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

[Knitpicker]

I believe Rob was present at Harvey’s birthday party. I would like it if he could at least be permitted to testify as to exactly where they were living at that time.

He was there. It appears it was the last time he was with his family.
I am hoping he can fill in who was at the Party. It could be that Wendi may not be telling the truth when she doesn’t “remember” who was there or if Katie or any of Charlies other girlfriends were there. (Georgia asked her about it on the stand. She even named the girlfriends. Seems suspect that W would not remember, just as she doesnt remember what she got her father for his Bday.
Perhaps Robert had some conversation there with someone?
I do remember that there was a wire call where Donna was complaining that when Robert goes to Naples, (W coast of Florida not Italy)he flies into Ft Lauderdale airport and never meets Donna and Harvey for lunch and she was angry about it. So that either means he saw them again after the party in 2014 (that wiretap was 2016) or he didn’t.

 

[amicuscurie]

He was there. It appears it was the last time he was with his family.
I am hoping he can fill in who was at the Party. It could be that Wendi may not be telling the truth when she doesn’t “remember” who was there or if Katie or any of Charlies other girlfriends were there. (Georgia asked her about it on the stand. She even named the girlfriends. Seems suspect that W would not remember, just as she doesnt remember what she got her father for his Bday.
Perhaps Robert had some conversation there with someone?
I do remember that there was a wire call where Donna was complaining that when Robert flies to Naples, he flies into Ft Lauderdale airport and never meets Donna and Harvey for lunch and she was angry about it. So that either means he saw them again after the party in 2014 (that wiretap was 2016) or he didn’t.

Yep. I also remember that call, and something about a conversation with Rob at the party. As I recall, in that call she says something about “downstairs,” which is how I started to picture the party being in a townhouse, because generally I believe those are two stories, if we are talking about Continuum. Of course, it’s possible the reference to “downstairs” just meant the building lobby. Anyway, it’s possible Rob may have heard something at the party. Generally as a matter of law evidence of bad character is not admissible in my understanding, but any relevant facts Rob might testify to may be.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yep. I also remember that call, and something about a conversation with Rob at the party. As I recall, in that call she says something about “downstairs,” which is how I started to picture the party being in a townhouse, because generally I believe those are two stories, if we are talking about Continuum. Of course, it’s possible the reference to “downstairs” just meant the building lobby. Anyway, it’s possible Rob may have heard something at the party. Generally as a matter of law evidence of bad character is not admissible in my understanding, but any relevant facts Rob might testify to may be.

I don’t remember anything about downstairs. Thats good you remembered that.

 

[amicuscurie]

I don’t remember anything about downstairs. Thats good you remembered that.

Maybe I imagined it, but it sticks in my head somehow

 

[nodamselindistress]

Anything noteworthy from the hearing this morning? Had a dr appointment and missed it.

 

[Going Rogue]

There will be so many great case studies on this case after the final chapter reaches a conclusion. Front and center should be how those that closely follow this case overthink and overanalyze every detail. I’m often surprised at how some people interpret certain events and scrutinize every detail. In the grand scheme of things, 95% of the ‘evidence’ we have been working off of in this case has been the same since Charlie Adelson’s initial arrest affidavit was written in 2016. Yes, a lot has happened since that date, but as far as evidence is concerned, very little has been introduced since that date. IMO, the three biggest reveals (that are public) since that date are:

1) Donnas text ‘outside your house’ & Charlie’s response ’10 minutes’
2) Wendi deleting the text - ‘This is so sweet”
3) Wendi inquiring on Dan’s travel plans for the week of his murder

IMO the key to a Donna conviction is the ‘outside your house’ text and Charlie’s response ‘10 minutes’. It’s obvious to me Donnas defense strategy will be Donna was in the dark and just listening to Charlie which accounts for all her ‘post murder’ behavior EXCEPT stopping at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee. With the defense I anticipate they go with, they don’t have to agree or admit they believe Charlie is guilty, JUST that Donna believed what Charlie was telling her and she was scared. I can see that defense being effective EXCEPT I don’t see a way around the implications of the text ‘outside your house’. That text is going to bury Donna.

I think Donna will be an easy conviction as long as they have a competent jury. My interest in Donna’s trial is simply what new evidence will be introduced. The majority of trial will be redundant testimony that we already all heard multiple times in the previous trials - what a waste of taxpayer’s money.

 

[amicuscurie]

Maybe I imagined it, but it sticks in my head somehow

dbm

 

[nodamselindistress]

There will be so many great case studies on this case after the final chapter reaches a conclusion. Front and center should be how those that closely follow this case overthink and overanalyze every detail. I’m often surprised at how some people interpret certain events and scrutinize every detail. In the grand scheme of things, 95% of the ‘evidence’ we have been working off of in this case has been the same since Charlie Adelson’s initial arrest affidavit was written in 2016. Yes, a lot has happened since that date, but as far as evidence is concerned, very little has been introduced since that date. IMO, the three biggest reveals (that are public) since that date are:

1) Donnas text ‘outside your house’ & Charlie’s response ’10 minutes’
2) Wendi deleting the text - ‘This is so sweet”
3) Wendi inquiring on Dan’s travel plans for the week of his murder

IMO the key to a Donna conviction is the ‘outside your house’ text and Charlie’s response ‘10 minutes’. It’s obvious to me Donnas defense strategy will be Donna was in the dark and just listening to Charlie which accounts for all her ‘post murder’ behavior EXCEPT stopping at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee. With the defense I anticipate they go with, they don’t have to agree or admit they believe Charlie is guilty, JUST that Donna believed what Charlie was telling her and she was scared. I can see that defense being effective EXCEPT I don’t see a way around the implications of the text ‘outside your house’. That text is going to bury Donna.

I think Donna will be an easy conviction as long as they have a competent jury. My interest in Donna’s trial is simply what new evidence will be introduced. The majority of trial will be redundant testimony that we already all heard multiple times in the previous trials - what a waste of taxpayer’s money.

Not sure what you are suggesting they do so as not to "waste" taxpayer's money?

 

[Going Rogue]

Not sure what you are suggesting they do so as not to "waste" taxpayer's money?

For one, they could have tried Donna & Charles together. What evidence are you aware of since Charlie’s arrest is ‘new’ as it relates to Donnas case?

 

[nodamselindistress]

For one, they could have tried Donna & Charles together. What evidence are you aware of since Charlie’s arrest is ‘new’ as it relates to Donnas case?

I am not aware of any new evidence since the trial has not begun yet. It seems there are some new potential witnesses, however. And Donna was caught at MIA attempting to flee is new and potentially damaging evidence. The biggest shocker to me during Charlie's trial was the damp/laundered money.

I just don't see how you have a trial w/o going over all the evidence again with the new jurors, but maybe that is just me.

 

[Going Rogue]

I am not aware of any new evidence since the trial has not begun yet. It seems there are some new potential witnesses, however. And Donna was caught at MIA attempting to flee is new and potentially damaging evidence. The biggest shocker to me during Charlie's trial was the damp/laundered money.

I just don't see how you have a trial w/o going over all the evidence again with the new jurors, but maybe that is just me.

I wasn’t suggesting they could somehow avoid the redundancy of explaining everything they covered in the three previous trials and have the same witnesses restate everything they said in the previous trials. The majority of Donna’s trial will be like the movie Groundhog Day. I happen to be a big fan of that movie, but, personally, I’m not interested in hearing Det. Chris Corbitt on the stand for another 2 hours going over the same digital forensics he covered in the 3 previous trials or any other redundant testimony from other witnesses.

 

[nodamselindistress]

So maybe you could just skip the redundant portions? I am very much looking forward to this trial and will watch as much of it as I am able to.

 

[Going Rogue]

So maybe you could just skip the redundant portions? I am very much looking forward to this trial and will watch as much of it as I am able to.

That’s exactly the plan.... Any ‘state’ witness testimony with the exception of Wendi will almost be a carbon copy of the other trials. Wendi’s testimony will be must watch for a few reasons and I’m particularly interested in hearing the testimony from any ‘new’ witnesses. I’m not sure how much I’ll watch live vrs on ‘replay’ where I can watch in 2x speed.

 

[ch_13]

For one, they could have tried Donna & Charles together. What evidence are you aware of since Charlie’s arrest is ‘new’ as it relates to Donnas case?

Well, there is the attempt to flee to Vietnam.

Consciousness of guilt I think will go a long way with jurors and undercut the argument that she was an innocent, law-abiding grandma, just trying to help out her son.

 

[amicuscurie]

There will be so many great case studies on this case after the final chapter reaches a conclusion. Front and center should be how those that closely follow this case overthink and overanalyze every detail. I’m often surprised at how some people interpret certain events and scrutinize every detail. In the grand scheme of things, 95% of the ‘evidence’ we have been working off of in this case has been the same since Charlie Adelson’s initial arrest affidavit was written in 2016. Yes, a lot has happened since that date, but as far as evidence is concerned, very little has been introduced since that date. IMO, the three biggest reveals (that are public) since that date are:

1) Donnas text ‘outside your house’ & Charlie’s response ’10 minutes’
2) Wendi deleting the text - ‘This is so sweet”
3) Wendi inquiring on Dan’s travel plans for the week of his murder

IMO the key to a Donna conviction is the ‘outside your house’ text and Charlie’s response ‘10 minutes’. It’s obvious to me Donnas defense strategy will be Donna was in the dark and just listening to Charlie which accounts for all her ‘post murder’ behavior EXCEPT stopping at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee. With the defense I anticipate they go with, they don’t have to agree or admit they believe Charlie is guilty, JUST that Donna believed what Charlie was telling her and she was scared. I can see that defense being effective EXCEPT I don’t see a way around the implications of the text ‘outside your house’. That text is going to bury Donna.

I think Donna will be an easy conviction as long as they have a competent jury. My interest in Donna’s trial is simply what new evidence will be introduced. The majority of trial will be redundant testimony that we already all heard multiple times in the previous trials - what a waste of taxpayer’s money.

It’s possible that Katie won’t be allowed to testify that Charlie told her his parents had been there, because it is hearsay. (It was allowed in as to Charlie, pursuant to a hearsay exception for the Defendant’s own statements, but now Donna is the Defendant, not Charlie).

Of course, in my opinion she will be allowed to testify that the money was wet, and that she thought it had been washed. She could possibly be allowed to say why she thought that (because Charlie said his parents had been there, and he usually didn’t have money in the safe). There is an exception to hearsay where you are not trying to show that the statement is true, (that the parents had been there) but you’re trying to show what effect it has on the listener (that it made Katie think the money had been washed).

But- if Katie’s statements as to what Charlie told her regarding his parents are not allowed, then in my opinion the defense might just decide that it is better to admit the parents stopped there on the way, perhaps because they were upset by the day’s events and wanted to see their son.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well, there is the attempt to flee to Vietnam.

Consciousness of guilt I think will go a long way with jurors and undercut the argument that she was an innocent, law-abiding grandma, just trying to help out her son.

Donna was eventually getting arrested whether she attempted to flee or not. The attempt to flee just expedited what was, in my opinion, an arrest that was already delayed way too long. It obvious that the attempt to flee will be used by the state to argue ‘consciousness of guilt’ but the act of attempting to flee does not hold a lot of weight from my perspective when compared to the mountain of evidence that the state has had on Donna for, literally, years. Why wasn’t Harvey arrested? He was attempting to flee as well - its all the other evidence against Donna and they have had a solid case against her for several years - attempting to flee is just a cherry on top although it will be argued by the defense that she (and her jail calls w/ Charlie back this up) feared she wouldn't get a fair trial in Tallahassee and was worried about the rumors that the state was going after her for a crime she didn't commit. It’s a shame it took this long. My biggest criticism of the state is the pace at which they are moving.

 

[Going Rogue]

It’s possible that Katie won’t be allowed to testify that Charlie told her his parents had been there, because it is hearsay. (It was allowed in as to Charlie, pursuant to a hearsay exception for the Defendant’s own statements, but now Donna is the Defendant, not Charlie).

Of course, in my opinion she will be allowed to testify that the money was wet, and that she thought it had been washed. She could possibly be allowed to say why she thought that (because Charlie said his parents had been there, and he usually didn’t have money in the safe). There is an exception to hearsay where you are not trying to show that the statement is true, (that the parents had been there) but you’re trying to show what effect it has on the listener (that it made Katie think the money had been washed).

But- if Katie’s statements as to what Charlie told her regarding his parents are not allowed, then in my opinion the defense might just decide that it is better to admit the parents stopped there on the way, perhaps because they were upset by the day’s events and wanted to see their son.

You are probably correct re it being hearsay. IMO, Katie is not a credible witness anyway and I think the texts between Donna & Charlie is all we need. Re the damp & moldy money, I’m surprised the defense didn’t object to Katie’s testimony that the damp money came from Donna. Her testimony that is was damp and moldy is fine BUT it was just conjecture by Katie to allege that the damp money was ’probably from Donna’. Rashbaum should have objected, and. IMO, Judge Everett would have sustained that objection. There is absolutely no reason Katie's ’guess’ that the damp money probably came from Donna should have been allowed as testimony.

 

[IQuestion]

Really? I wonder how that is working out? (Yes, insert extreme sarcasm followed by eyeroll.)

Only 11 minutes. 5 of it—- Seems his testimony may be prejudicial to the jurors and not much substance.
Unlikely according to ML that he has any “key information”. That he will “tilt the case towards the prosecution”.
Then he says “On the other side he is the defendants son”.
Ya’ all can listen and see what you get.

The other 6 minutes are him playing soccer and tennis.
Im glad he enjoys his life. Helps with burnout.

To Mentour Lawyer (wherever you are...you had me on edge ad in, deuce, ad out, deuce, ad in, deuce, ad out, deuce, ad in......wow. I was screaming "Get those feet moving and close the deal!" LOL! I enjoyed the video!
Back to the case. The "in camera" request doesn't surprise me at all...If RA tells how his Mother interfered in his life, it won't look good for the defense or sit well with the jury. Family members are usually called upon to say how great a person the defendant was/is etc., no?

For one, they could have tried Donna & Charles together. What evidence are you aware of since Charlie’s arrest is ‘new’ as it relates to Donnas case?

I am a courtroom lurker (but not in a sinister way) and trying two people together is too darned confusing. For instance two sets of jurors, two sets of defense attorneys, one defendant blames the other defendant, one defendant is male and the other female, the defendants are blood relations etc....not a good situation. It is hard enough for a seated jury to listen to days of evidence and try to remember or write down what evidence goes to what defendant. Anyway...it doesn't matter anymore because the Rubicon has been crossed. DA will be the singular defendant.
Mass prosecution is not possible....no one tries multiple bank robbers in one trial. Everyone involved in the robbery will be tried on their individual participation and then the outcome of the crime as a whole. I don't have to be a legal eagle to express my opinion because I am probably just the type of person who will be called and/or seated for jury duty. Come to think of it DR could have called DA as a witness and she could have voluntarily fessed up to her participation and save tax payer dollars???? DR could have spoken less and just worked out a plea deal for CA, thereby saving tax dollars, too. Sometimes justice isn't about tax dollars ...it's about about being accountable for criminal behavior.

 

[amicuscurie]

You are probably correct re it being hearsay. IMO, Katie is not a credible witness anyway and I think the texts between Donna & Charlie is all we need. Re the damp & moldy money, I’m surprised the defense didn’t object to Katie’s testimony that the damp money came from Donna. Her testimony that is was damp and moldy is fine BUT it was just conjecture by Katie to allege that the damp money was ’probably from Donna’. Rashbaum should have objected, and. IMO, Judge Everett would have sustained that objection. There is absolutely no reason Katie's ’guess’ that the damp money probably came from Donna should have been allowed as testimony.

I still think that if only the texts came in, and not Katie’s testimony, then the defense would be best simply conceding that the parents did stop by the house. To deny it, in my opinion, makes them look guilty. For me, if they were to admit this, it might serve to make the texts seem less damaging to their case.

 

[Zedzded]

IMO the key to a Donna conviction is the ‘outside your house’ text and Charlie’s response ‘10 minutes’. It’s obvious to me Donnas defense strategy will be Donna was in the dark and just listening to Charlie which accounts for all her ‘post murder’ behavior EXCEPT stopping at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee. With the defense I anticipate they go with, they don’t have to agree or admit they believe Charlie is guilty, JUST that Donna believed what Charlie was telling her and she was scared. I can see that defense being effective EXCEPT I don’t see a way around the implications of the text ‘outside your house’. That text is going to bury Donna.

It will bury her for sure. Which is why I was (wrongly) asserting that DR would state she did visit CA. Obviously that would adversely affect CA's appeal, so maybe he doesn't have any choice. This also puts HA in the firing line. DA's best way out of this pickle is to say she was simply supporting her son, she had no involvement and stick to the truth as much as possible.