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

[Knitpicker]

Start @36:50. Where he starts talking after the hearing yesterday.
WOWZI!! @Going Rogue—are you now more convinced your gal is not innocent/part of?
Wendi re: DMs life insurance policy.

Thanks Mentour.
We can have a nice conversation on this one.

 

[Going Rogue]

Going Rogue: In the court of YouTube Law everyone is making assumptions about how Rashbaum advised Charlie and how he is advising Donna in their attorney / client meetings.

You are as well , right?

Yes, I am and I’m not claiming to be smarter or better than anyone else and I always make it clear it’s my opinion. Also, I am being very clear that we do not know how Rashbaum is advising them behind closed doors AND there is zero basis to make a claim he is not acting writhing the acceptable legal & ethical standards governed by the bar association. Not saying you said anything wrong, but you don’t have to look too long or hard to find all sorts of disparaging comments about Rashbaum. From body shaming to questioning his ethics and motives. As I said previously, irresponsible comments are made on the daily.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, I am and I’m not claiming to be smarter or better than anyone else and I always make it clear it’s my opinion. Also, I am being very clear that we do not know how Rashbaum is advising them behind closed doors AND there is zero basis to make a claim he is not acting writhing the acceptable legal & ethical standards governed by the bar association. Not saying you said anything wrong, but you don’t have to look too long or hard to find all sorts of disparaging comments about Rashbaum. From body shaming to questioning his ethics and motives. As I said previously, irresponsible comments are made on the daily.

I will never criticize anyone based on physical appearances.
That is something someone can’t help. I will only criticize them based on their behavior.
I know short men who are very insecure because of their height and I know people who have double chins and “turkey” necks who wish they had the money to fix it/do anything about it
I got off a channel where in the chat this was going on yesterday- putting down R for physical appearances.

I don’t like his approach, tone and smugness to be honest.
I don’t find him likeable.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

I can’t judge his relationship with them,but he could have reeled them in having them think he has their best interest at heart.
Do you really believe he thinks Charlie was innocent or that Donna is innocent?
If he doesn’t then he is just “doing lawyer tricks” or whatever he said to Katie at last trial.
He basically admitted he is insincere..himself.

 

[Going Rogue]

I can’t judge his relationship with them,but he could have reeled them in having them think he has their best interest at heart.
Do you really believe he thinks Charlie was innocent or that Donna is innocent?
If he doesn’t then he is just “doing lawyer tricks” or whatever he said to Katie at last trial.
He basically admitted he is insincere..himself.

No, I do not believe he thinks either of them are innocent – he’s not that stupid. Defense attorneys RARELY represent someone in a murder case that they think is innocent - believing in their innocence is not a criteria for representation, otherwise 99% of murderers would be forced to represent themselves. Not sure what the statistics are, but I bet in less than 1% of murder cases an attorney believes their client is innocent. The only recent high-profile case that comes to mind is Karen Read – I believe Alan Jackson believes in her innocence – it’s rare.

 

[Knitpicker]

No, I do not believe he thinks either of them are innocent – he’s not that stupid. Defense attorneys RARELY represent someone in a murder case that they think is innocent - believing in their innocence is not a criteria for representation, otherwise 99% of murderers would be forced to represent themselves. Not sure what the statistics are, but I bet in less than 1% of murder cases an attorney believes their client is innocent. The only recent high-profile case that comes to mind is Karen Read – I believe Alan Jackson believes in her innocence – it’s rare.

I know about defense lawyers. You just made it appear as if he has their best interests.
We can agree it’s all about money with the added benefit of the family putting their trust in him.
Twice.\Did you see Mentours video I posted?

 

[Going Rogue]

I know about defense lawyers. You just made it appear as if he has their best interests.
We can agree it’s all about money with the added benefit of the family putting their trust in him.
Twice.\Did you see Mentours video I posted?

Yes. I don’t think it means much but I know how it will be interpreted. I’d have to revisit Wendi’s testimony to listen to exactly what Cappleman asked her. Going on memory, she asked Wendi if she called and contested or tried to change the designation of Shelly as the guardian of the Dan’s estate or life insurance policy - I don’t remember exactly what she asked. The letter ML read is more of an inquiry and also asking for clarification because of the mistake by the court clerk listing Phil and Shelly as ‘beneficiaries’. There was language re Wendi being the ‘natural guardian’ of her children and that she will be appointed guardian of their property. Nothing in that letter stated anything about contesting the designation of Shelly OR trying to change anything.

 

[LinasK]

No, I do not believe he thinks either of them are innocent – he’s not that stupid. Defense attorneys RARELY represent someone in a murder case that they think is innocent - believing in their innocence is not a criteria for representation, otherwise 99% of murderers would be forced to represent themselves. Not sure what the statistics are, but I bet in less than 1% of murder cases an attorney believes their client is innocent. The only recent high-profile case that comes to mind is Karen Read – I believe Alan Jackson believes in her innocence – it’s rare.

I just posted this same thing in another case. I used to have a good friend who was a defense attorney. They purposely do NOT ask their clients about their guilt/innocence so that they aren't lying in court. Whether or not they believe in their client is a different story, but it's up to the client to determine whether or not to keep that lawyer or ask for another. Also, if the lawyer really is unethical, that's up to that state's BAR association to punish them.

 

[Going Rogue]

I just posted this same thing in another case. I used to have a good friend who was a defense attorney. They purposely do NOT ask their clients about their guilt/innocence so that they aren't lying in court. Whether or not they believe in their client is a different story, but it's up to the client to determine whether or not to keep that lawyer or ask for another. Also, if the lawyer really is unethical, that's up to that state's BAR association to punish them.

Exactly, if they get an admission, it makes certain ‘defenses’ impossible for the attorney. Rashbaum could not have argued the double extortion defense had Charlie confessed to Rashbaum. Rashbaum would have likely withdrew from the case had Charlie given him a confession.

 

[Going Rogue]

I know about defense lawyers. You just made it appear as if he has their best interests.
We can agree it’s all about money with the added benefit of the family putting their trust in him.
Twice.\Did you see Mentours video I posted?

I didn’t address your first question (or statement?). Yes I do think he has their collective best interests in mind. I said I think he’s a good attorney and I never questioned his ethics - he has an ethical and legal obligation to act in their best interest and I believe that’s exactly what he’s doing. I know that may be contrary to what you may be hearing from one (or some) of your favorite ‘podcaster’ and some of their loyal sycophants that seem to parrot the views of their favorite self-anointed expert. I not referencing anyone in particular, because there are a lot of experts covering this case

 

[Zedzded]

Also, I am being very clear that we do not know how Rashbaum is advising them behind closed doors AND there is zero basis to make a claim he is not acting writhing the acceptable legal & ethical standards governed by the bar association.

Again speculation on my part, but with DR a few things jump out:

• CA's smugness and confidence on the stand, arguably because of narcissistic tendencies, but was his overconfidence in part due to DR buoying his hopes?
• No offer from either CA or DA to cooperate. This might be for a number of reasons, nothing to do with DR, but wouldn't someone who is cognisant of how strong the case is against them want to make a deal?
• DR encouraged CA to dump $1 million on hiring Josh Dubin, a jury specialist, why would he do this when the case against his client was so strong? As most people have stated, it was a complete waste of money.
• Why would DR want to represent DA? This conflict of interest,representing both CA and DA, really makes this so much more difficult for both CA and DA e.g DA and HA can no longer say they visited CA, they have to go with CA's story they didn't visit him on the 18th.
• His interview with Joel on STS, possibly at the behest of his client, such a bad idea and I felt he came across as arrogant, pompous, condescending and incompetent. He made things worse for his client, especially when trying to sell this idea of Vietnam being a cheeky little holiday. We get he has to try and spin this rubbish in court. Don't do it on bloody youtube for the world to see!

I think as I said earlier, once we are all done and dusted, 6/7 of these clowns will be serving LWOP. What part in this did their lawyers play?

 

[LinasK]

Again speculation on my part, but with DR a few things jump out:

• CA's smugness and confidence on the stand, arguably because of narcissistic tendencies, but was his overconfidence in part due to DR buoying his hopes?
• No offer from either CA or DA to cooperate. This might be for a number of reasons, nothing to do with DR, but wouldn't someone who is cognisant of how strong the case is against them want to make a deal?
• DR encouraged CA to dump $1 million on hiring Josh Dubin, a jury specialist, why would he do this when the case against his client was so strong? As most people have stated, it was a complete waste of money.
• Why would DR want to represent DA? This conflict of interest,representing both CA and DA, really makes this so much more difficult for both CA and DA e.g DA and HA can no longer say they visited CA, they have to go with CA's story they didn't visit him on the 18th.
• His interview with Joel on STS, possibly at the behest of his client, such a bad idea and I felt he came across as arrogant, pompous, condescending and incompetent. He made things worse for his client, especially when trying to sell this idea of Vietnam being a cheeky little holiday. We get he has to try and spin this rubbish in court. Don't do it on bloody youtube for the world to see!

I think as I said earlier, once we are all done and dusted, 6/7 of these clowns will be serving LWOP. What part in this did their lawyers play?

I agree that defending both mother and son does appear to be a conflict of interest, so I wonder how it was allowed, but ultimately it's usually up to the client to decide to change lawyers, although in some cases the judge won't allow a lawyer to leave a case. If Charlie really believes that his attorney threw him under the bus, it's on him to file an appeal based on Ineffectiveness of Counsel.

 

[Zedzded]

And if we ar

- he has an ethical and legal obligation to act in their best interest and I believe that’s exactly what he’s doing.

What about Tara Kawass? Do you believe she acted in her clients best interests and adhered to her legal and ethical obligations when representing KM?

 

[Going Rogue]

Again speculation on my part, but with DR a few things jump out:

• CA's smugness and confidence on the stand, arguably because of narcissistic tendencies, but was his overconfidence in part due to DR buoying his hopes?
• No offer from either CA or DA to cooperate. This might be for a number of reasons, nothing to do with DR, but wouldn't someone who is cognisant of how strong the case is against them want to make a deal?
• DR encouraged CA to dump $1 million on hiring Josh Dubin, a jury specialist, why would he do this when the case against his client was so strong? As most people have stated, it was a complete waste of money.
• Why would DR want to represent DA? This conflict of interest,representing both CA and DA, really makes this so much more difficult for both CA and DA e.g DA and HA can no longer say they visited CA, they have to go with CA's story they didn't visit him on the 18th.
• His interview with Joel on STS, possibly at the behest of his client, such a bad idea and I felt he came across as arrogant, pompous, condescending and incompetent. He made things worse for his client, especially when trying to sell this idea of Vietnam being a cheeky little holiday. We get he has to try and spin this rubbish in court. Don't do it on bloody youtube for the world to see!

I think as I said earlier, once we are all done and dusted, 6/7 of these clowns will be serving LWOP. What part in this did their lawyers play?

I appreciate the fact that you came with your list of reasons... Here are my thoughts to your bullet points in the same order:

 I don’t think that has anything to do with Rashbaum – other than Rashbaum coaching him to be confident.

 I guarantee Charlie thought he could pull it off and I don’t think he has the mental makeup to cooperate because he would have had to admit fault and give up his family – he would never admit fault. Same for Donna.

 I am not sure where the ‘rumor’ of 1 million started? I would bet my life savings that figure is not anywhere in the ballpark. I agree that strategy didn’t work out and it was a waste of money – but has nothing to do with Rashbaum’s ethics or his or competency as an attorney. Josh Dubin is also associated with the ‘Innocence Project’ – perhaps it was a smart tactical move to get Josh ‘connected’ to the case and Charlie was playing the long game in anticipation he might lose? Sounds like a stretch, but you never know.

 I’m sure the potential conflict of interest was clearly explained to Donna by Rashbaum. It was certainly addressed by Judge Everett. IMO, with the defense I anticipate Rasahbaum is going with, there will be no conflict.

 As far as his STS interview, I don’t think it was that bad and yes it was an attempt to do a little PR for Donna and probably not the best idea. Again, nothing to do with his ethics or competency as an attorney.

 

[Going Rogue]

And if we ar

What about Tara Kawass? Do you believe she acted in her clients best interests and adhered to her legal and ethical obligations when representing KM?

Greatly depends on what was discussed behind closed doors. Katie had a deal on that table and we know she didn’t take it. She should have been advised to take the deal. If she wasn’t strongly advised to take the deal by Kawass, then a good case can be made that Kawass did not act in her client’s best interests. There are a lot of people following the case blasting Kawass, BUT no one knows how Kawass advised her in their private client / attorney meetings. In fact, Katie said she didn’t take the deal because she would have had to give Sigfredo up SO she was fully aware she had a deal and we can’t assume or speculate that Kawass didn’t strongly advise her to take the deal. Katie could have simply refused which is what very likely happened.

 

[Knitpicker]

I didn’t address your first question (or statement?). Yes I do think he has their collective best interests in mind. I said I think he’s a good attorney and I never questioned his ethics - he has an ethical and legal obligation to act in their best interest and I believe that’s exactly what he’s doing. I know that may be contrary to what you may be hearing from one (or some) of your favorite ‘podcaster’ and some of their loyal sycophants that seem to parrot the views of their favorite self-anointed expert. I not referencing anyone in particular, because there are a lot of experts covering this case

You don’t give me enough credit for having my own opinions.
Somehow you think I am swayed by “favorite podcasters’ and others.
How would you know who my favorite podcasters are?

I give very little attention to podcasters.
YT is a lucrative business for some, and for others..well they are building their businesses.
And I could care less what most other people think.
I respect people like Mentour for being the first and for his analysis.
Thats about it.

 

[Zedzded]

I appreciate the fact that you came with your list of reasons... Here are my thoughts to your bullet points in the same order:

 I don’t think that has anything to do with Rashbaum – other than Rashbaum coaching him to be confident.

 I guarantee Charlie thought he could pull it off and I don’t think he has the mental makeup to cooperate because he would have had to admit fault and give up his family – he would never admit fault. Same for Donna.

 I am not sure where the ‘rumor’ of 1 million started? I would bet my life savings that figure is not anywhere in the ballpark. I agree that strategy didn’t work out and it was a waste of money – but has nothing to do with Rashbaum’s ethics or his or competency as an attorney. Josh Dubin is also associated with the ‘Innocence Project’ – perhaps it was a smart tactical move to get Josh ‘connected’ to the case and Charlie was playing the long game in anticipation he might lose? Sounds like a stretch, but you never know.

 I’m sure the potential conflict of interest was clearly explained to Donna by Rashbaum. It was certainly addressed by Judge Everett. IMO, with the defense I anticipate Rasahbaum is going with, there will be no conflict.

 As far as his STS interview, I don’t think it was that bad and yes it was an attempt to do a little PR for Donna and probably not the best idea. Again, nothing to do with his ethics or competency as an attorney.

Thanks for that and I don't necessarily disagree with you. Ultimately DR has two very guilty clients that he has to try and defend. It doesn't matter what he does it's going to be hard to look competent trying to sell the jury his clients ridiculous story. It would be great, at some point, to have him interviewed openly about his representation of CA and DA, obviously when the cases are appeals are over.

 

[Zedzded]

Greatly depends on what was discussed behind closed doors. Katie had a deal on that table and we know she didn’t take it. She should have been advised to take the deal. If she wasn’t strongly advised to take the deal by Kawass, then a good case can be made that Kawass did not act in her client’s best interests. There are a lot of people following the case blasting Kawass, BUT no one knows how Kawass advised her in their private client / attorney meetings. In fact, Katie said she didn’t take the deal because she would have had to give Sigfredo up SO she was fully aware she had a deal and we can’t assume or speculate that Kawass didn’t strongly advise her to take the deal. Katie could have simply refused which is what very likely happened.

I think Kawass's biggest error was regarding the payment of her legal fees. She probably will never have to answer for this, but there was never any forensic audit done by an expert in order to ascertain who and who paid her legal fees. She satisfied a judge that it was not from the Adelsons, but then all they had to do is give the money to a 3rd party to give to the Magbanuas. Ultimately none of the Magbanuas had the $$ to pay for KM's legal fees. We all know the Adelson's paid her legal fees, Kawass knows that too, the challenge is proving it.

 

[Going Rogue]

You don’t give me enough credit for having my own opinions.
Somehow you think I am swayed by “favorite podcasters’ and others.
How would you know who my favorite podcasters are?

I give very little attention to podcasters.
YT is a lucrative business for some, and for others..well they are building their businesses.
And I could care less what most other people think.
I respect people like Mentour for being the first and for his analysis.
Thats about it.

I wasn’t referring to you personally. I was just making a point about what ‘some’ are saying and how (in my opinion) many blindly listen to them and carry their message. If someone blocks me from their channel just because of my views, I bet I can tell you who they’re voting for in November. I have no issue with anyone’s personal choice, but a certain ideology doesn’t welcome opposing views or the tough questions and ‘silencing’ someone they view as threat to their beliefs is how they handle it.

 

[Going Rogue]

I think Kawass's biggest error was regarding the payment of her legal fees. She probably will never have to answer for this, but there was never any forensic audit done by an expert in order to ascertain who and who paid her legal fees. She satisfied a judge that it was not from the Adelsons, but then all they had to do is give the money to a 3rd party to give to the Magbanuas. Ultimately none of the Magbanuas had the $$ to pay for KM's legal fees. We all know the Adelson's paid her legal fees, Kawass knows that too, the challenge is proving it.

I think Kawass and Decoste took on the case more for the exposure it got them and they ‘settled’ for a greatly discounted rate for that exposure. I can’t take credit for that theory, it was mentioned by Tim Jansen who seemed to have some ‘inside’ information on the arrangement. Sounds likely to me.