FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24

[Zedzded]

I also think that at times DR appeals unprofessional. Perhaps this is a nuance of the US legal system, but he's very theatrical, exaggerating, embellishing, laughing sarcastically, haranguing credible witnesses. And maybe that's what he's got to do, e.g his questioning of Jeff Lacasse, but all that does is alienate the jury. If Rob Adelson takes the stand, is he going to eviscerate him? He's essentially lost his entire family, DR ripping into him will go down like a lead balloon.

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe the timing was probably really close. Still, if the SunPass records have them getting on the Turnpike anywhere north of FLL, it’s bad for the defense in my opinion. I know you don’t know the roads, but FLL is north of Miami and it comes AFTER the Turnpike entrance from Miami. If they got on the Turnpike at any entrance North of FLL, it suggests to me that they deliberately went to FLL for some reason. The only thing that could help them in my opinion is if something could show that they got on the Turnpike just north of Miami, BEFORE FLL. Then I guess if there was no evidence they ever got OFF, they could argue they didn’t stop when they sent the text. I think that’s what the defense is claiming the SunPass records would show. Again, I think both sides can argue that since nothing shows the exact time and location of them getting off or on, the jury can draw its own conclusions.

Is FLL FTL?
Right. I think the sunpass is incriminating bc it may indicate they left from the family home and went out of their way to go S to see Charlie. They probably wouldnt have used sunpass from S beach to Charlies. They would take I95. I know I keep repeating myself but this came up almost a year ago in my mind and I sent Georgia a map bc I wasnt sure they knew the routes to Charlies house from both directions.
She thanked me. Many people don’t live here,
I think it’s a big deal if they have proof of where Donna left from.
It would definitely be a money drop. An “on purpose” stop.
I have no doubt Rashbaum knows this which is why he is making such a big deal out of it.

 

[Knitpicker]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

Agree. I was just driving and thinking about how this may have been all Donna and Charlies idea, and they convinced Wendi that it was going to be the “solution” (i know that conjures up bad thoughts..), and in a strange way, they still want to protect her because this was supposed to be fool proof.
Yet she betrayed Charlie and that wasn’t supposed to happen.
What she chose to do outside of the confines of “the plan”is what put him away.
Repeatedly telling “the joke”
Driving by the crime scene bc she couldn't wait -bc Sigfredo hadn't called Katie 90 minutes after the hit…
So because of her impatience, in Charlies mind she blew it.
Donna also by all her conversations “I think this is about us”, etc.
It has to be a tough thing to want to protect someone who may not have initially been in on it, who agreed, yet who jeopardized what they thought would be an easy solution.
What a mess…

 

[amicuscurie]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

Dbm

 

[amicuscurie]

The way I look at it, regarding DR's competency (and other lawyers involved in this case is this:
Fast forward 1 year, all 7 co-conspirators, will be jailed, with 6/7 of them serving LWOP. That's pretty unusual. Most instances the majority of co-conspirators will look to make a deal, in this case probably only one ended up making a deal. How much is this attributable to the lawyers?

DA and CA idolise DR, he can do no wrong in their eyes. He is their lawyer and he has been paid handsomely for his services, so it seems reasonable to assume they would listen to him. Some have argued that if he wasn't sycophantic and overly positive about their chances, they would simply find another lawyer, but that isn't the case as they know him, respect him and pretty much have him up on a pedestal.

So the question is, did he tell CA how strong the case was against him? Has he told DA? The case against DA is a slam dunk, she's going to be convicted and she's going to die in prison. This is what DA should be telling DA, but I don't think he is, simply because they have not attempted to broker a deal with the state. Even if the State rejects it, it's worth a shot. 10 years and she admits culpability, but doesn't throw WA or HA under the bus. Gets out in her mid 80s and lives another 10 years? The worst the State can do is say no.

Same with Kawass and KM. Perhaps if there had been a different lawyer, KM would be relaxing on a Miami beach playing with her kids. And same with WA. Is her lawyer really expressing to her how strong and voluminous the inculpatory evidence is? WA can maintain her innocence to her lawyer, but his duty is to do the best for his client. If he's not telling her she's in deep trouble, he's not doing his primary duty as her lawyer.

If the defense wins some of these motions, the state’s case isn’t as much of a slam dunk against Donna, in my opinion. Donna is getting good representation, in my opinion. The question for me is why weren’t some of these arguments made before Charlie’s trial?

 

[amicuscurie]

Is FLL FTL?
Right. I think the sunpass is incriminating bc it may indicate they left from the family home and went out of their way to go S to see Charlie. They probably wouldnt have used sunpass from S beach to Charlies. They would take I95. I know I keep repeating myself but this came up almost a year ago in my mind and I sent Georgia a map bc I wasnt sure they knew the routes to Charlies house from both directions.
She thanked me. Many people don’t live here,
I think it’s a big deal if they have proof of where Donna left from.
It would definitely be a money drop. An “on purpose” stop.
I have no doubt Rashbaum knows this which is why he is making such a big deal out of it.

The text says “outside your house.” The defense is claiming it does not mean “outside your house.” In my opinion, that’s a stretch. But now, in addition, the defense is claiming that there could have been evidence to show that the text didn’t mean what it says, but it’s gone, and so what the text plainly says, should not enter into evidence. To me this is unfair. The defense seems to be claiming that they are being prejudiced by not being able to access evidence that no longer exists. But in my opinion what the defense is really seeking is to BENEFIT from the fact that the evidence no longer exists, and use the fact that it no longer exists to keep out evidence that does exist which hurts them. The court, in my opinion, should not allow this, it seems to me like a miscarriage of justice.

The defense, to me, is not prejudiced by not being able to access the SunPass records. As the state did argue, those records could be hurtful to the defense just as easily as they could be helpful.

 

[psdumas]

Donna is not on Zoom. She's in person!
Also looks very different
View attachment 527936

That look of hers says it all. She's sorta ashamed. But, she knows her life as she knows it is over. I'll take that as punishment .