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

[justice1960]

How on earth can CA remember in detail, phone calls etc years ago!
He has studied these for ages memorizing lies to try to fool everyone.
Hope the creep, the entitled 'oral surgeon' goes down as a murderer, in prison with other murderers.
Pay back for DM's life.

SQRRRR or SQ4R...Survey, Question, Read, Recite Review, Repeat... the evidence for the past 20 Months at the Leon County Jail...Maybe the prosecution should mention it during their closing argument and followup.

 

[Seattle1]

How is this for irony:

Here we have CA, who followed in his father's footsteps to join the professional and lucrative dental community, and with every privilege at his feet, used his good fortune to erase a man his family did not like off the face of the earth, and away from his children who he loved so much.

CA is now trying to keep himself out of prison by reciting a story how a Miami gang got the crazy idea to murder a man unknown to them-- in advance of any payment, and for the convenience of the victim's ex-brother-in-law, says all is good if you compensate us monthly. Yeah, a payment plan works for us too!

On the other side of the tracks, we have LR, a man who also followed in his father's footsteps, learned a trade, all the while knowing from an early age he was predestined to participate in organized crime, as a legacy member of a Miami gang. He's literally known no other world during his entire life.

But LR believes an oath is an oath whether it be on the street or in the courtroom, and IMO, he's turned out to be the best thing that happened to the prosecution and justice for Dan.

In an odd way, it's hard not to take CA's false allegations that he was extorted by this Miami gang, personal.

It fires me up every time I hear CA say this!

Truth can indeed be stranger than fiction.

 

[Seattle1]

IMHO. No statue of limitations...Maybe they would prefer a dual WA/DA trial after they sink CA.

If for some reason CA has a mistrial, I don't doubt we will see a retrial for CA with DA sitting next to him at the defense table.

IMO, WA is the deal with the devil the State had to make and she will never be prosecuted.

 

[cottonweaver]

If for some reason CA has a mistrial, I don't doubt we will see a retrial for CA with DA sitting next to him at the defense table.

IMO, WA is the deal with the devil the State had to make and she will never be prosecuted.

Wendi's old friends and associates will also continue to protect her. I have no doubt that many of them withheld small slivers of circumstantial evidence in the early days of investigation in 2014. Others, like Lacasse , may have heard worrying statements from her own lips, over the years, but don't feel sufficient shame to give it up.

 

[TrialLurking]

If for some reason CA has a mistrial, I don't doubt we will see a retrial for CA with DA sitting next to him at the defense table.

IMO, WA is the deal with the devil the State had to make and she will never be prosecuted.

Yes, WA, the one everyone seemed to compromise themselves for. The A's had a man murdered because he stood in the way of what she wanted. SG/KM/LR couldn't say "no" to the A's waving all that cash, and ultimately lost their freedom. DM lost his life and his boys will never know their father nor his family because WA just had have her way. It's ironic that she will still be the one left with the money and freedom while everyone loses theirs. Isn't there a tale that reflects this case?

 

[amicuscurie]

"This TV is 5"

—Donna Adelson to Charlie Adelson
in a wiretapped phone convo​

I believe this statement will play a major role in the jury’s thinking about this case.

When a person is faced with a set of facts and asked to choose between two explanations there are many considerations to be made. Plausibility is one. If one explanation invokes aliens, that’s a problem.

But even before higher order analysis like plausibility, most people will ask this simple question: Do both explanations account for all the facts?

If one explanation (call it P) is consistent with all the facts and the other (call it D) can’t explain some of the facts, that is a serious problem for D.

CA can’t explain "This TV is 5". When asked about it under cross-examination by GC he got all huffy and indignantly repeated his claim that there is no code.

But notably he did not explain what "This TV is 5" means, if it is not code. His theory is incomplete. This alone will cause jurors to question the defense explanation, when they have a complete explanation from the prosecution.

Now consider plausibility. References to “TV” abound in this case. Some of those refs, heard again and again by the jury, are explicitly twinned with “hit man”. Many of those refs come up in odd circumstances. A TV is part of WA’s activities the day of and very close in time to the murders. This TV is threaded through the entire family. It was a gift from CA. DA paid for it. Both DA and CA are wittering on about it with WA very shortly before the murder. I believe Lacasse’s testimony will convince the jury that for one reason or another WE desperately wanted corroboration that her TV had serious problems.

I believe the jury will discuss the significance of “TV” during deliberations and find CA’s inability to explain "This TV is 5" to be a serious problem.

TL;DR: Failure to explain the meaning of "This TV is 5" means the defense story does not explain all the evidence against CA. His theory is inferior to the prosecution because of this. It is not a minor problem but rather a serious one because references to TV are a significant and repeated feature of the evidence. The problem with an incomplete explanation is that is a hallmark of a false story. Additionally, this is a strong indication of use of code.

I do think that when he said it wasn’t a code, it was coincidence, “of all the words she used I wish she had chosen another,” the next question should have been “why did she need to use a word at all?”l the answer would have been “I told her to talk carefully.” The next question should have been “why?” “because Katie told me not to talk about it on the phone,”. “Why?” He would not have had an answer for that, because Katie didn’t, in fact, tell him to. There WAS no reason, because it didn’t happen. He hasn’t memorized a response for that far down. He hasn’t thought the story through enough and if you keep asking, you’re bound to get to a level where he has nothing memorized. I think the prosecutor should have asked him a few more Questions until she got to a point where he hadn’t memorized an answer. His story would have fallen apart. MOO

 

[amicuscurie]

I noticed something in the cross. There is a recording of Katie talking with Sig’s lawyer and he tells her he has talked with the A family lawyer, and the family is not talking to police. On cross, Georgia asked Charlie specifically whether his family’s attorneys had been in touch with Katie’s and assured her they weren’t talking. He said no. But then she didn’t play the tape To impeach him. Why did she ask if she wasn’t going to play the tape? It shows that he lied on the stand. Is there a legal reason? Is she saving it? Was there an objection? Why did she ask this specific question?

 

[Marysmith]

Yes, WA, the one everyone seemed to compromise themselves for. The A's had a man murdered because he stood in the way of what she wanted. SG/KM/LR couldn't say "no" to the A's waving all that cash, and ultimately lost their freedom. DM lost his life and his boys will never know their father nor his family because WA just had have her way. It's ironic that she will still be the one left with the money and freedom while everyone loses theirs. Isn't there a tale that reflects this case?

I wouldn’t include LR… he didn’t know it was a murder for hire until June 2014. And SG was highly manipulated by KM… who was manipulated by CA although she was happy to go along.
IMO of course.

 

[Seattle1]

I noticed something in the cross. There is a recording of Katie talking with Sig’s lawyer and he tells her he has talked with the A family lawyer, and the family is not talking to police. On cross, Georgia asked Charlie specifically whether his family’s attorneys had been in touch with Katie’s and assured her they weren’t talking. He said no. But then she didn’t play the tape To impeach him. Why did she ask if she wasn’t going to play the tape? It shows that he lied on the stand. Is there a legal reason? Is she saving it? Was there an objection? Why did she ask this specific question?

I don't think CA considered the lawyer in question his counsel or even their family lawyer, and why he answered as he did. They are/were lifetime friends and I think he considered Mr. W his friend first.

SG's attorney at that time was a connected guy and I believe the conversation happened and both CA and KM followed that plan -- say nothing and you can get away with murder. Today, each will only speak to what is already in evidence, and nothing more! JMO

 

[clearskies1]

I noticed something in the cross. There is a recording of Katie talking with Sig’s lawyer and he tells her he has talked with the A family lawyer, and the family is not talking to police. On cross, Georgia asked Charlie specifically whether his family’s attorneys had been in touch with Katie’s and assured her they weren’t talking. He said no. But then she didn’t play the tape To impeach him. Why did she ask if she wasn’t going to play the tape? It shows that he lied on the stand. Is there a legal reason? Is she saving it? Was there an objection? Why did she ask this specific question?

Is that recording in evidence? If yes, she can tell the jury to listen to it and point out that it directly contradicts Charlie's testimony. She may not have wanted to directly ask Charlie about the recording because, as we know, he had a story for everything -- maybe he would say that Katie was lying to Sig. By that point in the cross, I think GC was just laying the foundation for arguments she could make later and was no longer giving Charlie the opportunity to explain everything away. JMO.

 

[Seattle1]

Is that recording in evidence? If yes, she can tell the jury to listen to it and point out that it directly contradicts Charlie's testimony. She may not have wanted to directly ask Charlie about the recording because, as we know, he had a story for everything -- maybe he would say that Katie was lying to Sig. By that point in the cross, I think GC was just laying the foundation for arguments she could make later and was no longer giving Charlie the opportunity to explain everything away. JMO.

I really don't recall hearing this particular FBI wire tap during the trial but it was a recording following the bump where SG's been arrested in Broward County on 5/25/16 for unrelated charges (possession), and FBI listening to KM's calls.

In a call on 5/30/16 with SG's Ft Lauderdale lawyer (Jim Lewis), KM's really beginning to panic but she's playing dumb with Lewis like she does with the investigators, fishing the lawyer for info-- to help herself. Her typical bs...'I'm trying to do my own little research'...

What stuck out to me is that SG has a hearing for the drug arrest and once that's settled, he's about to be transported to Tallahassee. Knowing this would be her last opportunity to see SG locally, KM doesn't want to attend his hearing and is making all sorts of excuses to his lawyer.

What she really wants is for Lewis to get any money SG had that's being held by the Sheriff released to her ASAP!

I don't recall the name of any Adelson lawyer spoken here -- only that Lewis can confirm that CA is not talking to anybody and Tallahassee (Isom) wants KM to talk to them. Now's the time for her to save herself and cooperate. MOO

 

[Snoopster]

The state needs to keep their closing simple. Because it is simple.

None of the 'explanations' (not evidence) by CA make any sense.
No killers would kill a stranger and then hope to extort a brother-in-law. The brother in law willingly paid them the night of the murder.

End of case.

 

[MartinDupuis]

The state needs to keep their closing simple. Because it is simple.

None of the 'explanations' (not evidence) by CA make any sense.
No killers would kill a stranger and then hope to extort a brother-in-law. The brother in law willingly paid them the night of the murder.

End of case.

And I will add that nobody in their right mind who committed no crime would pay anything to anyone trying to extort them and they would be calling the police right away especially if they taught their life would be in danger.

 

[geevee]

If CA is convicted I would bet my house DA gets indicted.

I would imagine that's at least partially why CA looks like he hasn't slept in years, DA likely never lets him forget that her and HA's freedom depends on him not being convicted.

 

[clearskies1]

I would imagine that's at least partially why CA looks like he hasn't slept in years, DA likely never lets him forget that her and HA's freedom depends on him not being convicted.

The wiretap where Charlie basically tells DA that she's overreacting to the bump. That one kills me. He has really bad judgment IMO.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Is that recording in evidence? If yes, she can tell the jury to listen to it and point out that it directly contradicts Charlie's testimony. She may not have wanted to directly ask Charlie about the recording because, as we know, he had a story for everything -- maybe he would say that Katie was lying to Sig. By that point in the cross, I think GC was just laying the foundation for arguments she could make later and was no longer giving Charlie the opportunity to explain everything away. JMO.

This might be a dumb question but I’ll ask. Even though Katie spoke to Sigs lawyer - and it’s not her own personal lawyer…can that tape be put into evidence? Is it privileged?

 

[Gypsy Road]

I do think that when he said it wasn’t a code, it was coincidence, “of all the words she used I wish she had chosen another,” the next question should have been “why did she need to use a word at all?”l the answer would have been “I told her to talk carefully.” The next question should have been “why?” “because Katie told me not to talk about it on the phone,”. “Why?” He would not have had an answer for that, because Katie didn’t, in fact, tell him to. There WAS no reason, because it didn’t happen. He hasn’t memorized a response for that far down. He hasn’t thought the story through enough and if you keep asking, you’re bound to get to a level where he has nothing memorized. I think the prosecutor should have asked him a few more Questions until she got to a point where he hadn’t memorized an answer. His story would have fallen apart. MOO

I thought he got very testy when Georgia brought up the tv being a code word! You could visually see him bothered. His feathers were ruffled, and he didn’t know how to answer, but as usual he was quick on his feet and emphatically denied it was a code word and claimed the State has it wrong. Um hello… it was an obvious code word. Everything centered around that freaking TV- from the hitman joke, to Wendy having a tv repairman come the morning Dan was murdered so she would have an alibi, to the tv code word again used in the wire tapes after the bump. He must think he’s so smart, but again… his answer was an OBVIOUS lie.

 

[vislaw]

This might be a dumb question but I’ll ask. Even though Katie spoke to Sigs lawyer - and it’s not her own personal lawyer…can that tape be put into evidence? Is it privileged?

It would be hearsay and, thus, inadmissible.

 

[cottonweaver]

This might be a dumb question but I’ll ask. Even though Katie spoke to Sigs lawyer - and it’s not her own personal lawyer…can that tape be put into evidence? Is it privileged?

IIRC he was acting as KM & SG's lawyer at the time that call was tapped because Atty Lewis tells her that if she is arrested she will need a new lawyer immediately to avoid conflict, and she needs the funds to pay that. ( So, arguably this call couldn't be used at trial because of privilege?)

He also tells her that he has a lawyer picked out for her. Lewis also tells her that he also needs another payment from Katie & she better start working on that & hopefully Katie can get that from SG's bank account
Numerous references to ' the family not talkin' and specifically to Charlie. I believe the Adelson lawyer who called attorney Lewis is Michael Weinstein.

In the playlist this call is listed as:

Post Arrest 5/30/16 - Dan Markel Murder: Katie & Sigfredo's 1st Lawyer = The Family Ain't Talkin'​

Weinstein again ( & see previous links in my previous post)
'
3) Weinstein's response did not dispute his role a go-between for communications between Charlie, Katie, and Sigfredo just following Sigfredo’s arrest.

'Attorney-to-attorney communications are common and perfectly proper. But, the impact of these conversations seemed to matter in this case: Weinstein “assured” Sigfredo Garcia’s then-lawyer Jim Lewis that Charlie and “the family” wouldn’t talk with law enforcement. Lewis then shared this with Katie Magbanua. From there, she and Sigfredo felt safe to avoid cooperating, too. This is reiterated here only to underscore that Weinstein’s early role wasn’t trivial. In this very definitional “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” law enforcement had an uphill battle in eliciting cooperation due to these assurances taking place. Yes, Weinstein was just doing his job – but in this case, that meant that Florida residents had to spend much more time and money to get less justice in this horrific murder case. '

Michael Weinstein confirms former role as 'zealous advocate' for Charlie Adelson; raises new Qs

Michael Weinstein submitted a formal reply, amended to to the Florida Politics column describing his relationship with the Adelson family. In this, Weinstein asserted that everything he did was within the law and his role as an attorney. That assertion does not contradict anything in the column...

www.justicefordan.com

I don't have the old links to hand where SG, Isom & other LEO are all in the car park immediately after SG's arrest & LE get a call from an Adelson lawyer but irrc that was Weinstein too.

However here's another one about Weinstein & Adelson influence in FLA
'...the Weinsteins aren’t the only example of political connectedness the Adelson family boasts.'
'....There are multiple appointed South Florida judges who appear to remain friendly with the family.'

An HD 81 candidate with deep ties to family suspected of murdering Dan Markel

A young father was killed, and law enforcement knows how — and why.

floridapolitics.com

 

[justice1960]

If for some reason CA has a mistrial, I don't doubt we will see a retrial for CA with DA sitting next to him at the defense table.

IMO, WA is the deal with the devil the State had to make and she will never be prosecuted.

"This TV is 5"

—Donna Adelson to Charlie Adelson
in a wiretapped phone convo​

I believe this statement will play a major role in the jury’s thinking about this case.

When a person is faced with a set of facts and asked to choose between two explanations there are many considerations to be made. Plausibility is one. If one explanation invokes aliens, that’s a problem.

But even before higher order analysis like plausibility, most people will ask this simple question: Do both explanations account for all the facts?

If one explanation (call it P) is consistent with all the facts and the other (call it D) can’t explain some of the facts, that is a serious problem for D.

CA can’t explain "This TV is 5". When asked about it under cross-examination by GC he got all huffy and indignantly repeated his claim that there is no code.

But notably he did not explain what "This TV is 5" means, if it is not code. His theory is incomplete. This alone will cause jurors to question the defense explanation, when they have a complete explanation from the prosecution.

Now consider plausibility. References to “TV” abound in this case. Some of those refs, heard again and again by the jury, are explicitly twinned with “hit man”. Many of those refs come up in odd circumstances. A TV is part of WA’s activities the day of and very close in time to the murders. This TV is threaded through the entire family. It was a gift from CA. DA paid for it. Both DA and CA are wittering on about it with WA very shortly before the murder. I believe Lacasse’s testimony will convince the jury that for one reason or another WE desperately wanted corroboration that her TV had serious problems.

I believe the jury will discuss the significance of “TV” during deliberations and find CA’s inability to explain "This TV is 5" to be a serious problem.

TL;DR: Failure to explain the meaning of "This TV is 5" means the defense story does not explain all the evidence against CA. His theory is inferior to the prosecution because of this. It is not a minor problem but rather a serious one because references to TV are a significant and repeated feature of the evidence. The problem with an incomplete explanation is that is a hallmark of a false story. Additionally, this is a strong indication of use of code.

David Oscar Markus, the attorney for Charlie Adelson, said Magbanua's arrest "smacks of utter desperation." "It's sad that the police have arrested Katie when just last week the prosecution said there was no basis to proceed," he said. "They are trying to pressure a single mom who has no priors by threatening to make her little kids orphans. That's not how our criminal justice system is supposed to work." - October 2, 2016

Police: Magbanua was 'conduit' in Markel slaying

Police suspect a South Florida love triangle provided the guns and money to kill Florida State law professor Dan Markel.

www.tallahassee.com

Wonder if he is calling the State of Florida's findings "Fanciful Fiction" now? We'll see what the jury thinks this week after they go over all of the States presented evidence. IMHO; Nice words for the defense presented!