FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #23

[cottonweaver]

Re 'That Alternate' ( WS post #582 on the previous WS page) and the Motion to move to the smaller court room

have just listened to a really good rebuttal by KatieCoolLady ( also a member on WS)
Am mentioning because during the trial she was the first person to flag during her jury perception feedback. Credit to K.
Anyway, that motion sounds like it was written by Rashbaum. Rather weak


Where's that animus come from? His client!
I shouldn't laugh but when that motion is dismissed and the reporters & senior producer from Over My Dead Body are sat in the public gallery, she's not going to be a happy bunny. ( In the new discovery, DA had made a list of everybody she planned to sue after Charlie was found not guilty. Podcasters, various newspapers etc. I'll try & find the screenshot again. One line said ' Podcasters.Rob & Haritha'

The motion is the fifth one in this batch which Zedzed kindly uploaded here. Clicking on will bring that source.

pre-trial motions.

 

[Going Rogue]

Re 'That Alternate' ( WS post #582 on the previous WS page) and the Motion to move to the smaller court room

have just listened to a really good rebuttal by KatieCoolLady ( also a member on WS)
Am mentioning because during the trial she was the first person to flag during her jury perception feedback. Credit to K.
Anyway, that motion sounds like it was written by Rashbaum. Rather weak


Where's that animus come from? His client!
I shouldn't laugh but when that motion is dismissed and the reporters & senior producer from Over My Dead Body are sat in the public gallery, she's not going to be a happy bunny. ( In the new discovery, DA had made a list of everybody she planned to sue after Charlie was found not guilty. Podcasters, various newspapers etc. I'll try & find the screenshot again. One line said ' Podcasters.Rob & Haritha'

The motion is the fifth one in this batch which Zedzed kindly uploaded here. Clicking on will bring that source.

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

 

[Knitpicker]

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

I agree with you. It’s like going to a trade show when you have something to sell.
The channel hosts have invested a lot of time sacrificially to grow their channels and the Adelsons already know who they are and it probably stresses out Donna a lot.
Thats the price you pay for hiring a hitman.
Last trial there were many of them sitting there.

 

[IQuestion]

I’m sorry this is tiring,
I am not defending Katie, but I’m just saying that SG isn’t an innocent victim. He did decide to shoot a man twice in the head.
Most men would not do that even if they’d do “anything” for their baby momma.
He did cheat on Katie with a “professional” also….and yes July 1 was a Tuesday.
I think it makes a difference.
The site is “websleuth” and it’s just putting puzzle pieces together.
Thats all, But I will refrain from any more….
By the way, Katie stated she was “broken up” with SG when she met Charlie, and I don’t believe it was a secret to him that she was dating him at least 8 months before the jetski incident.

KNITPICKER Sometimes you just have to dump a pile of rocks on my head before I finally get it and I just got it...I think.
The call from SG to HA is the only electronic connection that could prove HA was involved/ had direct contact with the assassins? The timing is suspicious. Is that why GCap asks about it in court? Hmmm, I'll keep that on my list of "coincidences." But KM, despite testifying against CA continues to perpetuate the event; to what end?

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

I agree GoRo...DR is just going through the steps: try to get evidence thrown out, ask for dismissal, get the jury to have a personal connection, etc. I learned something new today...DA can actually request to be seated closer to the jurors. "typically, the Plaintiff’s table is on the right side, and the Defendant’s table is on the left side. However, the Plaintiff’s side has the right to sit closest to the jury box."

Courtroom Layout: Who Sits Where?

Going into a courtroom can be an unsettling experience. The rooms are large and often overwhelming, and their layout is both confusing and intimidating.

www.rhodeslaw.com

 

[Knitpicker]

KNITPICKER Sometimes you just have to dump a pile of rocks on my head before I finally get it and I just got it...I think.
The call from SG to HA is the only electronic connection that could prove HA was involved/ had direct contact with the assassins? The timing is suspicious. Is that why GCap asks about it in court? Hmmm, I'll keep that on my list of "coincidences." But KM, despite testifying against CA continues to perpetuate the event; to what end?

I agree GoRo...DR is just going through the steps: try to get evidence thrown out, ask for dismissal, get the jury to have a personal connection, etc. I learned something new today...DA can actually request to be seated closer to the jurors. "typically, the Plaintiff’s table is on the right side, and the Defendant’s table is on the left side. However, the Plaintiff’s side has the right to sit closest to the jury box."

Courtroom Layout: Who Sits Where?

Going into a courtroom can be an unsettling experience. The rooms are large and often overwhelming, and their layout is both confusing and intimidating.

www.rhodeslaw.com

Yes, you got it. ‘If you go through all of GC’s questioning..she is hinting.
She also asked Wendi if her parents drove up with her to Tallahasse.
(Basically, she was hardly ever driving by herself)I think she also says specifically Donna.
Theres a reason.
Almost sure she has said that her mother helps her drive because she was breastfeeding.
Georgia makes her comeback and says “In 2014, you were breastfeeding”?
So she’s getting at something.
The parents were BOTH there the weekend before the murder.
Perhaps only one of them came back.
We have not heard at all where Harveys phone pinged that night.
We don’t need to know.
We may find that out at Harveys trial.
Not sure why it’s such a stretch that Harvey may have stayed up there. Moral support for Wendi. And maybe a reason why she didn’t want Jeffrey driving by that week.

PS I also think Donna spent many weeks up there while Harvey worked, to help W with the kids.
Donna has said to Charlie how much dad has sacrificed flying up there and the cost etc.
So that means Donna was there alone a lot
We know that from Jeffrey.

 

[cottonweaver]

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

Take too long to address all of those points and I agree with a few of them too.

Anyway, going forward I'd venture to add that if Rashbaum has little role in cross or direct in DA's trial maybe people will start to miss him?
Morris has a different style & it could be duller even though he's more experienced than Rash as a criminal trial lawyer

I've watched some really boring trial lawyering over the last couple of years ( Other trials, not Dan Markel)