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

[Going Rogue]

I don’t think they could have gotten it from Donna’s phone, because they didn’t seize it until after her arrest, which was after Charlie’s conviction. But- they were monitoring both phones since the bump, and they did have other texts between them going pretty far back, about Harvey’s birthday, etc. Maybe they got them from Charlie’s phone, since they were between them it’s hard to tell. But maybe that’s why we didn’t see them until Charlie’s trial.

Even if they had the text as early as 2016, that text by itself is not enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and I don’t see any valid argument that can be made that the state acted in prejudice or in bad faith by delaying Donna’s arrest. You can make the argument the delay was an injustice and they should have not waited, BUT that’s different than with prejudice or in bad faith. There is a big distinction between those two concepts.

 

[BobbieJ]

No they aren’t arguing it was delayed ‘purposely’ for that reason – perhaps it’s inferred, but not directly stated. My point is that the only reason a ‘fair’ judge would grant that motion is ‘IF’ there was proof that the prosecution delayed the arrest in ‘bad faith’. IF they purposely waited to arrest Donna UNTIL after the SunPass data / records were no longer available it would fit the criteria of in ‘bad faith’. The defense’s argument is the SunPass data WOULD have proven she did not stop at Charlie’s house and the ‘money drop’ is no longer inculpatory evidence. If the judge rules the way Peter suggests he should, that would be a MAJOR win for the defense. I think Peter is grossly underestimating the importance of this evidence. Regardless, it’s a clever argument / motion by the defense - proof being someone as level headed as ‘LYK’ is giving some credence to parts of the motion.

But obviously this is based on the assumption that she didn't stop at CA's? So really the State DID want the Sunpass data yeah?

 

[BobbieJ]

I don’t think they could have gotten it from Donna’s phone, because they didn’t seize it until after her arrest, which was after Charlie’s conviction. But- they were monitoring both phones since the bump, and they did have other texts between them going pretty far back, about Harvey’s birthday, etc. Maybe they got them from Charlie’s phone, since they were between them it’s hard to tell. But maybe that’s why we didn’t see them until Charlie’s trial.

I don't remember where I read this. I distinctly remember reading LE had DA's phone data and were able to pinpoint her phone at CA's house at 8.59pm (when text was sent), 10.35pm the phone was still there and 01.29am when the phone was now in Orlando.

They didn't have her phone until 2023, so where did they get that data from? I think companies that manage mobile (cell) phone towers can produce records of all the mobile phones that are pinging off their mobile towers and at what times. At least thats what happens in Australia. So they don't need her phone or HA's phone data info to track them. Just the info from the mobile phone towers.

 

[amicuscurie]

But obviously this is based on the assumption that she didn't stop at CA's? So really the State DID want the Sunpass data yeah?

The state doesn’t need the SunPass data, in my opinion, and I think the defense is arguing that the state did not ask for it. If I recall correctly, the state has a text from Donna that says “outside your house,” and one from Charlie saying “ten minutes.” In my opinion the jury can theoretically decide what those texts mean. They could be shown the time they were sent, and then they could be shown the time Harvey and Donna got to Orlando per cell tower records. That’s what the state did in Charlie’s trial, if I recall correctly. I believe there was a witness who authenticated the cell tower records and the texts. If I recall correctly, the defense asked the witness whether the text from Donna could have meant that she was passing by on the turnpike, and I believe he said something to the effect that he couldn’t rule that out, but maybe I’m not remembering that correctly. The state didn’t need SunPass records to do any of that, and to the best of my knowledge it didn’t ask for them.

 

[Going Rogue]

But obviously this is based on the assumption that she didn't stop at CA's? So really the State DID want the Sunpass data yeah?

Its not an assumption by the defense, it’s their claim. They are stating she didn’t stop at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee and further claim that the SunPass data would have proven she didn’t stop at Charlie’s house. It’s a clever argument to make by the defense since the data can not be produced. Even if this motion is denied (I believe it definitely will), they will make this argument during the trial and, IMO, it will be twofold:

1) They will argue the state never asked for the SunPass data and that the data would have proven Donna never stopped at Charlies to drop off the $ - yet the state thought to pull SunPass records for the hitmen.

2) They will argue by the time Donna was indicted, they (the defense) were unable to obtain the records based on the time that had elapsed – AND as per number 1, the data would have proven Donna never stopped there.

 

[cottonweaver]

Lets not forget that the Def are also asking the court to exclude the state arguing anything at all from Call Patterns ( The demonstratives and records the state used to show communications between all conspirators leading up to the murder, those after the Bump etc. )
The Def aren't just asking to exclude Jul 18 8pm - 10pm Miami- Orlando phone & travel records

I hope that Everett doesn't throw them a bone, period.

 

[amicuscurie]

Its not an assumption by the defense, it’s their claim. They are stating she didn’t stop at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee and further claim that the SunPass data would have proven she didn’t stop at Charlie’s house. It’s a clever argument to make by the defense since the data can not be produced. Even if this motion is denied (I believe it definitely will), they will make this argument during the trial and, IMO, it will be twofold:

1) They will argue the state never asked for the SunPass data and that the data would have proven Donna never stopped at Charlies to drop off the $ - yet the state thought to pull SunPass records for the hitmen.

2) They will argue by the time Donna was indicted, they (the defense) were unable to obtain the records based on the time that had elapsed – AND as per number 1, the data would have proven Donna never stopped there.

You can’t prove a negative. They seem to be asking for the retroactive opportunity to do so?

 

[amicuscurie]

Lets not forget that the Def are also asking the court to exclude the state arguing anything at all from Call Patterns ( The demonstratives and records the state used to show communications between all conspirators leading up to the murder, those after the Bump etc. )
The Def aren't just asking to exclude Jul 18 8pm - 10pm Miami- Orlando phone & travel records

I hope that Everett doesn't throw them a bone, period.

Ah, the call pattern. The defense seems to be arguing that the pattern of calls surrounding the murder is no different from how these people called each other, for ALL time, and that the original records will show that, but they don’t exist anymore.

This, to me, is absurd.

In my opinion, if these call records didn’t show a unique pattern in the time surrounding the murder, the state wouldn’t be using them.

 

[Going Rogue]

You can’t prove a negative. They seem to be asking for the retroactive opportunity to do so?

I assume by saying ‘you can’t prove a negative’, you mean since the SunPass data doesn’t exist the state can’t prove the defense’s claim that the data would have proven Donna didn’t stop there is wrong?

If that’s what you mean, they can still use other means to rebut the defense’s claim. The text, which IMO is hard to interpret any other way and Katie’s testimony that Charlie told her that his parents just left. Although Katie’s credibility is questionable at best, her statement re Charlie’s admission that they were just there corroborates the text. I think the jury can easily piece this together despite the defense ‘claiming’ the SunPass data would prove she didn’t stop there.

 

[amicuscurie]

I assume by saying ‘you can’t prove a negative’, you mean since the SunPass data doesn’t exist the state can’t prove the defense’s claim that the data would have proven Donna didn’t stop there is wrong?

If that’s what you mean, they can still use other means to rebut the defense’s claim. The text, which IMO is hard to interpret any other way and Katie’s testimony that Charlie told her that his parents just left. Although Katie’s credibility is questionable at best, her statement re Charlie’s admission that they were just there corroborates the text. I think the jury can easily piece this together despite the defense ‘claiming’ the SunPass data would prove she didn’t stop there.

I think so, too. And I think, JMO, that the jury should be allowed to hear and see it.

 

[Going Rogue]

I think so, too. And I think, JMO, that the jury should be allowed to hear and see it.

I’d bet anything Judge Everett allows the ‘money drop / stop’ evidence & testimony. There is just no reasonable argument that can be made that the ‘delay’ in her arrest was in bad faith. Its what I always referred to in my sports betting days as 'a lock'

 

[amicuscurie]

I’d bet anything Judge Everett allows the ‘money drop / stop’ evidence & testimony. There is just no reasonable argument that can be made that the ‘delay’ in her arrest was in bad faith. Its what I always referred to in my sports betting days as 'a lock'

Yeah, it does seem unlikely to me

 

[BobbieJ]

I assume by saying ‘you can’t prove a negative’, you mean since the SunPass data doesn’t exist the state can’t prove the defense’s claim that the data would have proven Donna didn’t stop there is wrong?

If that’s what you mean, they can still use other means to rebut the defense’s claim. The text, which IMO is hard to interpret any other way and Katie’s testimony that Charlie told her that his parents just left. Although Katie’s credibility is questionable at best, her statement re Charlie’s admission that they were just there corroborates the text. I think the jury can easily piece this together despite the defense ‘claiming’ the SunPass data would prove she didn’t stop there.

Yeah I mean how far can someone push the interpretation of words in a courtroom. "Outside your house" actually means driving past 200 metres away. So when someone says I'm at the airport they mean they are on their way to the airport. It's just ridiculous. And why would CA reply "10 minutes" if his parents were passing by and not stopping.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yeah I mean how far can someone push the interpretation of words in a courtroom. "Outside your house" actually means driving past 200 metres away. So when someone says I'm at the airport they mean they are on their way to the airport. It's just ridiculous. And why would CA reply "10 minutes" if his parents were passing by and not stopping.

That’s why in my opinion it’s a stretch to argue that you were harmed by not being able to search for evidence that might refute that plain meaning. It speaks for itself, and in my opinion all you can do is say it means something else and let the jury decide.

 

[Knitpicker]

Is that not part of a strategy to try to get Everett to limit the state's evidence on ' Outside your house' and ' ten minutes' exchanges? ( To exclude that very damaging evidence about a money drop off)

I was also surprised to hear Peter Tragos give the opinion that this is what he'd decide as a compromise if he were the Judge! He'd exclude it if it was his choice.
'Lawyer Lee ' might have a take which I'd prefer.

My thoughts are that it is more likely they left from the family home than the condo in Miami.
I say that because they would have most likely taken I 95 from Miami (no tolls) if they left fromt he condo, and the Turnpike (Sunpass/tolls) if they left from the family home in Corals Springs to Charlies house (which is South/east from there), which would mean they were not “passing by”, because Charlies house is out of the way for them to go from the family home to Orlando.

So imo theres two reasons they want the Sunpass information out as evidence.
Sunpass=leaving from Coral Springs
“Passing by” = not true if they left from Coral Springs

I have been saying this for a long time, even here.
We shall see.
Interesting this is coming up now.

 

[Knitpicker]

No they aren’t arguing it was delayed ‘purposely’ for that reason – perhaps it’s inferred, but not directly stated. My point is that the only reason a ‘fair’ judge would grant that motion is ‘IF’ there was proof that the prosecution delayed the arrest in ‘bad faith’. IF they purposely waited to arrest Donna UNTIL after the SunPass data / records were no longer available it would fit the criteria of in ‘bad faith’. The defense’s argument is the SunPass data WOULD have proven she did not stop at Charlie’s house and the ‘money drop’ is no longer inculpatory evidence. If the judge rules the way Peter suggests he should, that would be a MAJOR win for the defense. I think Peter is grossly underestimating the importance of this evidence. Regardless, it’s a clever argument / motion by the defense - proof being someone as level headed as ‘LYK’ is giving some credence to parts of the motion.

Or the Sunpass would prove they left from the family home and not Miami and that they were not “passing by”.
Because they would have taken a non toll road if they left from Miami.
I have been saying this here months ago.
I put up maps but they were taken down to show what I was talking about.

Coral spring = they would have taken the turnpike =tolls/Sunpass
Miami= they woudl have taken I95= no tolls.

So what they didn’t do is more important evidence.

Only someone living int he area would understand what I am saying , unless you get on a map and plot the condo vs the family home and see it. And the two highways (Fl Turnpike and I95).

 

[Knitpicker]

Are they arguing that the state deliberately delayed indicting Donna so that the SunPass data would no longer be available to refute the “outside your house” text? That’s pretty interesting, since they presumably only found out about the “outside your house” text when they seized her phone in 2023.

I’m pretty sure they had this info before her arrest.

 

[amicuscurie]

T

Or the Sunpass would prove they left from the family home and not Miami and that they were not “passing by”.
Because they would have taken a non toll road if they left from Miami.
I have been saying this here months ago.
I put up maps but they were taken down to show what I was talking about.

Coral spring = they would have taken the turnpike =tolls/Sunpass
Miami= they woudl have taken I95= no tolls.

So what they didn’t do is more important evidence.

Only someone living int he area would understand what I am saying , unless you get on a map and plot the condo vs the family home and see it. And the two highways (Fl Turnpike and I95).

why would they want the Sunpass records if they would prove that they were NOT passing by? Passing by helps them.

 

[amicuscurie]

I’m pretty sure they had this info before her arrest.

Yes, I think my original post was wrong in that regard

 

[BobbieJ]

Or the Sunpass would prove they left from the family home and not Miami and that they were not “passing by”.
Because they would have taken a non toll road if they left from Miami.
I have been saying this here months ago.
I put up maps but they were taken down to show what I was talking about.

Coral spring = they would have taken the turnpike =tolls/Sunpass
Miami= they woudl have taken I95= no tolls.

So what they didn’t do is more important evidence.

Only someone living int he area would understand what I am saying , unless you get on a map and plot the condo vs the family home and see it. And the two highways (Fl Turnpike and I95).

I don't live there, but had a look on the map. If they were in Coral Springs, they would have had to have gone South past his house then went North to get to Orlando. Be interesting to know where they were staying.