the possibility of living on the run if not looking over her shoulder), and by taking care of setting up that paystub for herself, she could check that burden for her kids off of her list. For purposes of discussion, seemed to me KM's scam worked perfectly for two years.

ETA: More recently, it was clarified that KM's children were never insured by ADI's health plan but by Florida Medicaid.

**While many of the ACA's major regulatory provisions were established or introduced earlier, January 1, 2014 marked the official starting point for most of them. In many states, Medicaid eligibility was revised and expanded to include those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level – childless adults included.

ACA in 2014

I agree. And I think the state should have asked Katie about that. It pokes holes in the theory that the checks were part of an extortion scheme for money. It wasn’t about money. Those payments weren’t extortion payments, or murder payments. They were in kind compensation.

But- on the stand Katie said the checks were for the murder. I think it was maybe both- the checks were for insurance, and he promised to do this for her in exchange for the murder.

I can only conclude that Katie just didn’t discuss this in her proffer, and so they couldn’t really ask about it.

Ironically, in her own defense, she tried to say the payments were for insurance and not for murder.

The whole thing is weird to me. Why isn’t Charlie arguing these payments were not for the murder, they were just part of a long-standing plan to do an insurance scam? Why does he come up with this convoluted “extortion-in-installments” theory? Why is he trying to explain away these payments when there is a non-murder explanation?

ETA- That’s what I thought Donna’s defense was going to be. That Charlie asked her to put Katie on the books for insurance, and when the bump happened, she was worried that the police were on to them for insurance fraud. Why won’t they use that?

 

[Sustained]

Why do I have a feeling this snake will get off and WA/DA/HA will never be prosecuted ?

Here's hoping Georgia does a great job on close and give the Markels the present they deserve.

 

[Seattle1]

I’m behind -

but did anyone else catch that she almost tripped Charlie up when asking him about the wet money?

She said something like was the money you gave Katie wet

and he said …”I didn’t give Katie any money….(pause)…that was wet…it came from my safe”

Oop.

And he couldn't leave it at "safe" -- he took money from the safe, and put it on the dresser for Katie to take. (Man was CA rehearsed)!

 

[amicuscurie]

And he couldn't leave it at "safe" -- he took money from the safe, and put it on the dresser for Katie to take. (Man was CA rehearsed)!

Yep. Also the story about how she took her purse, took her keys, got up, went outside. I’m thinking this is something she actually did, but in a different context. Maybe when she took the money from him.

 

[Seattle1]

I agree. And I think the state should have asked Katie about that. It pokes holes in the theory that the checks were part of an extortion scheme for money. It wasn’t about money. Those payments weren’t extortion payments, or murder payments. They were in kind compensation.

But- on the stand Katie said the checks were for the murder. I think it was maybe both- the checks were for insurance, and he promised to do this for her in exchange for the murder.

I can only conclude that Katie just didn’t discuss this in her proffer, and so they couldn’t really ask about it.

Ironically, in her own defense, she tried to say the payments were for insurance and not for murder.

The whole thing is weird to me. Why isn’t Charlie arguing these payments were not for the murder, they were just part of a long-standing plan to do an insurance scam? Why does he come up with this convoluted “extortion-in-installments” theory? Why is he trying to explain away these payments when there is a non-murder explanation?

ETA- That’s what I thought Donna’s defense was going to be. That Charlie asked her to put Katie on the books for insurance, and when the bump happened, she was worried that the police were on to them for insurance fraud. Why won’t they use that?

IMO, CA was very rehearsed in his testimony to leave out any detail that could be used to question or help indict his mother. He had to be thinking of her next sitting at the defense table!