amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 9,984
I think, if that’s what it was, then it was a bad strategy.
Last edited:
FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #16
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188
- Latest: somequestions
-
- Status
Snoopster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 9,192
- Reaction score
- 27,727
Thanks as always @Niner for the daily summary. It's great to have all of the key points in one place.
LIVE BLOG: Charlie Adelson’s testimony wraps, closing arguments set for Monday
The South Florida periodontist faces extensive questioning as he seeks to defend himself from allegations that he plotted and paid for the murder of his former brother-in-law.www.wctv.tv
LIVE BLOG: Charlie Adelson’s testimony wraps, closing arguments set for Monday
Charlie Adelson has taken the stand for a second day
Adelson’s testimony continued Friday with more focus on key pieces of evidence that have been presented to the jury. The state also gets it’s first chance at cross examination.
11:45: Jurors leave the courtroom
After lunch, the attorneys will discuss jury instructions. Neither parties have requested any additional instructions for jurors other than what’s already written.
11:44: Defense rests
Rashbaum says the defense rests. Cappleman says the state doesn’t plan to have a rebuttal argument.
Judge Everett says he’s going to release jurors and have them return Monday.
“We will see you Monday morning for closing arguments,” Everett says.
11:41: Questioning resumes
Charlie says he’s only just now telling people what really happened because if he doesn’t, he’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison for something he didn’t do.
Rashbaum says he’s done with his redirect questioning. Attorneys are speaking with the judge now.
11:39:
Attorneys are having a sidebar discussion.
11:32: Court resumes
Jurors return to the courtroom. Rashbaum begins the redirect examination of Charlie.
Rashbaum says within 12 hours of Magbanua telling Charlie to lose her number, Charlie is offering her help with her car. Charlie says that’s because he needed Magbanua’s help to protect him.
Charlie reiterates that in 2014, he didn’t believe Magbanua was extorting him. It wasn’t until 2019, during Magbanua’s trial, Charlie says, that he realized Magbanua was behind the extortion.
“Their theory is wrong about your sister.”
“Correct.”
“Just like it’s wrong about you.”
“100%”
“Every month when I paid, I felt like they weren’t going to kill me, because if they killed me, they wouldn’t get the money next month,” Charlie says.
11:09: Taking a break
Cappleman has finished her redirect examination of Charlie. Court is taking a 10 minute break and will reconvene at 11:20.
11:07: A sense of relief
“Do your nephews deserve to know the whole truth about who killed their father?”
“Yeah, now they do.”
Cappleman asks if Charlie feels bad that he didn’t tell Markel’s parents that he knew about what happened to their son. Charlie says he feels a sense of relief that he’s finally able to tell everyone what happened.
11:05:
“Do you think you can talk your way out of this?”
“Who are they gonna believe, right? An oral surgeon or a gangster.”
“You’re untouchable, right?””No, I’m not part of this murder.
Charlie says he’s gone to the police in reference to something with his child’s mother. In 2018, he reported an aggravated assault where a car almost hit him.
11:01:
“If you don’t pay the extortionist, you could get killed,” Charlie says.
On the Dolce Vita tape, Charlie expresses his concern to Magbanua that if they pay, the extortionist might keep coming back for more.
Charlie says he was relieved when he came to the conclusion that the person from the bump was law enforcement. Six months later, Magbanua was arrested. After that, Charlie starts to exhibit “extreme behavior changes.” Cappleman asks what his explanation for that is.
“Because I thought I’d be falsely arrested.”
Charlie says he encouraged Magbanua to reconcile with Garcia.
10:58:
Charlie says Cappleman is putting words in his mouth.
10:55:
Cappleman reads him a portion of a transcript of a conversation between Charlie and Magbanua.
“I think you’re reading it wrong,” Charlie says.
When Dan Markel’s murder was taking too long to happen, didn’t you tell Katherine Magbanua you would find someone else to do it?
No, I never said that.
10:52:
Cappleman plays a portion of the Dolce Vita recording.
10:45: “Coincidences happen.”
“There’s a couple of coincidences in this case,” Charlie says. “Coincidences happen.”
Cappleman asks Charlie about his statement on the Dolce Vita recording where he says “If they had any evidence, we’d have already gone to the airport.”
“Does an innocent person say ‘If they had any evidence?’” Cappleman asks. “Isn’t it true, doctor, that they weren’t going to have any evidence because you were careful?””I was sure they weren’t going to have evidence to show I did something I didn’t do.”
On the Dolce Vita tape, Cappleman asks, “Why are you thinking through the possibility of the blackmailer going to the cops if the blackmailer doesn’t have any dirt on you to take to the cops?”
10:41:
Cappleman points out that no one from his family has been killed yet. Charlie says he’s concerned. “But not concerned enough to remain silent when it’s your own bottom on the line, right?”
Cappleman questions why he told Donna about the extortion, and why he didn’t just tell her that he was helping out Magbanua, to avoid stressing Donna out.
Charlie says on the wire taps, he and his mom were talking carefully.
“Isn’t carefully the same thing as code?” Cappleman asks.
10:38:
If Garcia hated you, why would Garcia drive to Tallahassee twice to kill someone you hated?” Cappleman said.
Cappleman asks Charlie whether extortion or blackmail typically involves the extorter having some kind of dirt on the person they’re extorting.
Charlie did not testify in either Sigfredo Garcia or Katherine Magbanua’s trial.
“You were okay with the possibility of them getting away with killing Dan Markel?”
“I thought the truth was gonna come out in 2019.”
“How, if the witness who knows something doesn’t come forward?”
Cappleman asks whether Charlie is now concerned that because he talked about the extortion in court, that his family might be in danger. He says yes.
“These are highly connected people. Luis Rivera, the head of the Latin Kings in custody means absolutely nothing. If you think he can’t send somebody on the outside, you’re wrong.”
10:33:
“Can we agree the timing of these texts is consistent with being sent the day after the killers got home from their failed murder trip?”
“Why didn’t you go to Dan’s funeral?””In Canada?”
Cappleman says there were services in Canada and Tallahassee.
“I knew what had happened to him and there’s no way I could have shown up,” Charlie says.
“I wasn’t close to him, but either way I felt horrible about what happened.”
“Do you regret that Dan Markel suffered for 14 hours before he died?”
“I feel horrible.”
“He was supposed to die quickly, instantly, right?”
Cappleman asks Charlie whether the police work in this case was thorough. Cappleman asks whether he thought he had done everything right and could get away with this murder. Charlie says he had no part in the murder.
Charlie denies that his parents came to his house the night of the money, and denied that money given to Magbanua was damp.
10:23:
Cappleman asks whether Magbanua ever actually did cleaning for the Adelson Institute, like Charlie said on the wire taps. He says no, she wasn’t doing any cleaning.
“She was doing some type of cleanup for you.”
“No,” Charlie says.
Charlie denies paying for Magbanua to get a breast augmentation.
The day of the breast augmentation, Magbanua asked Charlie “Can I just put it on the credit card?” Cappleman asks if this was referring to the breast augmentation.
“I did not pay for her boob job.”
Cappleman asks Charlie about conversations with Magbanua where Charlie told Magbanua he had gotten Garcia a birthday gift.
“Can we agree in general that it’s important to maintain positive feelings between co-conspirators?”
“I’m not a co-conspirator with her.”
“If a co-conspirator develops a motive to harm another one, that could be bad, right?””Say it again?”
Cappleman rephrases the question.
“I was never part of a murder.”
Cappleman asks whether gifts that he provided to Magbanua, her mom and Garcia were payments for the murder. Charlie denies getting gifts for Garica, saying Garcia “wanted to kill me.”
In one text, Magbanua tells Charlie “Next time don’t be such a dick to someone who has done something for you.”
“Are these gifts what it took to secure her silence for so long?””Absolutely not.”
Harvey’s 70th birthday happened between the first two murder attempts.
Cappleman asks Charlie why Donna asked him to erase a text she sent. He says it was probably because she didn’t want Harvey to see that text, which Charlie says relates to Harvey’s birthday present.
Charlie texted Donna at one point that he’s still working on dad’s birthday present, and Donna texts him back saying she knows he’ll come through for her.
10:17: Money matters
Cappleman asks about Wendi’s financial benefits after Markel’s death. “She got $2.7 million in benefits for her children plus $4,800 a month for the boys?”
“No,” Charlie says. He says that money doesn’t go to Wendi -- it’s intended for the boys.
Cappleman asks if Charlie had trouble sleeping after the murder. Charlie says yes, after he was extorted he did have trouble sleeping.
Cappleman asks if Magbanua actually asked Charlie to put her on the payroll back in June, before the murder and before the alleged extortion. Charlie says she might have but that he never did it. That request was made between the two murder attempts. Charlie says he believes that request was just to say she worked at the Adelson Institute, but not to actually give her any money.
10:10: A dinner conversation
“Did you say something to her about the death of Dan Markel right before she vomited?”
“No.”
Charlie denies bragging to Jeffrey Lacassee about his connection to the “Cuban criminal element.”
Cappleman asks Charlie whether him telling his mom that he’s already gone above and beyond for Wendi was a reference to him killing Dan Markel on his behalf. He denies this.
Cappleman asks if Charlie recalls whose idea the $1 million offer was. Charlie says it was his parents’ idea. Charlie says it was worth it because it was going to give Wendi a good opportunity and allow her to be close to family.
Cappleman says financially, Charlie came up ahead compared to if he had coughed up $333,000 for a third of Wendi’s relocation. In reality, he only paid $138,000 plus 48,000 plus 17,000.
10:09: A cross question
“Are you mad that Wendi hasn’t been charged and you have?”
“No.”
10:07: Who knew what?
“It’s like she couldn’t help herself.”
“She didn’t know a murder was going to take place.”
“She exposed you all to some degree by those actions, didn’t she?”
Cappleman asks Charlie about Wendi’s conversation with law enforcement after the murder.
“They asked who would want him dead, and she said your name. Aren’t you mad about that?”
10:00: ‘Am I going to get killed, am I going to get arrested?’
Charlie says he didn’t know that during the divorce, Dan threatened Wendi with federal kidnapping charges.
“He was making lots of threats,” Charlie says.
“Isn’t your mom notorious for always getting worked up about everything?”
“She does worry, especially when Latin King members are extorting her for money.”
“Wasn’t this divorce a big deal in your family?” ”It didn’t affect my life, I can tell you that.”
“Why did Wendi testify that she was getting along well with Dan Markel prior to his death? Can we agree that’s not true?”
“Is it part of your defense to minimize how nasty and contentious this divorce was?”
“My defense is to tell the truth.”
“Isn’t it true that you don’t feel Wendi appreciates everything you and Donna do for her?” ”I wake up wondering ‘Am I going to get killed, am I going to get arrested?’ She knows none of it … I had somewhat of an innate anger.”
“Could you trust Wendi with a secret that could ruin your life?” ”It’s not a secret. It’s something that would get me killed. So I didn’t want to tell anyone.”
“It’s not a coincidence she went to the crime scene.”
“She never went to the crime scene.”
9:55: Phone call played
Cappleman is playing a call between Charlie and Donna. Charlie tells Donna that if Wendi wants to be tight-lipped about her life, Donna doesn’t need to press her for information, because he can find out everything from ___
Cappleman asks about Charlie’s statement yesterday that Magbanua had come to him at one point and told him that Garcia had ripped a necklace off her neck. Charlie had said Garcia “roughed her up.”
Cappleman says that put her antenna up because that exact phrase is what Magbanua used in her proffer when she said that Charlie asked her if he knew anyone who could “rough someone up.”
“Isn’t that the same term you used when you first approached Katherine Magbanua?”
“That conversation never took place.”
“Did you ever hear Donna Adelson refer to Dan Markel as stupid?”
“No.”
Cappleman asks if Charlie was laughing when she was on the stand and read all the names that Donna used to refer to Dan Markel.
“I laughed when you said the word in court.”
9:47: Family relationships
On his relationship with Markel:
“We never had a beer together.”
“We just didn’t have that much in common, but he was always nice to me,” Charlie says.
“Did you host a celebration dinner after his murder?” “Absolutely not.”
Cappleman points out that after Markel’s murder, Charlie’s parents spent a lot of time with Wendi’s kids.
“Does your mom have a favorite child?”
“I don’t think she likes my older brother.”
“Is Wendi the favorite?”
“I like to think it’s a tie.”
Cappleman asks Charlie whether Donna was pretty worried about Wendi’s marital problems, and Charlie says no.
Did your mother hate Dan Markel?
No … she only disliked him when he was being mean to my sister.
When your mom is worried about Wendi, does she come to you for solutions?
No, I don’t think worried is the right word to describe it.
Charlie said if Wendi had bought a house in Tallahassee, that would have been the second worst decision of her life.
The first worst decision was “when she agreed to marry Dan,” Charlie says.
Were you a spy when it came to Wendi? Did you get information from Wendi and relay it to Donna?
At times.
Charlie says Bre (not sure on spelling) is the mother of his child. At the time they were dating, Charlie was 39 and Bre was 24.
9:45: “It was a lot of money.”
“You have to explain away those texts, don’t you doctor?”
“Most people don’t send kissy faces to people that are extorting money out of them.”
Charlie in total paid Magbanua 48,000 in cash, 17,000 in checks and 138,000 the night of the extortion.
“It was a lot of money to me, yeah. I work hard,” Charlie says.
“The extortion never went up and Katie was always broke and that’s what led me to think that she was not a part of this, because she could have easily jacked up the payments.”
Cappleman points out that Magbanua could have been taking half the $3,000 a month and still have been broke, living in Miami with kids.
9:30: “I want to talk about the cameras.”
Cappleman asks whether cameras were ever installed at the place where Wendi was living. Charlie says no, but her building was very secure.
Charlie says he had already been planning to install new cameras before the murder. He has text messages with the camera guy dating back to January 2014.
“Did you hire a private investigator to help you with this problem you were having?””With the extortion … no I didn’t tell anyone.”
“Did you hire a bodyguard?”
“No, I carried a gun on me.”
“Do you recall a statement you made on the Dolce Vita recording that said you were gonna start carrying a gun?”
Charlie says he hadn’t carried a gun in a while because it was uncomfortable. He says he carried a gun for about 4-6 months after the murder and then stopped.
Charlie says he never came up with the remaining money of the full $1 million that the extortionists demanded. He just continued paying the $3,000 a month.
“Weren’t you afraid that if you broke up with her she would sic the Latin Kings on you?”
Charlie says no, and that he had every intention of continuing to pay every month.
Charlie says he continued to pay Magbanua and buy her things to “keep her happy” even after he broke up with her. Cappleman asks why he had no problem potentially angering her by breaking up with her.
“DId you continue to hook up with her after the break up?””There was one occasion.”
Charlie received a text from Magbanua saying she didn’t want anything from him and telling him to erase her number.
“Why is she telling you to erase her number and leave her alone?”
“Because I broke up with her.”
Later, their relationship seems to have improved based on their text messages. Charlie told Magbanua he’s lucky to have her in his life.
“Thank you again for everything you’re doing for my mommy,” Magbanua texted Charlie.
Charlie says he doesn’t remember what he did for her mom.
In a later text, Charlie told Magbanua he loved her.
“I cared a lot about Katie,” Charlie says.
Charlie says initially after the extortion, Charlie was cold toward Magbanua and limited contact with her, but over time, as he became more certain she wasn’t involved, they became closer.
Cappleman asks Charlie why he would continue to speak with Magbanua when he suspected that the father of her children, Garcia, was the one extorting him.
“You were a playboy. You had a zillion girlfriends.”
“That is actually not even true.”
“She’s the person that’s taking money from you physically.”
“I looked at it as she’s the one protecting me.”
“You didn’t offer to testify in her trial. you let her get convicted and get life in prison, didn’t you?
“I thought the truth was gonna come out.”
“But not by you.”
Charlie denies offering to pay for Magbanua’s attorney fees.
9:09: Cross examination begins
“Have you ever heard that the simplest explanation is always the most likely?” Cappleman asks Charlie. “Was your explanation … the simplest explanation?”
“It was the truth,” Charlie says.
“Who extorted you?” Cappleman asks.
“As I sit here today, I believe it was Katheine Magbanua and I believe Sigfredo Garcia,” Charlie replies.
“Did anybody put a gun to your head?”
“I was told I would be killed in 48 hours if I didn’t pay up.”
Cappleman points out that when Magbanua came to his home asking for money, she wasn’t armed. She points out that Magbanua stayed the night at Charlie’s house and didn’t leave with the $138,000 until the next morning.
“I cleaned out all the money in my safe and handed it to her.”
“Why did you do that?”
“Because I was being extorted for a third of a million dollars.”
Cappleman points out that he had conversations for days about the bump, whether to pay the money, who might be extorting him, but when Magbanua came to him, he gave her the money immediately without asking many questions.
“Is that the way it’s done? Do extortionists send a girlfriend of their victim to collect their extortion money? Is that the way it’s done?” Cappleman asks.
“This woman, this extortionist, was going to do you a solid by negotiating for you to get on a payment plan,” Cappleman said. “Did she put you on a payment plan?”
“Yes. She said since I didn’t have the money, she asked me if I could pay $3,000 a month.”
“You didn’t want to talk to the guy yourself?”
“No, I didn’t think of that.”
“You didn’t report this to Wendi, even though according to you her life was in danger, correct?” Cappleman asks.
The day after the alleged extortion, Charlie says he didn’t leave his house.
When addressing Charlie, Cappleman refers to him as “doctor.”
Cappleman points out that his text messages with Magbanua don’t look like messages between an extortionist and their victim. Charlie says he wanted to show Magbanua he was trying to pretend the extortion never happened, because she told him to never talk about it.
Charlie says the only time he mentions the extortion that could have been captured on tape is with his dad at the dinner at Matsuri that was recorded by undercover FBI agents. Charlie says he whispered it to his dad, but that wasn’t picked up by the recording
“That was intentional at the time,” Cappleman says. “But it sucks for your defense, right?”
Cappleman says after the murder, since Wendi is going with her parents to South Florida, she’s moving much closer to the killers.
“There’s a reason to fear for her safety,” Cappleman says. “You let her move from Tallahassee to Miami where you knew the killers were located.”
When Wendi first moved to South Florida, Charlie says she moved in with their parents.
9:00: “I’m relieved that it’s the police”
On their phone calls, Donna references “patients” and “dental models.” Charlie says he had lectured his mom on being very careful when she talked.
“She went overboard on some things,” Charlie says.
After hearing the recording of Donna and the undercover agent’s call, Charlie says he felt relieved, believing the person was police and not a gang member.
“I felt so much better,” he says. “I wasn’t happy that the police thought we did a murder, but I was very happy to know that it wasn’t the Latin Kings extorting my family again.”
“I’m relieved that it’s the police,” Charlie says. “Nobody’s gonna get killed.”
Charlie tells Rashbaum he found out Sigfredo Garcia had been arrested
Charlie says Sigfredo Garcia had been arrested his attorney advised him not to talk to Magbanua or anybody else about the murder case.
Charlie says even after Magbanua was arrested, he still believed she was innocent.
It wasn’t until her trial in 2019, when she testified that she never knew who Dan Markel was, Charlie found out Magbanua was cheating on him with Garcia. Charlie saw her bank account and saw “this girl was not broke, and I was getting played.”
“Did all the pieces then start to come together for you?””Yeah.
After the bump and after the arrests, Charlie says his personality changed.
“The police thought I was part of a murder.”
“They didn’t have any idea what really went on, and I couldn’t say anything.”
“Did you have anything to do with the murder of Professor Markel?”
“Absolutely not.”
8:50: “I would have been killed.”
Court is back in session. Defense attorney Daniel Rashbaum continues with his direct examination of Charlie Adelson. He is continuing to review wiretap phone calls.
Charlie is speaking about a text message Donna received from the undercover agent posing as a Latin King gang member.
“I’m very afraid of Sigfredo Garcia,” Charlie tells Rashbaum.
Charlie asked Donna to call the man and record the conversation so he could hear him again.
When Rashbaum asks why Charlie called Donna from a landline, Charlie says, “I wasn’t trying to hide anything. I just wanted to have good cell service.”
On the phone call between Donna and the undercover agent, Donna tells him if he has information, to go to the police and collect the reward.
“Why didn’t you go to the police and collect your reward?” Rashbaum asks.
“I would have been killed,” Charlie replies.
To stay up to date on all the latest news as it develops, follow WCTV on Facebook and X (Twitter).
@Niner
Pulled out from the above for focus:
“The extortion never went up and Katie was always broke and that’s what led me to think that she was not a part of this, because she could have easily jacked up the payments.”
So let me get this straight, CA began to believe over time that Katie wasn't part of it because she didn't jack up the price and she seemed broke. But if that's the case why did he sleep with her the very night she supposedly extorted him? And if she was being forced to be an unwilling conduit to the extortionists, wouldn't she be petrified? Instead you had a lovely evening together where you pretended it wasn't happening. It just doesn't make sense. CA's story is simply beyond belief.
And of course that's ignoring the idea that someone would kill someone they don't know and then go and extort another person after the fact. Why not simply say give me money or I will kill one of your parents (i.e. someone he loved)? Why a brother-in-law who he didn't like?
newbysleuther
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 276
He talks on one of the episodes of the Over My Dead Body podcast, and he thinks they're involved which is why they are estranged. I was hoping they would call him for rebuttal.
Missyrocks5
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2022
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 3,030
I saw this and it is good. There were some things that GC could have been sharper and stronger on, and more aggressive about keeping him to yes or no, but the truth is, it wouldn't have worked anyway. This guy had an answer for everything. He's very smart, and he's had nothing to do but sit and study tapes and rehearse and memorize for a year and a half now. That's why he looks so damn exhausted, he is!
But the key will be, despite my concern that a lot of jurors make up their mind before closing, the state needs to have an excellent closing that spoonfeeds every reason why there is no way that the defense is even remotely plausible. I hope they do a top 15 list of why it's impossible for the story to be true. Someone else just wrote another thing that's a smart comment – Why didn't katie, at her own trial, testify that she was a victim of extortion? Because it never happened lol. CA could've testified at her trial too.
The biggest picture is waiting almost a decade to come out with any of this, and on the day of trial. It is absolutely ludicrous. The state needs to say when it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's a damn duck.
vislaw
Verified Forensic Consultant
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2019
- Messages
- 595
- Reaction score
- 8,217
I've been thinking about this a lot and the more I think about it the more certain I am of a conviction.
1) Katie told lie after lie through three trials and even after conviction trying to convince anyone she had nothing to do this. OF COURSE Charlie would be EXPECTED to do the same and any reasonable person would have to agree that the story Charlie told is 100% consistent with what you would expect a guilty man to claim in an attempt to save himself. Charlie had NO evidence supporting the story -- the whole story is an EXPLANATION to try and overcome the heavy weight of circumstantial evidence against him.
2) Murder is DIFFICULT to get away with. It's even more difficult when you are a basic criminal who chooses to murder a prominent law professor in an upscale community. Shooting a complete stranger in broad daylight was always a dicey proposition with high risk of being caught. But to shoot said stranger and ask a third party to go extort a dentist on your behalf is ridiculous -- ESPECIALLY when the person being extorted simply has to say, "tell your friends they're going to serve life in prison as soon as I tell the police what you've just told me." The killers would have to bank on the fact that Charlie will NOT talk to the police -- that he will NOT tell anyone -- that he will NOT consult an attorney, an investigator or simply send an anonymous note.
3) If I were closing, I would ask the jury to calmly imagine anyone in their own family (pick a brother, a son, an uncle etc.) ... Now imagine that family member yapping his big mouth off to a new girlfriend about how much he wishes an old nemesis would disappear from the face of the earth. Now imagine that girlfriend showing up a few months later saying her "friends" took it upon themselves to murder that person and they are going to kill HIM or HIS FAMILY if she doesn't bring them money back to pay for the hit. I would ask the jury to think of all the possible reactions their family member would have. I'd ask them if they played this mental game with 100 different people they know, how many of those 100 would quietly pay money (let alone a lay-a-way plan) and do nothing for 9 years? I'd say, "you understand that even if you came up with the rather unbelievable assumption that you'd find TEN people out of that 100 who would do just that, it means 90% of the time the result is going to be someone going to the police or telling someone else. In other words, for this extortion to work you'd have to have THREE people choosing those odds because Katie, Sigfried, and Luis would all know how unlikely it would be for an extorted person to keep quiet and never speak about this or go to the police. That's where REASONBLE DOUBT goes out the window. How would it ever be reasonable to believe 3 people would go forward with such a dubious and outrageous plan.
I had NO DOUBT Charlie would invent a story -- just like Katie did in her own trials. That's expected and you don't get credit just because you can lie well. You have to overcome the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming in this case.
1) Katie told lie after lie through three trials and even after conviction trying to convince anyone she had nothing to do this. OF COURSE Charlie would be EXPECTED to do the same and any reasonable person would have to agree that the story Charlie told is 100% consistent with what you would expect a guilty man to claim in an attempt to save himself. Charlie had NO evidence supporting the story -- the whole story is an EXPLANATION to try and overcome the heavy weight of circumstantial evidence against him.
2) Murder is DIFFICULT to get away with. It's even more difficult when you are a basic criminal who chooses to murder a prominent law professor in an upscale community. Shooting a complete stranger in broad daylight was always a dicey proposition with high risk of being caught. But to shoot said stranger and ask a third party to go extort a dentist on your behalf is ridiculous -- ESPECIALLY when the person being extorted simply has to say, "tell your friends they're going to serve life in prison as soon as I tell the police what you've just told me." The killers would have to bank on the fact that Charlie will NOT talk to the police -- that he will NOT tell anyone -- that he will NOT consult an attorney, an investigator or simply send an anonymous note.
3) If I were closing, I would ask the jury to calmly imagine anyone in their own family (pick a brother, a son, an uncle etc.) ... Now imagine that family member yapping his big mouth off to a new girlfriend about how much he wishes an old nemesis would disappear from the face of the earth. Now imagine that girlfriend showing up a few months later saying her "friends" took it upon themselves to murder that person and they are going to kill HIM or HIS FAMILY if she doesn't bring them money back to pay for the hit. I would ask the jury to think of all the possible reactions their family member would have. I'd ask them if they played this mental game with 100 different people they know, how many of those 100 would quietly pay money (let alone a lay-a-way plan) and do nothing for 9 years? I'd say, "you understand that even if you came up with the rather unbelievable assumption that you'd find TEN people out of that 100 who would do just that, it means 90% of the time the result is going to be someone going to the police or telling someone else. In other words, for this extortion to work you'd have to have THREE people choosing those odds because Katie, Sigfried, and Luis would all know how unlikely it would be for an extorted person to keep quiet and never speak about this or go to the police. That's where REASONBLE DOUBT goes out the window. How would it ever be reasonable to believe 3 people would go forward with such a dubious and outrageous plan.
I had NO DOUBT Charlie would invent a story -- just like Katie did in her own trials. That's expected and you don't get credit just because you can lie well. You have to overcome the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming in this case.
Listening to that was fascinating, thank you for sharing it.@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.
Tooth 18 is the second lower molar on the lower left side. (In the USA) These can be tough to extract. HA's reason for extracting the tooth is sound, but not having a recent adequate x ray before he started is poor. When you are extracting teeth, you get a lot of tactile information from the instruments-the board members seemed to think he had ignored this information, (that the tooth wasn't moving), and just increased his force, resulting in the mandible being fractured. (They suggested that he should have taken a different approach to complete this extraction)
I think this was definitely HA that did this procedure, I don't think the patient would complain about the wrong dentist, nor the board would be fooled. In 47 years, he must have extracted thousands of teeth. Something went very wrong that day.
Gypsy Road
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 15,454
I wish there were some admissible jail calls between Katie and Sig where they clearly talked about their involvement, and that evidence could be introduced that way. I’m not sure putting SG on the stand would be a good idea. I think for it to be believable, the State would have to put evidence on the stand some other way because otherwise the jurors might not believe the convicted shooter in his own words in court. They might see it as self serving.
Missyrocks5
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2022
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 3,030
Also, LR and SG never murdered before. They drew the line on their crimes. As Rivera himself said, he wanted to just go and get money from the lady. He wasn't even talking about going to Charlie. But if he had, of course, the smartest thing would've been to just go straight to WA or CA and threaten them to get money. The notion that they had the money upfront to go up to Tallahassee twice, which just happened to be on the days that Jeff Lacasse was out of town to frame him (oh, and rent a car that looks like his from a distance), know where the professor was, his name, his address, his info, not murder him at night in a more secluded area, in the hope that they were going to get money out of this guy, and accept that payment on layaway. Lol. Ridiculous.
nodamselindistress
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- 24,733
You are all making some great points. Thanks! I am feeling more positive and optimistic this morning than I was yesterday afternoon/evening.
I also watched CTV last night and saw some of their excerpts from the cross and GC did better than I recalled. Most of their think tank attorneys feel he is going down as well, whatever that is worth. Bottom line, his story is so off the wall and his rehearsed excuses/explanations sound so memorized (who knows the date of a phone call from 8 yrs ago?) that he just can't be believed.
I am still worried about a rogue juror, though, but then again I am always worried about that!
I also watched CTV last night and saw some of their excerpts from the cross and GC did better than I recalled. Most of their think tank attorneys feel he is going down as well, whatever that is worth. Bottom line, his story is so off the wall and his rehearsed excuses/explanations sound so memorized (who knows the date of a phone call from 8 yrs ago?) that he just can't be believed.
I am still worried about a rogue juror, though, but then again I am always worried about that!
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,842
- Reaction score
- 30,122
it's certainly better the second time viewing although I'm still unclear as to answer to the post i wrote here at the time - why not close down some of his replies? ( use more closed questions & don't rush to your next question. why allow him to testify and clarify his theory so much)
agree on the spoon-feeding in closing & stop being subtle
Like you, i'm also a fan of 'number-isation', eg The Top 10 ludicrous claims by the Defence or 5 Key Inconsistencies on the LayAway Plan, etc etc.
Dumb.It. Down
Last edited:
MartinDupuis
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2021
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 665
"There is no code in this case"?? When Donna says that this TV will cost about 5? What TV is she talking about and 5 what?? And when Charlie says to Donna to make sure not to speak inside the apartment?? Why for what reason?? What are you hiding and from who?? Georgia Cappleman is too gentle.....Charlie Adelson is a very dangerous guy and he needs to be put in jail with the rest of his family
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 9,984
But was Katie the victim of extortion, or was she the mastermind? Even Charlie is not especially clear on that. That should be highlighted in close, I would think. His theory depends on him first thinking S and L are the extortionists, but then realizing Katie was. That is so complicated. The evidence works better with the theory that Katie was the whole time. But he has to say he didn’t know that, because t explains why he was being so nice to her. It’s a puzzle, alright.
Sustained
Justice for Stacy
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,702
- Reaction score
- 6,749
Well said - the defense always has the advantage of manufacturing an exculpatory story that fits the evidence the State has presented.
Also, have you ever heard a story of a hitman or two taking it on themselves to murder someone WITHOUT receiving a portion of the compensation upfront rather than taking the chance an extortion plot would get them the cash ?
I wish one of CA's neighbors on Whale Harbor had security footage of Da/HA stopping at CA's house the night of the murder to drop off cash.
Sustained
Justice for Stacy
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,702
- Reaction score
- 6,749
CA exhibits a lot of narcissistic traits, one of which is compulsive or pathological lying.
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 9,984
Point 1 is excellent, and I really hope the state argues that. It’s an explanation. There is no evidence for it. The evidence he is using for it is the same evidence that supports him being the killer. There is no separate evidence of extortion. That’s brilliant. It’s also getting lost, I’m afraid, in his confusing testimony. Someone needs to highlight this for the jury. What evidence is there for extortion? There’s evidence of payments, and evidence of a murder. What evidence is there for duress or force, which is what extortion is? He is claiming that the evidence is what he DIDN’T say, on the wires.
Missyrocks5
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2022
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 3,030
Agree. Absolutely the key is for them to do a great summary of weaving all of this to show it absolutely did not happen. I think the best thing is for her to say that he was an actor preparing for his role. I would reference DA's email to WA about how she's great at lying and needs to give the performance of her life. That is what they are trying to do in this family. They're very smart people, very manipulative, and very slippery. He is an actor who prepared for the role of a lifetime. He memorized a huge script with such detailed information, that alone is ridiculous. People would not remember in such detail, particularly because it's the first time he has told the story. All the other witnesses have told their stories before.
I think the state needs to say he memorized his lines and his story, but the facts are that there is no way that that story even remotely adds up and then list every single rebuttal to every single lie he told. And then do that top 10 or 15 or whatever LIST to show specifically all the points we are all making. Make a chart. Who goes to kill someone for the first time without payment first, and follows someone back to a beautiful neighborhood in the morning, when they potentially could be caught. How would they ever have known who he was or anything about him.
And that also begs the question. How did Wendi know that the murder was going to take place there if she hadn't told them to do it there? Maybe that is a detail that has been said, in one of the trials or tapes, but I just thought of that right now. She clearly drove out of her way to go make sure it was done, which is how katie knew before Sigfredo called her. How did she know where it was going to be?
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 9,984
Yes. There were a lot of “Why” questions that should have followed his responses. Because they made no sense and demanded further explanation. I was asking “why” a lot in my head. Georgia didn’t ask. She might not have wanted him to keep talking, or she might have thought that the explanations made no sense and the jury would see that, or she might have been going down a script.
- Status