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

[Missyrocks5]

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.

Yes another ridiculous story of his. They were originally saying KM was the mastermind, but that is completely contradicted by the tapes. Again, I believe it was an April 29, 2016 morning conversation from her first trial that they played where they are trying to figure out who is trying to extort DA. KM I have said many times was trying to soothe Charlie and tell him don't worry, I will take care of this. She goes on to say for the mere fact that I don't like anyone disrespecting your family, and I don't want your family to be stressed and worried. I am going to take care of this. Why in the world would she say this if she or her husband were extorting CA? CA went scorched earth at 5000 that he might have to pay and the prospect of them continuing to come back, much less a six-figure bribery. He told katie to have the guy killed her. He'll figure out how to get him whacked.

It is ridiculous to ever think that he would not do something in response to being hit up for so much money for a murder he supposedly didn't commit.

 

[amicuscurie]

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?

Is it possible someone told her it had been done, and where, and she drove by to see it? That would make sense with the cell tower info. It’s unclear which came first, Sig’s call to Katie, or her being in the area of Trescott. There was conflicting testimony. But I think it is reasonable to conclude there is some relationship there in some way, the times are too close. JMO.

 

[Missyrocks5]

"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

Exactly. We're supposed to believe that CA and DA were trying to protect the extortionists and the murderers from the feds finding out that they were what, extorting and murdering? Lol.

I know we would like to see more fire out of the state, but, with the way, Wendy and Charlie and Donna lie, I don't think it would matter. KM's male attorney at the last trial came out, firing at Wendy, she held up cool as a cucumber. Pathological liars can pass lie detector tests, these people have no conscience. They are very smart and sociopaths. No one is going to crack them.

 

[MartinDupuis]

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.

As long as Charlie Adelson is found guilty it's all good

 

[Hiller]

I continue to believe that GC was much more effective than many believe. From where the jurors sit, this is a team of two low-key professional local women prosecutors against a snarky little <modsnip> lawyer from Miami and his arrogant, cocky, wealthy <modsnip>client. <modsnip> GC's approach throughout the trial has been cool, unemotional, methodical and generally focused. Rash has been just the opposite - hot, abrasive and long-winded. GC's cross of CA was consistent with her previous style. The jury will not be swayed towards CA because of the lack of a "Perry Mason gotcha" during the CA cross. Rather, I think they see right through CA and know what GC is dealing with. GC let him talk on and on confirming the jurors' impression of him, rather than trying to cut him off. Smart move. For these reasons, I also think that the importance of the prosecution's closing is being overstated - I don't think it is any more important than any other murder case closing, and perhaps even less. If anything, I think the jurors' opinions are more set than at the end of the average case. Even if there is a holdout juror, it will be the persuasiveness and peer pressure of the others that will make the difference, not what was said at closing.

 

[amicuscurie]

So if he is convicted, how sure are we about Donna’s arrest? Why are they waiting? The evidence against her is the same as against him, and they already have all of it. Any thoughts? We know they have lawyers who have been in communication with the state. Are plea deals on the table, and are they dependent on what happens with this trial?

 

[Mrspratcher]

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.

THIS!!!!!!!!!

 

[opt]

Even if there is a holdout juror, it will be the persuasiveness and peer pressure of the others that will make the difference, not what was said at closing.

Exactly. The other jury members will be able to debunk the defense’s theory. It might take a day or two but that will happen.

 

[cottonweaver]

I think, if that’s what it was, then it was a bad strategy.

so where's Wendi almost a decade later? Is she in Lowell CI?

 

[cottonweaver]

Exactly. The other jury members will be able to debunk the defense’s theory. It might take a day or two but that will happen.

Yes Katie CoolLady says there are about 4 or 5 continual note-takers on the jury.

( BTW she also thinks verdict on Monday- Katie's birthday being auspicious- or Tuesday. Steinbeck guy also said Mon on his live feed on Fri)

Shame we can't poll it & the verdict tomorrow

 

[Mariposa]

So if he is convicted, how sure are we about Donna’s arrest? Why are they waiting? The evidence against her is the same as against him, and they already have all of it. Any thoughts? We know they have lawyers who have been in communication with the state. Are plea deals on the table, and are they dependent on what happens with this trial?

I lean towards no arrest of DA. It seems like the centerpiece evidence for CA was the Dolce Vita audio enhancement. He was only arrested once they had that. The other piece would be did KM really say anything that strongly implicated DA, I know the moldy money but, not sure how strong that was. All the other stuff implicating DA the prosecution have had for years. If CA is convicted I don’t think he’ll testify against DA the way KM testified against him.
JMO

 

[MartinDupuis]

I continue to believe that GC was much more effective than many believe. From where the jurors sit, this is a team of two low-key professional local women prosecutors against a snarky little <modsnip> lawyer from Miami and his arrogant, cocky, wealthy <modsnip>client. <modsnip> GC's approach throughout the trial has been cool, unemotional, methodical and generally focused. Rash has been just the opposite - hot, abrasive and long-winded. GC's cross of CA was consistent with her previous style. The jury will not be swayed towards CA because of the lack of a "Perry Mason gotcha" during the CA cross. Rather, I think they see right through CA and know what GC is dealing with. GC let him talk on and on confirming the jurors' impression of him, rather than trying to cut him off. Smart move. For these reasons, I also think that the importance of the prosecution's closing is being overstated - I don't think it is any more important than any other murder case closing, and perhaps even less. If anything, I think the jurors' opinions are more set than at the end of the average case. Even if there is a holdout juror, it will be the persuasiveness and peer pressure of the others that will make the difference, not what was said at closing.

We will only see how effective GC is if Charlie is found guilty

 

[cottonweaver]

For these reasons, I also think that the importance of the prosecution's closing is being overstated - I don't think it is any more important than any other murder case closing, and perhaps even less. If anything, I think the jurors' opinions are more set than at the end of the average case. Even if there is a holdout juror, it will be the persuasiveness and peer pressure of the others that will make the difference, not what was said at closing.

RSBM

So rather like Murdaugh and a super-fast verdict then?

 

[Marysmith]

I continue to believe that GC was much more effective than many believe. From where the jurors sit, this is a team of two low-key professional local women prosecutors against a snarky little <modsnip> lawyer from Miami and his arrogant, cocky, wealthy <modsnip> client. <modsnip> GC's approach throughout the trial has been cool, unemotional, methodical and generally focused. Rash has been just the opposite - hot, abrasive and long-winded. GC's cross of CA was consistent with her previous style. The jury will not be swayed towards CA because of the lack of a "Perry Mason gotcha" during the CA cross. Rather, I think they see right through CA and know what GC is dealing with. GC let him talk on and on confirming the jurors' impression of him, rather than trying to cut him off. Smart move. For these reasons, I also think that the importance of the prosecution's closing is being overstated - I don't think it is any more important than any other murder case closing, and perhaps even less. If anything, I think the jurors' opinions are more set than at the end of the average case. Even if there is a holdout juror, it will be the persuasiveness and peer pressure of the others that will make the difference, not what was said at closing.

I agree. He would never have broken or wavered more than he did. This is how he is.

 

[Missyrocks5]

I continue to believe that GC was much more effective than many believe. From where the jurors sit, this is a team of two low-key professional local women prosecutors against a snarky <modsnip> lawyer from Miami and his arrogant, cocky, wealthy <modsnip> client. <modsnip> GC's approach throughout the trial has been cool, unemotional, methodical and generally focused. Rash has been just the opposite - hot, abrasive and long-winded. GC's cross of CA was consistent with her previous style. The jury will not be swayed towards CA because of the lac k of a "Perry Mason gotcha" during the CA cross. Rather, I think they see right through CA and know what GC is dealing with. GC let him talk on and on confirming the jurors' impression of him, rather than trying to cut him off. Smart move. For these reasons, I also think that the importance of the prosecution's closing is being overstated - I don't think it is any more important than any other murder case closing, and perhaps even less. If anything, I think the jurors' opinions are more set than at the end of the average case. Even if there is a holdout juror, it will be the persuasiveness and peer pressure of the others that will make the difference, not what was said at closing.

You honed in on a dynamic that we spoke about before at the openings, but it's an important one – home-field advantage. You are taking us back to that, and I do believe that is absolutely key. The defense is from the big city. Yes, there are some that expect more of something from TV, but maybe just being understated and pointing out inconsistencies, and then wrapping it all up in a big bow at the end in the closing will be the thing. I certainly hope so.

 

[cottonweaver]

<modsnip>

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> Looking ahead - and getting ahead of myself - after a guilty verdict for The Maestro and prior to the prosecution of Donna, I hope the jurors do no interviews except privately with the State . ( As much as I'd like to hear their thoughts)
I wouldn't want any future Defence team to have any advantages

 

[GordonX]

“Don’t let the way they thought they’d get away with this murder BE the way they get away with this murder!” - Georgia Cappleman

 

[GordonX]

DA cut the murder checks. DA talked in code. DA must be arrested. DA needs to be rattled out of bed at 3am, shackled, and sent on a long bus ride north to face justice.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Some post containing reference to an individual's religion have been removed or modsnipped.

Reminder from TOS, The Rules: Etiquette & Information:

Introducing social justice/injustice issues such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, gun control, capital punishment into a discussion is not allowed.

 

[Missyrocks5]

The state did hone in on what I has thought was good for them- in DV- he's an oral surgeon and if he killed a gangsta, folks wouldnt ask too many questions. HE WOULD BE BELIEVED OVER THEM.

That's the mindset. Poor and regular people have repercussions for what they do- the A's are privileged and don't. She should leave that in rebuttal where defense can't respond with that thought. Don't let them get away with this because they're privileged. He thinks hes smarter than everyone else. The real CA is in those taps. They're asking you not to believe your lying eyes and ears.