FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #22

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
stamplewie said:
It was a strange juxtaposition for DR to say DA is smart and immediately qualify it with -- BUT she is not analytical. Apparently that was an important distinction for him to make. I think your observation is astute as to the likelihood that we will be hearing more about DA's lack of analytical skills and that DR will probably argue to the jury that is why DA believed her son's cockamamie story.
Click to expand...
Would DA need testing by a specialist to verify that she is not analytical in order for DR to bring that up as a reason for her believing CA?
 
stamplewie said:
It was a strange juxtaposition for DR to say DA is smart and immediately qualify it with -- BUT she is not analytical. Apparently that was an important distinction for him to make. I think your observation is astute as to the likelihood that we will be hearing more about DA's lack of analytical skills and that DR will probably argue to the jury that is why DA believed her son's cockamamie story.
Click to expand...
Yep. In my opinion, people choose their words carefully and deliberately, especially lawyers. It is interesting, to me, that he didn’t just go with “not very bright.” In my opinion she is not very bright, just based on some things we’ve seen (for example, her apparent belief that discussing extradition and fleeing is “not about the case,” but there are other examples that stand out in my opinion.). But, in my opinion, this particular client might not want to be described that way.
 
Last edited:
Weki said:
Katie Magnanua has signed up for "Meet An Inmate". I can't embed the Tweet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752355278463344691
Click to expand...
This is real? So much here. “Live it up like it’s your last.” “Earliest Release Date: N/A.” “Education: High School.” I thought she went to college in Orlando? Did she not
graduate?

ETA

How do they have access to email? Even if it’s monitored, Isn’t that a lot more time and labor-intensive than opening up letters, given the sheer number of emails someone can send and receive in a day? Seems risky to me.
 
Last edited:
amicuscurie said:
Didn’t anyone notice that he said on STS that Donna is “smart but not analytical?” In my opinion that is a really strange and random thing to say. What does that even mean? It jumped right out at me, and got me thinking.

In my opinion he may be thinking that a jury would not find it credible that Donna could have bought such a preposterous “double extortion” story (indeed, Charlie’s jury didn’t seem to buy it).

In my opinion he may be laying the groundwork to argue that Donna really didn’t analyze the extortion story or look for holes in it, she just took what he said at face value because she’s “not analytical.”
Click to expand...
Meaning she couldn’t figure out that the 2nd extortion was bogus…
 
amicuscurie said:
This is real? So much here. “Live it up like it’s your last.” “Earliest Release Date: N/A.” “Education: High School.” I thought she went to college in Orlando? Did she not
graduate?

ETA

How do they have access to email? Even if it’s monitored, Isn’t that a lot more time and labor-intensive than opening up letters, given the sheer number of emails someone can send and receive in a day? Seems risky to me.
Click to expand...
I remember CA saying she graduated from same college he attended, " she was really smart and funny." (But hey, what do I know?) He also said he was involved with Bri (Mother of his child) after she had graduated from college, too. Maybe all of CA's girlfriends have graduated from college or he just likes to say that?
I started to feel a little remorse for KM's situation and then remembered: She is in prison by her own choice. She was given the opportunity to walk out of jail and not be convicted of any criminal wrong doing. But, she chose to pass on the deal and this is where she ended up. I read a book many years ago. The young but worldly protagonist had to decide whether to follow the path of a priest who was about to be executed or save himself by claiming he was just a recently enslaved servant. I'll never forget his thought. "Loyalty to a condemned man must be greatly questioned." I was just a young teen...but the meaning stuck with me.
KM faced a similar choice...IMO, she should have chosen to be with her young children, be emotionally supportive of SigGar (if she wanted), visit him in prison (if she wanted), put money on his commissary account for the rest of his life or change her name and move far away with her children. She had the choice of not getting involved in any of this from the very start.
 
Last edited:
IQuestion said:
I remember CA saying she graduated from same college he attended, " she was really smart and funny." (But hey, what do I know?) He also said he was involved with Bri (Mother of his child) after she had graduated from college, too. Maybe all of CA's girlfriends have graduated from college or he just likes to say that?
I started to feel a little remorse for KM's situation and then remembered: She is in prison by her own choice. She was given the opportunity to walk out of jail and not be convicted of any criminal wrong doing. But, she chose to pass on the deal and this is where she ended up. I read a book many years ago. The young but worldly protagonist had to decide whether to follow the path of a priest who was about to be executed or save himself by claiming he was just a recently enslaved servant. I'll never forget his thought. "Loyalty to a condemned man must be greatly questioned." I was just a young teen...but the meaning stuck with me.
KM faced a similar choice...IMO, she should have chosen to be with her young children, be emotionally supportive of SigGar (if she wanted), visit him in prison (if she wanted), put money on his commissary account for the rest of his life or change her name and move far away with her children. She had the choice of not getting involved in any of this from the very start.
Click to expand...
She went to UCF and got a bachelors in Health care administration.
Aside from what you said, she also could have given truthful information at her proffers.
But she didn’t.
 
stamplewie said:
There is no expert that can credibly testify that someone is smart but has no common sense.
Click to expand...

Yes and we already know by her actions that she has no common sense. To think she could pull this grand plan of eliminating her ex son in law off without being caught clearly shows her ignorance and lack of common sense.

I don’t know how anyone thinks that they will never be caught with all of the technology we have today. Maybe people who harbour hate towards an individual are willing to take a risk. That’s not the case here. This bunch definitely thought they wouldn’t be caught so they weren’t thinking of it as a risk.
 
stamplewie said:
There is no expert that can credibly testify that someone is smart but has no common sense.
Click to expand...
Being “analytical” means being “able to evaluate situations.” How could Donna Adelson be “smart but not analytical”? This is not the only nonsensical choice of words by “super attorney” Dan Rashbaum.

Crowing Donna Adelson’s defense as a subjective believer (not able to evaluate situations) of the extravagant story of Charles Adelson about a) self-hiring hit men and b) double blackmailing events by Magbanua and the Latin Kings” (regardless of whether the Jury believe that story or else) will have 2 predictable outcomes:
1. Again, Donna Adelson’s Jury will not believe Charles’ bizarre story, and
2. This will lead the Jury will comprehend the large body of evidence showing that Donna Adelson and the State labeled unindicted coconspirator Wendi Adelson are the potent upper echelons of the conspiracy to commit the murder of her sons’ Abba, Dan Markel.

Pieces of evidence in multiple PCAs show Donna Adelson whipped Charles Adelson who goaded Katherine Magbanua. Thereafter, Katherine Magbanua enlisted Sigfredo Garcia as per her testimony.

Albeit a contrarian view might be, I would like to repeat. IMHO, the only rational route (if agreeable to SA2FL) for Donna Adelson at this juncture is to plead guilty for 2nd degree felony murder (15Y) in order to escape the 1st degree felony murder conviction (LWOP).

If going to trial is Donna Adelson’ s chosen route as advocated by Dan Rashbaum, some important events will occur in the mean time. Of which, Dan Rashbaum would be dropped as her defense attorney, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
MargieBee said:

Charles Adelson's Appellate Lawyer, Michael Ufferman Speaks​

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
Click to expand...
He makes it clear that he doesn’t care if his client is innocent or guilty, only that he gets a fair trial.
I don’t trust a guy in a bow tie. unless it’s at a wedding Lol
 
apeXperience said:
Being “analytical” means being “able to evaluate situations.” How could Donna Adelson be “smart but not analytical”? This is not the only nonsensical choice of words by “super attorney” Dan Rashbaum.

Crowing Donna Adelson’s defense as a subjective believer (not able to evaluate situations) of the extravagant story of Charles Adelson about a) self-hiring hit men and b) double blackmailing events by Magbanua and the Latin Kings” (regardless of whether the Jury believe that story or else) will have 2 predictable outcomes:
1. Again, Donna Adelson’s Jury will not believe Charles’ bizarre story, and
2. This will lead the Jury will comprehend the large body of evidence showing that Donna Adelson and the State labeled unindicted coconspirator Wendi Adelson are the potent upper echelons of the conspiracy to commit the murder of her sons’ Abba, Dan Markel.

Pieces of evidence in multiple PCAs show Donna Adelson whipped Charles Adelson who goaded Katherine Magbanua. Thereafter, Katherine Magbanua enlisted Sigfredo Garcia as per her testimony.

Albeit a contrarian view might be, I would like to repeat. IMHO, the only rational route (if agreeable to SA2FL) for Donna Adelson at this juncture is to plead guilty for 2nd degree felony murder (15Y) in order to escape the 1st degree felony murder conviction (LWOP).

If going to trial is Donna Adelson’ s chosen route as advocated by Dan Rashbaum, some important events will occur in the mean time. Of which, Dan Rashbaum would be dropped as her defense attorney, IMHO.
Click to expand...

BBM -

I don't see a reason for the State to offer a plea to DA unless she's willing to give up WA.
 
There’s no chance of Charlie’s conviction being overturned imo. His conviction is air tight. State had already done a trial run with all that evidence twice. They’ve done it in front of 3 different judges. A lot of the evidence was litigated prior to trial. Even Charlie says judge gave him everything he wanted. He’s done! Im not listening to some bow tie appellate lawyer pontificate about a “fair trial.” Charlie GOT a fair trial. We’re moving on to Donna now.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 274 more.
Total: 601 (members: 275, guests: 326)

Online statistics

Members online
275
Guests online
326
Total visitors
601
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,745
Messages
18,245,131
Members
234,438
Latest member
Turtle17
Back
Top