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

[Gypsy Road]

Only thing I can think of is that emotionally and socially she cannot admit her role. To the extent she still has any relationship with her children or anyone else, she may think she'll lose that. If you admit to planning a murder for money, where does that leave you? It's monstrous. JMO.

I finally watched half of her first proffer. I think she is a horrible and vile person, but at the same time …I’m getting the feeling that she wants to finally tell the truth, but she can’t bring herself to admit to all of it because admitting to all of it makes her 100% culpable like the rest of them, and she is still having a hard time with the fact that she was stupid enough to let Charlie talk her into and involve her in the murder for hire scheme that has ruined her life and the lives of so many others, and ended a Dan’s life. She keeps saying the situation just snowballed blah blah blah. No Katie, it didn’t. It was planned, and you played a huge role in it. She has A LOT of reflecting to still do. I don’t see any remorse from her what so ever. She is only hurting for herself at this point. While I might feel a teeny tiny bit bad for her that Charlie took advantage of a girl who had a crappy, unstable life (she was dating and having kids with low life drunk who beat up drug dealers who also didn’t contribute much emotionally or financially to her or the kids), she still could have said no, absolutely not going to help you, Charlie, and even turned him into the cops. But her greed, and maybe her desire for Charlie did not stop her from doing any of that …and there she sits. In prison for the rest of her life. I hope she gets no reduction in her sentence.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Latin kings? Shoot id rather run into LR than any of the Adelson clan if we're being honest.

Any day of the week!

 

[userunnamed]

I wonder if the alleged xanax (which I feel like keeps coming up in this trial) might have played a part in KM's memory issues. I know people who have been prescribed xanax, normal people, with normal jobs, and they had to stop taking it because it totally ruined their memory after taking it for extended periods of time. Like, my friend would repeat the same stuff to me all the time not remembering that we already discussed it. And if CA was prescribing it she probably had a good supply of it. But I can totally see how that time period would seem like a blur to her. It would render her a worthless witness imo. It's also physically addictive and can be deadly if stopped suddenly...

 

[Gypsy Road]

I wonder if the alleged xanax (which I feel like keeps coming up in this trial) might have played a part in KM's memory issues. I know people who have been prescribed xanax, normal people, with normal jobs, and they had to stop taking it because it totally ruined their memory after taking it for extended periods of time. Like, my friend would repeat the same stuff to me all the time not remembering that we already discussed it. And if CA was prescribing it she probably had a good supply of it. But I can totally see how that time period would seem like a blur to her. It would render her a worthless witness imo. It's also physically addictive and can be deadly if stopped suddenly...

That is very true about Xanax. It makes you a zombie. Plus we heard those wire taps where she’s drunk, and others where Charlie is getting her pot — all depressants. Could have played a role in her so called loss of memory, but I tend to think she just doesn’t want to 100% admit her role in full. I haven’t listened to her 2nd proffer, but the 1st one - she keeps minimizing her role.

 

[cottonweaver]

I've heard people say they think she offered up the Charlie joke in the interview because she told the joke to Lacasse and wanted to get out ahead of it. Also, if Trescott wasn't an innocent route, maybe she thought the cop saw her on Trescott or that a video camera caught her on Trescott so she wanted to get ahead of that too. If I recall correctly, during the interview she also made a big deal of saying she was relieved that her mother sounded surprised to hear that DM had been shot because that indicated that her parents weren't involved. That was strange -- made it seem like she really did think it was possible that her parents were involved. Maybe she was sent into shock that law enforcement showed up at the restaurant to get her. JMO.

It makes perfect sense when you consider how she's operated as an adept & formidable witness - and how her ' first layer, second layer' brother also tries to cover every angle.

Yes I think the night before and the morning of 18th she may have been frantic, wtte of ' if it does happen this morning - how am I exposed?' She'd need to cover a lot of material in the inevitable police interview.

I think you've answered your own question regarding your third example, her parents. It's another box ticked on her rote-learned tick list. ( @minusfour 's posts on rote-learning & CA's viva voce exams? also come to mind in terms of academic success)

She went to her TPD interview having already realised that she'd need to be there hours and cover every point that LEOs would later need to consider & everybody who'd need to be eliminated. She has to vocalise some red flags, errors & but then argue against a range of potential suspects herself before steering them to preferred ones. Like Charlie she thinks she's smarter & a better performer than anybody in TPD and maybe she is. She tried to do Isom's pre-thinking for him before clicking-in with stage 1 of the aftermath phase - I've left town, contact my lawyer, I spent 5 hours with you 'co-operating' etc etc

 

[cottonweaver]

That is very true about Xanax. It makes you a zombie. Plus we heard those wire taps where she’s drunk, and others where Charlie is getting her pot — all depressants. Could have played a role in her so called loss of memory, but I tend to think she just doesn’t want to 100% admit her role in full. I haven’t listened to her 2nd proffer, but the 1st one - she keeps minimizing her role.

No idea but I have to say that having now watched all of her first proffer and a third of her second, her brain is mush.

There's so much going on but I'll put my thoughts FWIW in a separate post about her proffer 1.

 

[Seattle1]

Catching up again. I intend on watching the cross examination over the weekend.

It was incredibly revolting, at his trial for murdering Dan, that we hear CA inferring that marrying him was the worst mistake of WA's life.

Also, Charlie was not an oral surgeon. (' who are the police going to believe, and oral surgeon or a gangster" tape) Oral surgeons are better educated, earn much more, do life changing work, (I am a general practice dentist, and I believe I do life changing work, but general dentists, and periodontists, treat oral cancers for instance, and oral surgeons do), and might be considered, within the industry, as "sexier", higher up the pecking order than periodontists. It's fascinating to me that he is BS bragging to KM, when 1. She would know he was being untruthful, and 2. The power differential between them was already marked. He had established he was the rich, powerful professional already. (For all the good it has done for him, really-sucker!) His ego must be very fragile!

@minusfour -- I just had a disturbing thought and wondered if this is even possible:

On May 19, 2017, HA was called before the FL Board of Dentistry and after listening to the recorded public hearing where HA was questioned about the 2015 procedure pursuant to a settlement agreement, I wondered if HA could have stepped in to shoulder the blame for something done by CA. (This was HA's first appearance before the Board in 47 years of practice).

The description of the procedure starts out with: Tooth #18 was periodontally involved.... and I think the tooth extraction resulted in a fractured mandible! If I understand correctly, the force required to break a mandible is excessive. Eeek!

HA hearing begins at about 3:23:00/7:56:38 mark.

https://ww10.doh.state.fl.us/pub/hcpr/Dentistry/2017/May%2019%20Board%20Meeting/Board%20of%20Dentistry%20Full%20Record.MP3

https://floridasdentistry.gov/Meetings/Agendas/2017/05-may/051917-agenda.pdf

 

[serifina]

Anyone know why the defense didn’t have any other witnesses? Why just Charlie?

 

[Seattle1]

Anyone know why the defense didn’t have any other witnesses? Why just Charlie?

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and in this crazy defense, I think the only potential witnesses to support his shady vision would be his parents but he took them off the witness list so they would not have to be interviewed before the trial. I think that covers it.

 

[amicuscurie]

I’m so disturbed by this case y’all… and scared of not a guilty verdict. The ease which CA lied, when a good man was murdered in cold blood over a divorce, about everything… and he did it actually pretty well IMO.

I just worry about the jury consultants. They could have gotten a lot of very stupid people onto this jury. That’s the only way someone would believe this cockamamie story. MOO

 

[amicuscurie]

I think it’s weird WA didn’t call DM a after seeing the obstruction on Trescott too. Not necessarily bc worried about the kids (I accept she knew they had gone to daycare that day because she had a phone message from DM right after 9am when he said he was going into the gym and would be done at 1030 ). But because she was trying to get in touch with him anyway to have their discussion about registering a child for school. She says in the police interview she called DM at about 11:40 to have that conversation and says she was surprised he didn’t answer. So then less than an hour later she sees that road blocked but never calls him again.

ETA: and whether she said she took that route to deal with sadness over her divorce, or because it was a natural shortcut to ABC liquors (she has given both as explanations for her route), she had no reason to think DM wasn’t home. Wouldn’t he be weirded out of he happened to see her cruising past his house?

I had forgotten that she said she had already called him and wondered why he didn’t answer. Could explain the defensiveness and multiple explanations for driving near the crime scene tape. JMO

 

[amicuscurie]

Really appreciate your perspective. I always thought a periodontist was mainly a gum specialist. They’re glorified dental hygienists cause they also do the special gum cleaning. A general dentist will sometimes refer you to a periodontist if you have gum disease, but you see the periodontist in addition to your general dentistry appts. That’s why he’s able to be a traveling periodontist. I would imagine most general dentists are not set up for oral surgery. He acts like he’s going around doing surgery! He’s probably referring to implants as “surgery.”

It also sounds like he went to some 5th rate dental school. It just makes absolutely no sense why he wouldn’t join his father’s “institute” and start to build up his own practice there. I seriously doubt he’s ever been a diligent student or a true professional. This guy has been a phony his whole life. JMO

He went to Nova, I think. Not sure if it is any good. He did work in his father’s practice some, but also in a lot of others. I agree it makes little sense IMO that he wouldn’t just set up a practice out of his father’s office.

 

[cottonweaver]

Mentour Lawyer on Deep Dive True Crime has just published a good review of the cross & he covers Rashbaum/Adelson gamesmanship at the start of his review incl the deal to lose Defense witnesses.

Also...
- he mentions the Adelson 2016 press release
- he also ponders why the proffers didn't investigate how KM found Tara Kawass or 3 private attorneys total
- he wonders/ proposes a re-review of the c 1000 wiretaps
- IHO CA wouldn't recycle the defense theory in a retrial in event of hung jury
- he's going to research this w/e whether state can re-open its case on Monday! ( for rebuttal eg RAdelson)
- he thinks that particular juror is an alternate (?)
- WA stood to lose $100k in legal costs for the divorce litigation and that re DM's trust for the boys.. yes WA made a claim to the estate and got paid but this wasn't brought up during trial

Lawyer You Know has also done a review of cross and has given a C+

PS I hope that the jury realised he had his hands in his pockets during his cross. IMO he did, you can tell when on rare occasion he rubs his nose ( ' Charlie thinks that he's untouchable' KM)

 

[Gypsy Road]

Anyone know why the defense didn’t have any other witnesses? Why just Charlie?

I have no idea! Wondered the same. But after seeing how well rehearsed CA and how “well” he did, I just can’t help but wonder if Rashbaum thought that he had this in the bag.

If I were a jury, I’d have wanted to hear from Donna especially! And Harvey! Especially since Harvey is the only one who could corroborate that they spoke about extortion - you know - the one time they spoke about it in a low tone at the restaurant, but it was NOT picked up on the video. LOL!

Maybe it was because the defense literally had nothing else. The State did such a thorough job with the forensic (wire taps, communications, cell phone info, etc ) there was nothing and no one Rashbaum could put on to point to CA’s innocence. so he used only smooth slick lying narcisstic Charlie to convince the jury.

I think the defense is over confident, I think they think that their storyline makes sense, and that Charlie was able to sell it well to the jurors.

 

[amicuscurie]

The police interview is one of the weirdest things from a “did she know? what did she know?” point of view.

Just my opinion: a lot of the grieving widow act, the crying, can’t eat, can’t sleep, need to go home to my parents to help me, can’t manage my life now, etc., is inconsistent with the fact that they had been divorced for a year and the evidence indicates there was absolutely no love lost there. I mean, I know it’s her kids’ father, and she should be upset for them, but her reaction to me has always seemed inappropriate. This person wasn’t in her life anymore except as a co-parent, and even she testifies she was moving on. Same with the over the top security concerns. I know he was gunned down and they don’t know who did it, but the concern that they might go after her (or her kids) seems unwarranted given that they weren’t a family anymore. (I know, they were still a family, but they weren’t together and there is no reason to suspect whatever vendetta someone had for Dan would apply to his former spouse and kids). Like I said, just my opinion.

 

[amicuscurie]

Another couple questions I wish Georgia pursued..

"On the first day you learned that your mom was approached on the street and handed some paperwork. And she told you "This TV is going to cost about 5". And that it "involved the two of us" - meaning you and your mom. You asked her if someone was blackmailing her. You didnt say extorting. You said blackmailing. How did you know that "this TV is going to cost 5" meant someone was blackmailing her about the murder of Dan Markel?"

"And then you told her not to talk about it on the phone or in her apartment. And you've told this jury that the reason you never talked about it on texts or on the phone was because you were scared. But you also told this jury that you told your mom about you being extorted. In fact, according to you - she was the only other person in the world who knew about you being a victim of this nonsensical extortion plot. And on the FIRST day - you are advising your mom not to talk on the phone or in her apartment. Did you think that Katie and Sigfredo had bugged your mom's apartment? Is that what you are asking the jury to believe?

Yes! His story is so confusing about this whole need to keep quiet. Who did he think was listening, and why? Why did he think the police would be bugging his phone, two years after the murder?

 

[amicuscurie]

You are right the verbalizing relief that her mom sounded surprised!

Also she really quickly jumped to the conclusion the shooting had to have something to do with her. She said more than once that if she hadn’t gotten divorced it wouldn’t have happened. People get shot from road rage from cutting a car off, etc but she never seems to raise that possibility. And she also comments that she got a phone alert on the Trescott home security system the night before the murder but just totally brushes it off as, I didn’t think anything of it and didn’t call anyone about it.

She seems to relish saying that numerous friends who are contacting her phone as she is in the interview room seem to have thought that the incident being reported on Trescott had to do with Dan hurting her somehow. It supports the “Dan hurt me” refrain.

Also she brings up Amy Adler’s ex as a potential suspect long before Jeff Lacasses name comes up. It’s actually WA’s friend Jane that brings up Jeff when Jane comes into the interview room.

It looks to me when I watch it that she is subtly manipulating the conversation to make it look like she is reluctant to mention Jeff to the cops, but Jane insists she has to. It’s subtle, I know, but there‘s some “oh, Jane, I don’t knooooow, should I?“ and then Jane says she must tell them. So, yeah, Jane brings him up, but to me she sort of drives the conversation. JMO.

 

[amicuscurie]

Such an evil family. Robert Adelson must be thanking his lucky stars everyday - has Robert done any interviews and given his opinion on the murder ? I just looked him up, and he has 128 4.9 star google reviews as an ENT in Albany. lol

He’s on the podcast Over My Dead Body

 

[Gypsy Road]

For anyone who wants to rewatch Georgia’s cross. Here it is:

Court Live Stream: Charlie Adelson's Testimony & Cross Examination

Join STS Membership + get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-yriE5bY713MoWJOrK5GvA/join

www.youtube.com

You can visually see and hear her frustration, but she did trip up Charlie few times. Watch his face. He is way too smooth on the surface, but if you watch his face it gives it all away. Not to mention his cockamamie story.

He’s also super immature. Laughing at Georgia for saying the F word. Who laughs at the prosecutor in open court for repeating evidence? He also can’t wait to tell the jury that Dave was great because he let Wendy’s kids fart on him. Maybe in another setting this would be funny, but it’s not here. This is a murder trial. He did that to try to make the jury laugh. After rewatching, I think his testimony, while too smoothly delivered, was a hot mess. He comes off cocky, a know it all and it’s just too “perfect”. His attempts to confuse Georgia were very transparent to me.

 

[newbysleuther]

if word got to Sigfredo about this defense, I wonder if he would want to come testify since Charlie's the reason he's serving a life sentence.