FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #21

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
To me, that means they may go with the we just wanted to give him a tuneup, we didn’t want him murdered. To scare him. Maybe they may try that. However, I still think that doesn‘t help if he dies as a result.
Possibly, but such a defense defies all credibility since DA could not have reasonably believed that DM would stay silent and comply after being "tuned up." Rather, given everything DA knew about DM, she would have known that DM would have absolutely reported the incident to the police AND brought this to the attention of the court overseeing the post-divorce issues. Such a scenario would have significantly worsened DA's situation as opposed to improving it.
 
In OJ, it was widely believed that hiring Robert Kardashian as a part of the "dream team" inoculated him from having to testify against OJ, since it was speculated that he disposed the bloody clothes into the trash at the airport. He wasn't nearly as "dreamy" as the others (Dershowitz, yack), so it was always uncertain what else he actually contributed to the defense.

Might Cashbaum be on the DA defense team for a similar reason?
In my opinion the difference could be that OJ wasn‘t recorded on a hot mic talking about how Kardashian might have helped him dispose of his bloody clothes.
 
It's a word that was carefully calculated to encompass the death of a person, but imply no responsibility or culpability for it whatsoever.

A serious diagnosis is awful.

A breakup where you've both just grown apart is awful.

A bolt of lightning striking your home and burning it down is awful.

This was a planned, calculated murder-for-hire to deprive a man not just of his children, but his future. It wasn't sad and inevitable, it was a mission everyone convicted of this crime carried out for selfish, greedy, and unconscionable reasons.

Yes, it's awful, but a word like diabolical or despicable or sadistic or cruel, or all of them together, seems more fitting.

MOO
You completely expressed what was in my mind but I couldn’t’ express!thx for that!
Yes, if your toilet got backed up, that would be awful.
Murder described as “awful” is just well…awful.
And yes, void of responsibility.
 
In OJ, it was widely believed that hiring Robert Kardashian as a part of the "dream team" inoculated him from having to testify against OJ, since it was speculated that he disposed the bloody clothes into the trash at the airport. He wasn't nearly as "dreamy" as the others (Dershowitz, yack), so it was always uncertain what else he actually contributed to the defense.

Might Cashbaum be on the DA defense team for a similar reason?
Yes. You just reminded me of that. Glued to the TV for that.
the look on his face as the verdict was read was complete shock imo.
(Would he ever have thought his kids would become billionaires one day.)
But yes, I don’t buy for a minute that he was anything but a prop sitting there.
He died really young and I wonder if his conscience ate away at him.
 

Thanks for this. So much more insight from Ruth.
seems to have abruptly cut short?
Im glad Vinnie is finally mentioning the Motions and upcoming court appearance
for almost a year it was the same “murder over custody” until finally Stephen Webster was on and corrected him.
 
Really? Do they get that they are supposed to consider only the law, and whether the state has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
I think she probably understands the basics yes. It was her opinion - to lower risk for the State. (remember Def gets to use their Xs to select jurors)

imo there are no sure things when it comes to juries in practice and indeed how easy would it be to find a criminal defense attorney who disagrees with that?

This is ridiculous. Both the Adelsons and the case followers think Tallahassee is some sort of 19th century country town. With the universities and government, we have a very educated population and one that continues to vote Democrat while the rest of the panhandle regresses to Antebellum times.

Remember it's Isom, Cappleman, Newlin, Everett, etc., who live in Tallahassee. Rashbaum, the Adelsons, DeCoste, etc., live in Miami. Which group is more sophisticated and intelligent?

She definitely was not trying to patronise people who like herself live in TAL, she was very complimentary about TLH population and juries.
Did you ever watch the juror interview after the KM mistrial? That juror was also educated , articulate and a progressive
 
Very funny - FF's tweet. I can't post but have a look. She bossed it

A year ago? Wendi's attorney trying his hardest to patronise and intimidate her from her 1st Am rights & to stop her posting wiretaps publicly available in FLA. ( screenshots)
 
Last edited:
I think she probably understands the basics yes. It was her opinion - to lower risk for the State. (remember Def gets to use their Xs to select jurors)

imo there are no sure things when it comes to juries in practice and indeed how easy would it be to find a criminal defense attorney who disagrees with that?



She definitely was not trying to patronise people who like herself live in TAL, she was very complimentary about TLH population and juries.
Did you ever watch the juror interview after the KM mistrial? That juror was also educated , articulate and a progressive
I didn’t mean the commentator, I meant Tallahassee juries. Why are they different from other juries in this regard? Why does the commentator believe they, in particular, are so sympathetic to outside concerns such as whether the people on trial are from the same family, that they may be unable to separate those concerns from their responsibility to follow the law? Is Tallahassee unique in this regard? We saw it happen with Katie’s first joint trial with Sigfredo. I’m wondering if this woman believes that was a uniquely Tallahassee phenomenon that is likely to repeat if Donna and Wendi are tried together.
 
that same Vinnie Politan show, recommended on previous page, is Live on YT now if anybody wants


would have liked to hear Ruth answer questions about how friendly Donna and harvey were to the Markels in the early period. Visits between the in-laws while the Markels were in FLA? First impressions?
Whether Dan's relationship with Donna had no bumps in the road pre 2011


VP just read one of DM's filings which claimed Harvey and Donna paid Wendi's legal fees, thereby encouraging her to be litigious . I didn't know that. Same filing, Dan said WA earned ' six figures' (I'd expected lower)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for helping
I have now found the Defense's list - not easy to find

I knew that Def only called Wendi's divorce lawyer in the end but I was looking to see what their original plan might have been and wondering who Donna ( and even Wendi ) might call in the future.

I have found somebody who, prior to the murder, was suggesting that Donna was losing it and wanted to see if they'd ever appeared in any previous witness lists. No, not there.
( Not sure I should put the name on main thread )


Screenshot 2024-01-11 at 17.23.20.png
 
Last edited:
Thanks for helping
I have now found the Defense's list - not easy to find

I knew that Def only called Wendi's divorce lawyer in the end but I was looking to see what their original plan might have been and wondering who Donna ( and even Wendi ) might call in the future.

I have found somebody who, prior to the murder, was suggesting that Donna was losing it and wanted to see if they'd ever appeared in any previous witness lists. No, not there.
( Not sure I should put the name on main thread )


View attachment 473863
good find
 
Old trial evidence

Just posting because of
- the new warrants searching for details on Donna & Harvey's financial transactions and
- the February 2024 court hearing for Charlie's costs, and
- because of recent WS posts about CA's child support litigation ( The mother could not afford forensic accountant, case was settled, income declared was quite different to what Mary Hull found in Charlie's trial)


the investment accounts they had 2013-16 ( image below)
the next chart shown at trial shows a total of 32 accounts ( That chart includes cash accounts. It's in the link)

Screenshot 2024-01-11 at 19.20.53.png



from here 6 hrs 10m . Hull testifies CA was earning around $3M every year ( not including his property revenues etc)
 
Ruminating: I have been listening to Podcasts in which it has been mentioned CA might be having a hard time not having hours of conversations with DA. This might be a good thing for CA. It is time he hears from "real men in real life circumstances" and stop feeling sorry for himself. His testimony was exalted and saccharin coated (fake taste, no calories) by his mother. IE, "Oh honey, darling..you spoke so well on the witness stand..." Oh geez lahweez DA...this is not the "encouragement" to be giving your son as he faces LWOP in prison! For beginners...don't say "farted in his face" in a courtroom and think everybody is going to be amused. It is banal and classless, similarly his choice of words on the w/taps. " According to police documents, authorities allege that soon after Donna met the agent claiming to be Rivera's brother, her son Charlie called his then-girlfriend Katherine Magbanua and said to her: 'You better kill him, because he’s going to be a big problem... if you can't do it I'll have someone else do it.'" Really? Wow, "if you can't do it I'll have someone else do it" ??? Omg...isn't that exactly what he had done to DM?
Wondering for weeks why CA did not run. His mother is the one person who would/could have encouraged/convinced him to stay and fight!
Re: "They haven't beaten the Adelson's yet!" Who talks like that????? There is no separation of identity between DA...and the person who was actually getting the divorce. She is the one who had the previous legal relationship with atty DR and he apparently knows how to deal (or placate?) her requests (or demands?). She seems to be a good manager of men who are easily led.
 
Important entries in Charles Adelson’s docket as of 1/11/2024:
1/2/2024 – Notice of appeal
1/2/2024 – a) Motion hearing and b) Restitution hearing 2/2/2024 at 9:00 AM, Judge Everett, Room # 3B
1/11/2024 – Designation to court reporter
1/11/2024 – Direction to Clerk.

Basically, appellate counsel Michael Ufferman prepares to appeal in the 1st District Court of Appeal a) the conviction and b) the sentencing OF Charles Adelson, made at the 2nd Judicial Ciruit Court of Leon County.

Although too general and comprehensive to give any hint of Michael Ufferman’s appeal strategy, the Designation to court reporter (see attached) lists the transcripts under his review.

Of note is #4. The Jury selection proceedings from 10/23 to 10/25. Michael Ufferman might be looking at some impropriety in the Jury Paneling.

However, how is he going to minimize the contributions of Joshua Dubin and his PhD helpers, hipped as experts in jury selection, who’s service is assumed to cost 6 $$ figures for 3 days?
 

Attachments

  • Charles Adelson Designation to court for Appeal.PNG
    Charles Adelson Designation to court for Appeal.PNG
    107.6 KB · Views: 14
" According to police documents, authorities allege that soon after Donna met the agent claiming to be Rivera's brother, her son Charlie called his then-girlfriend Katherine Magbanua and said to her: 'You better kill him, because he’s going to be a big problem... if you can't do it I'll have someone else do it.'" Really? Wow, "if you can't do it I'll have someone else do it" ??? Omg...isn't that exactly what he had done to DM?
Doesn't that contradict his extortion defence? And he's showing he's not in fear of his life like he's suggsted.
 
New update in Donna Adfelson’s docket as of 1/11/2024:
Instead of “1/30/2024 at 2:30 PM w/t Judge Everett at Room 3B” as previously updated from 1/9/2024, the new Notice of Case Management Conference (see attached) is for “Monday 1/22/2024 at 10:30 AM w/t Judge Everett at courtroom Z.” Perhaps, “Z” is a placeholder for room scheduling.

Basically, Daniel Rashbaum and Robert Morris are jockeying for speedy trial, which is not likely IMHO. Daniel Rashbaum is a long time lawyer of the Adelson family, representing Donna and Harvey Adelson since circa 2016, but he is NOT sincerely seeking a speedy trial, IMHO.

I predict that Daniel Rashbaum and Robert Morris will not actually move hastily toward Donna Adelson’s jury trial because a) there will be some new discovery materials and witnesses in Donna Adelson’s case over what are already in Charles Adelson’s case, b) the State Attorneys are much more better prepared than any defense teams in these Dan Markel murder cases, and c) Daniel Rashbaum and Robert Morris are going to milk the Adelson for billable hours. I recall Daniel Rashbaum jockeying for speedy trial in Charles Adelson’s case but he actually applied for continuation twice!

In the same vein, I predict that we will not see any time soon more Adelson arrests, neither for the State labeled unindicted coconspirator Wendi Adelson nor for Dr. Harvey Adelson, albeit both were cited multiple times in these multiple PCAs. First, the State Attorneys are not going to risk another mistrial “a la Magbanua” due to the current trend of these awakened social justice militants, potentially sneaking in the jury panel. Second, even if every single jury swears to adhering to the theories of justice looking at the punishment for wrongdoing instead of looking at awake social ruminations, the court materials thus far hint at more motives from Wendi Adelson above the motivations of those who allegedly acted on her behalf. Third, the evidences against Dr. Harvey Adelson, such as a missed call from Sigfredo Garcia’s cell phone to Dr. Harvey Adelson’s cell phone and the stealth recordings from the Matsuri Japanese Restaurant, appear to be improperly circumstantial for a first degree murder allegation.

In sum, either speedy or slowly, a Donna Adelson’s jury trial would reach its due course prior to any more potential arrest in the Dan Markel Murder case, IMHO. Of course, TPD, FBI, and the State Attorneys’ investigators are going to continue their investigation and keep close the their vests any potential new findings such that they write cryptically “I found electronic data” as result of their recent ASWF.
 

Attachments

  • Donna Adelson Case Mngmt Hearing.PNG
    Donna Adelson Case Mngmt Hearing.PNG
    70.8 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:
Doesn't that contradict his extortion defence? And he's showing he's not in fear of his life like he's suggsted.
The way I hear it when I listen to the tape, and this is just my opinion, is that Charlie is NOT suggesting that they kill whoever is blackmailing them. It’s difficult to explain, because Charlie tends to ramble and digress and talk as though he is someone else. But knowing this, I think that’s what he is doing here. I think he is speaking as though he were the blackmailers, saying how they think, that they know they are messing with Tuto, and “he could be a big problem,” and they might have to kill him/he might have them killed. To me, he seems to be saying that it’s strange to him that these people actually approached him and tried to blackmail him, because they should know who they are dealing with (Tuto/Katie) and how dangerous he can be. When you read the transcript this doesn’t really come through, and I think the cops, when they heard it, jumped to the understandable conclusion that he was, in fact, threatening to kill someone, and so they included it in the probable cause affidavit and it continues to be repeated, zombie-like, in these warrants. But when I listen, I hear differently, taken in the general context of what he’s talking about, which is the fact that the blackmailers, who mentioned Tuto, must know they are messing with some bad people.

A similar confusing moment occurs toward the beginning of the tape, when he’s talking about how they approached his mom and not his dad. The transcript says “and that’s smart, because my mom hasn’t told my dad anything.” That‘s how it’s transcribed. But Charlie doesn’t stop there. When I listen, what I hear is a little aside, and then the rest of the sentence, like this: “That’s smart, because — my mom hasnt told my dad anything by the way —- but [and then he says wtte of “they probably thought that as soon as my dad got home, she would tell him somebody approached her.”]. He then goes on along those lines, saying it is smart that they went through his mom to get to his dad, rather than go to his dad directly, because his dad might have a gun and it could turn into a shootout. (That’s when he says he’s got a gun, too, and who are they going to believe, the periodontist or the dead gang member?) So it all fits together, it’s about how they went through his mom to get to his dad, because they knew she would tell him and they wanted to avoid a shootout.

The only thing that DOESN’T fit is the part about how his mom hasn’t told his dad anything. That would NOT make the cops seem smart, at all, because if his mom hadn’t told his dad anything, then going to her was pointless. But he’s saying the cops are smart. So it makes more sense, to me, that he saying they were smart to go to her because they thought she would tell his dad, not that it’s smart because she DIDN’T. (Which is how the transcript reads). The part about how his mom hasn’t actually told his dad was just a little aside, because Charlie to me speaks in a very scattered way. The people doing the transcribing should put the little dashes for where Charlie interjects/digresses. Context is everything.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
524
Total visitors
682

Forum statistics

Threads
608,449
Messages
18,239,602
Members
234,373
Latest member
SourTreat
Back
Top