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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cottonweaver said:
I've snipped a lot of the posts but that's just to jump off of one theme and to address a couple of points you made @Going Rogue

- We found out that Rashbaum has been representing her since 2016. (DR yesterday)
- We already knew they were so close she'd that she'd speak to his wife during prep for Charlie's case (DA on jail calls)

- Yesterday, a couple of US defense lawyers providing commentary on the hearing remarked on their closeness ( They pointed out DR & DA's exchanges during the hearing) .

-Donna's own diary-planners suggest she was closely involved in prep for Charlie's losing case ( New discovery FoIAs)

- Does Rashbaum give an honest appraisal to his clients? ( Jail calls are a trove on info on that subject. Not going to list all the CA & DA comments about DR in those recordings, would take up another half of a WS page. Anyway, CA doesn't name the person/persons who advised him to stick it out instead of leaving the country)

- Originally David Markus was meant to be repping Charlie at trial but later, Donna's lawyer Rashbaum took over Charlie's case. (Charlie raises that point again during one of the recent jail call recordings. Any claim that this withdrawal by Markus was down to trial scheduling doesn't really stack-up because no trial date was set at the point DM withdrew.)


When you look at that brief list, imo it raises questions. OFC I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
Regardless of us being unable to get to the bottom of it, going forward, it's not difficult to imagine that Charlie might have time to ruminate on it, especially if Donna is convicted.

Plenty of lawyers commenting on Court TV, L&Crime & on podcasts have mentioned similar points over the last 12months. That's not a court, they're not on a jury and are entitled to raise them. I don't think them being critical of Rashbaum means they must hate his clients as you said.( OTOH I do agree that there are some non-lawyers who've just hated DR from day one & couldn't compliment him on any aspect of his lawyering. Reminds me of the Steven Epstein 'thing' again.)

Anyways...

There's plenty of questionable behaviour re lawyers in this case which are IMO legit discussion topics and are topical right now. Some of them could be raised at DA's trial ( See new witnesses, exhibits, depos)

Whether that's the Jim Lewis/XX Adelson Lawyer ' no one's talking' call (October 2016, wiretap) or
the recent Morgan Honeycutt text to Donna ( Donna's phone search warrant Nov 2023) or
the issue of whether an Adelson lawyer reached out to Francis Magbanua re paying KM's fees ( Georgia, 2023) or
why DaCoste showed up at Sandford's interview with Francis Magbanua even though Samantha had her own lawyer or
the broader issue of conflict of interest & whether that ultimately serves the best interests of the clients( DA & CA same lawyer.)

there's more but this post is already long enough.

Worth repeating: Rashbaum yesterday said that he was Donna's lawyer from August 2016
Click to expand...

My point is we have zero insight to what Raahbaum says to Donna or what he said to Charlie regarding the strength of the case against them. Unless you want to attempt to decipher the conversations between Charlie and Donna on the jail calls. Two people who are delusional and have a serious inability to come to terms with reality. IMO, it seems most believe he is / was pumping them up with false hopes. Simply put, there is no ‘real’ data to support the belief that Raahbaum is / was deliberately stringing them along and giving them false hopes because that’s what suits him financially. I believe Rashbaum has better legal ethics than what’s being irresponsibility (strong word but true) broadcasted on multiple forums covering this case.
 
Going Rogue said:
I highly doubt Rashbaum was pumping Charlie up and setting unrealistic expectations. I know that belief seems to be widespread in the YouTube echo chamber but Rashbaum is not that irresponsible. Also, Charlie retained Dan Rashbaum about a month AFTER his arrest, so there would not have been an opportunity to flee while he was represented by Rashbaum. Donna retained Rashbaum BEFORE her arrest and did try to flee. What does that tell you? Also, Charlie did get a fair trial so whoever told him he’d get a fair trial was correct.
Click to expand...
The family has known Rashbaum since 2016.he was their white collar attorney. I wouldn't be surprised if they socialized with him and he was /is considered part of the family
Rashbaum himself on STS said he considered Donna his mother (not int those words) but the gist of it.
That tells you a lot!.
Imo thats why they trusted/ trust him so much.
Theres lot of stuff with Harvey I am sure that he needed Rashbaum fo. So in other words he wasn’t a stranger to any of them since 2016, and surely before Charlie hired him personally to defend him.
The shock I am sure, would be that this “family friend” would ever steer any of them in the wrong direction, given their past relationship of trust.
 
Last edited:
Rash was Donna’s lawyer first, he’s Donna’s lawyer now. In my opinion that had to have affected his defense of Charlie. Notice all these motions being made now for Donna which he did not make at Charlie’s trial, about the exact same evidence. And that double extortion defense, in my opinion, wasn’t the best for Charlie, because I think he possibly had other more plausible options. But, in my opinion, it makes Donna’s defense much easier because she can just say her son told her some cockamamie story and she believed him. In my opinion there must be a reason Markus stopped representing Charlie.
 
Last edited:
amicuscurie said:
Rash was Donna’s lawyer first, he’s Donna’s lawyer now. In my opinion that had to have affected his defense of Charlie. Notice all these motions being made now for Donna which he did not make at Charlie’s trial, about the exact same evidence. And that double extortion defense, in my opinion, wasn’t the best for Charlie, because I think he possibly had other more plausible options. But, in my opinion, it makes Donna’s defense much easier because she can just say her son told her some cockamamie story and she believed him. In my opinion there must be a reason Markus stopped representing Charlie.
Click to expand...
I also recall WS-ers here - while we were following CA's trial - commenting on whether double extortion was originally Donna's old/planned defense argument.
Mentour Lawyer had also mentioned the same.

Too difficult to go find those posts now to retrieve the full detail, they'll be back on the old threads

re Markus, it's not as if he has an issue defending murderous dentists
Bianca Rudolph case.
www.websleuths.com

GUILTY - Zambia - Bianca Rudolph, 57, safari trip, fatally shot, 2016 Oct, PA dentist husband and gf arrested 2021

Pennsylvania dentist, 67, is charged with murdering his wife on 2017 African hunting trip | Daily Mail Online 1/11/2022 A Pennsylvania dentist has been charged with murdering his wife during a 2016 African hunting safari as part of an insurance scam and to get out of his marriage to be with...
www.websleuths.com www.websleuths.com
 
Last edited:
Knitpicker said:
The family has known Rashbaum since 2016.he was their white collar attorney. I wouldnt be surprised if they socialized with him and he was /is considered part of the family
Rashbaum himself on STS said he considered Donna his mother (not int hose words) but the gist of it.
That tells you a lot!.
Imo thats why they trusted/ trust him so much.
Theres lot of stuff with Harvey I am sure that he needed Rashbaum fo. So in other words he wasn’t a stranger to any of them since 2016, and surely before Charlie hired him personally to defend him.
The shock I am sure, would be that this “family friend” would ever steer any of them in the wrong direction, given heir past relationship of trust.
Click to expand...

The fact that Rashbaum knows the family since 2016 and that they trust him has nothing to do with my point - BUT if you want to make that argument, you can easily argue the opposite - that since he knows them so well and is like ‘family’, it’s more likely he hit them with a slap of reality about their true prospects. Let’s not lose sight of the fact Donna attempted to flee. Isn’t the fact she attempted to flee more inline with someone being told things are not looking good for her? I would say yes.

No disrespect to anyone with an opposing opinion, but there is a lot of ‘noise’ on multiple platforms and STRONG perspectives given that are that based on conjecture and are very strongly biased and based on a ‘selective’ review of data. Another term that better defines a lot of beliefs and perspective is ‘confirmation bias’. I’ve said it multiple times, the confirmation bias in this case is very prevalent.
 
amicuscurie said:
Rash was Donna’s lawyer first, he’s Donna’s lawyer now. In my opinion that had to have affected his defense of Charlie. Notice all these motions being made now for Donna which he did not make at Charlie’s trial, about the exact same evidence. And that double extortion defense, in my opinion, wasn’t the best for Charlie, because I think he possibly had other more plausible options. But, in my opinion, it makes Donna’s defense much easier because she can just say her son told her some cockamamie story and she believed him. In my opinion there must be a reason Markus stopped representing Charlie.
Click to expand...
The family as a whole shared their finances. I think Rashbaum was the “family” attorney even though technically he was Donna and Harveys. In Yiddish you call it Mishpookah.
 
Going Rogue said:
The fact that Rashbaum knows the family since 2016 and that they trust him has nothing to do with my point - BUT if you want to make that argument, you can easily argue the opposite - that since he knows them so well and is like ‘family’, it’s more likely he hit them with a slap of reality about their true prospects. Let’s not lose sight of the fact Donna attempted to flee. Isn’t the fact she attempted to flee more inline with someone being told things are not looking good for her? I would say yes.
Click to expand...
Do you not think her flee attempt might have had more to do with events immediately preceding her visa applications?
- a superfast Guilty verdict for a co-conspirator
- a ' Stay Tuned!' Georgia press conference
- and a ' you might get away but then again you might get stopped' answer from a hired advisor? ( not verbatim)
 
Anyway, an interesting little snippet from a local broadcaster who did attend the pre-trial hearing ( Patty's Playhouse)

well... interesting to me anyway
Alex Morris was giving Donna physical cues to try and minimise any reactions from her ( court decorum etc)
PP says she was sat right behind DA and saw some nudges etc.
---
Also, having now gotten to the end of the STS livestream I notice Alex Morris warns Judge Everett that the Defense may have to file more motions in limine based on depos that the Defense has recently conducted ( You can see from the docket who are the witnesses the Def recently deposed.)

Also that at the end of the hearing all the lawyers then go to meet Judge in chambers because something has come up.
----
Mentour Lawyer James also has new material. Bad for Wendi & bad for Donna..... I guess

No idea how one purchases furniture for Vietnamese villas made of sand.
 
Last edited:
amicuscurie said:
Rash was Donna’s lawyer first, he’s Donna’s lawyer now. In my opinion that had to have affected his defense of Charlie. Notice all these motions being made now for Donna which he did not make at Charlie’s trial, about the exact same evidence. And that double extortion defense, in my opinion, wasn’t the best for Charlie, because I think he possibly had other more plausible options. But, in my opinion, it makes Donna’s defense much easier because she can just say her son told her some cockamamie story and she believed him. In my opinion there must be a reason Markus stopped representing Charlie.
Click to expand...

Rashbaum basically laid out Donna’s defense in his STS interview. To paraphrase he said - regardless of what you believe about Charlie’s involvement, Donna was following Charlie’s instructions. IMO, the defense will be she was told by Charlie he was extorted and she believed him. Rashbaum doesn’t even need to ‘expose’ Charlie’s involvement with that defense. Simply, Donna was doing what Charlie told her to do. With that defense, it covers her decision to not go to the police after the bump, writing the checks or ANY post murder activity EXCEPT the money drop. The money drop is a KEY piece to a conviction.

Also, there were plenty of pre trial motions by Rashbaum in Charlie’s trial. On memory, he tried to suppress the wiretaps, exclude Dolce Vita, and Jeff’s ‘hearsay’ comments on the hitman story. I’m sure there were more, those are top of mind. Some were the same motions as Donna’s trial, but he wasn’t arguing the ‘undue’ delay angle in Charlie trial and that ties into some of the motions argued in Donna’s case. Most importantly the money drop. To me the ‘money drop’ motion and Judge Everett’s ruling on that, is the most critical variable overhanging the case currently.
 
cottonweaver said:
Do you not think her flee attempt might have had more to do with events immediately preceding her visa applications?
- a superfast Guilty verdict for a co-conspirator
- a ' Stay Tuned!' Georgia press conference
- and a ' you might get away but then again you might get stopped' answer from a hired advisor? ( not verbatim)
Click to expand...
Good points. I think, but do not know of course, just an opinion, that it’s possible Donna’s plan might always have been for Charlie to take the fall and to flee if he was convicted and/or the heat was getting closer to HER. If that is true, (again, this is just my opinion), then whether Rash and/or Charlie would have known that is anyone’s guess.

In my opinion it is possible Donna may have felt there was a chance the double extortion story would work for Charlie, and it is possible she was willing to take her chances there. But, as we have seen from her planners which have come into evidence, she appears to have been arranging for a Vietnam Villa at the same time that defense was being prepared. In my opinion it is possible she was trying to cover all her bases.

Hypothetically, it is possible that it now appears to Donna that plans A and B have failed for HER, and so, in my opinion, it is possible that Donna is only now bringing out the big guns in terms of legal representation and filings. In my opinion this is one of the most selfish mothers I have seen, but that is just my opinion.

It’s interesting to me that she appears in my opinion to have planned to protect Wendi as well as herself by planning for Charlie to take the fall, hypothetically. I’m no psychiatrist, but it has always seemed to me that she views Wendi as an extension of herself, including throughout the marriage and the divorce. If that was the case, hypothetically, it is possible she may have perceived Dan’s actions as a narcissistic wound to HER, and that may possibly have led to this murder. (In my opinion this does not preclude the possibility that Wendi was involved, don’t yell at me).

I’ve seen much speculation here and elsewhere that Donna is a narcissist. I’m not a psychologist, I don’t know if Donna is one. But in my experience, narcissists are quick to abandon and turn on people when they experience what they view as a betrayal or a wound to their perception of self.

In my opinion we have seen Wendi recently distancing herself from Donna, both with that text after Charlie’s conviction, and literally by moving away. Hypothetically, it’s possible that Donna may perceive these actions as a narcissistic wound, because it’s possible they may pierce her conception of Wendi as an extension of herself.

What happens when or if that occurs will be interesting, in my opinion.
 
cottonweaver said:
Do you not think her flee attempt might have had more to do with events immediately preceding her visa applications?
- a superfast Guilty verdict for a co-conspirator
- a ' Stay Tuned!' Georgia press conference
- and a ' you might get away but then again you might get stopped' answer from a hired advisor? ( not verbatim)
Click to expand...

I’m sure it is was a combination of things, but I don’t think Rashbaum was setting any unrealistic expectations with Donna or Charlie for financial gain. I’m sure he explained how strong that case against them were. Whether or not they processed what he told this is a different question.
 
Amicuscurie: “It’s interesting to me that she appears in my opinion to have planned to protect Wendi as well as herself by planning for Charlie to take the fall, hypothetically. I’m no psychiatrist, but it has always seemed to me that she views Wendi as an extension of herself, including throughout the marriage and the divorce. If that was the case, hypothetically, it is possible she may have perceived Dan’s actions as a narcissistic wound to HER, and that may possibly have led to this murder. (In my opinion this does not preclude the possibility that Wendi was involved, don’t yell at me).”

Bingo! A narcissist always sees everyone around them as an extension of themselves.
Wendi was protected and controlled at the same time.
Interesting to me is that Wendi took pride in pleasing her mother by remaining a virgin in H.S. (If we are to believ that), yet on the stand stated that her mother was disappointed she didn’t date more…yet we know Donna was very disappointed that it didn’t work out with Dave.
So this family keeps everyone thinking for sure.
 
Zedzded said:
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.
Click to expand...
ZZ, I love your clarity!! Men are instinctively protective of their Mothers and jurors know this. (ALL JURORS HAD/HAVE MOTHERS) I remember many years ago my little girl cautioning me to buckle my seat belt, "Mommy, you can always have more kids, but I can only have one Mommy." So, if RA conveys huge regret and disappointment over his Mother's history of active sabotage of her children's lives (even into their adulthood) ...they will see DA as a woman/Mother irretrievably broken and cruel in her maniacal & desperate pursuit of absolute control. RA will not whine he got the short end of the stick (unlike Chawlie). He is educated, successful, with a family of his own and managed to geographically & emotionally distance himself from the dysfunction.
I have a less (far less!) than neutral opinion of DRash after his unneccessarily rude and taunting cross of KM. Everyone in the courtroom knew she had been convicted LWOP. Humphhh...I am sure he would scream "Objection your Honor!!" if anyone spoke to one of his monied patrons (ie CA, DA, WA & HA) the way he badgered KM, and then asking for a 3 hour lunch break.
Badgering a witness refers to a situation in a court trial where an attorney or lawyer repeatedly asks aggressive or annoying questions to a witness, causing distress or confusion, and intended to undermine their credibility.

badgering the witness - Meaning in law and legal documents, Examples and FAQs | LegalBrief AI

Harassing the witness refers to repeatedly asking questions in an aggressive or intimidating manner to confuse or upset the witness during a trial.
www.legalbriefai.com www.legalbriefai.com
Just to add, CA was not convicted by KM's testimony...CA and DA managed to do that on their own, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 264 more.
Total: 588 (members: 265, guests: 323)

Online statistics

Members online
265
Guests online
323
Total visitors
588
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,739
Messages
18,244,984
Members
234,437
Latest member
Turtle17
Back
Top