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

[amicuscurie]

James from Mentour lawyer put up a video late last night-with great commentary on the hearing and also read more of the conversation between Harvey and Scott Radius. Great info.

It is surprising that Scott and Harvey continued to converse in 2024 , when Harvey knew it was Scott who turned Donna in. That was strange.
Harvey wanted Charlies money back, but Scott said ownership could be transferred to his son, but that Scott was in no position to buy out Charlie’s share- seems Scott and other investors (or maybe just one other?) were part of it.
Still baffling is the fact that no documentation or paperwork exists. Scott said Charlie wanted that.
Perhaps Donna knew that as she was making payments, but Harvey didn’t.
Seems Charlie would have been sure he was never going to be arrested or convicted (I;d have to check to see when he bought the villa in 2022-I think prior to his arrest?-maybe someone knows so I don't have to go back)purchasing a villa with a completion date in 2024.
Two years after his arrest.
Before the arrest, Donna could have been posing as Harvey in conversation with Scott. Discussing hotels, airlines, etc.

Does anyone remember that when Donna was arrested, I believe it was announced that Scott said he has had no contact with Donna in 10 years except one short conversation?

Hypothetically, what makes more sense, buying a villa in Vietnam after you’re arrested, or before?

 

[Knitpicker]

Hypothetically, what makes more sense, buying a villa in Vietnam after you’re arrested, or before?

I was in a rush to get out of the house or I would have gone back to find out when it was purchased. ML went over that last week. That was part of Donnas planner. Of course it would have been logical before, But I didn’t remember the date the payments started.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes, I don’t recall Charlie specifically saying he told Donna he was being extorted by the Latin Kings – but I don’t think it really matters if he specifically 'named' the gang. I believe the defense will 100% be selling the story that Donna was in fear the moment she heard Charlie was being extorted. That will be one of the main pillars of their argument.

I believe it would be disingenuous for the defense to claim he was in fear “of gangs” from the day of the murder, or that Donna was in fear “of gangs” from the moment he told her he was being extorted. It is possible they could argue they were in fear of murdering thugs, and perhaps that is a distinction without a difference.

But I think it does make a difference, because “gang members,” to me, is an inherently inflammatory and prejudicial term to use. And in my opinion any claim that either Donna or Charlie were in fear of “gang members” from the day of the murder is not supported by the evidence that I’ve seen.

The evidence that I’ve seen, including Rivera’s own testimony, is that Sig was not in a gang, and that although Luis was in a gang, he did not go along to Tallahassee pursuant to his role in the gang, this was simply a personal thing he did with Sig. Luis was expressly asked about this, as I recall, and he testified that the Latin Kings were in no way involved in the murder.

The only evidence I’ve seen as to any gangs being involved in this case is Charlie’s testimony in this trial that while in the car outside Dolce Vita - nearly two years later and conveniently when the FBI was not able to record him - Katie told him that Luis was a Latin King and was involved in killing Dan and extorting him. This testimony, in my opinion, is self-serving.

The claim by Charlie that he’s currently being threatened in prison by angry gang members, in my opinion, is simply an effort to bolster Donna’s defense. It’s certainly possible that they might be upset that Charlie accused them of extortion, but, for me that’s not easy to believe, given that the ONlY time he alleged that any gang member extorted him was in his (in my opinion self-serving) testimony about what Katie said to him in the car outside Dolce Vita.

 

[amicuscurie]

I was in a rush to get out of the house or I would have gone back to find out when it was purchased. ML went over that last week. That was part of Donnas planner. Of course it would have been logical before, But I didn’t remember the date the payments started.

Exactly. Hypothetically, why buy a place to flee after you’re arrested? Hypothetically, why flee after you’re acquitted? Something is not adding up for me with this.

 

[Knitpicker]

Exactly. Hypothetically, why buy a place to flee after you’re arrested? Hypothetically, why flee after you’re acquitted? Something is not adding up for me with this.

Looks like January 22, 2022 was the purchased date. I thought it was very close to his arrest.
So he may have thought it would be ready to flee too but he got arrested. I believe April 2022. I know it was around the time of B’s Bar Mitzvah.
I wouldnt even begin to try and read his mind.

 

[Knitpicker]

Here’s the reference—the photo is not uploading,
It states the purchase date .

@ 3:33 timestamp

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe it would be disingenuous for the defense to claim he was in fear “of gangs” from the day of the murder, or that Donna was in fear “of gangs” from the moment he told her he was being extorted. It is possible they could argue they were in fear of murdering thugs, and perhaps that is a distinction without a difference.

But I think it does make a difference, because “gang members,” to me, is an inherently inflammatory and prejudicial term to use. And in my opinion any claim that either Donna or Charlie were in fear of “gang members” from the day of the murder is not supported by the evidence that I’ve seen.

The evidence that I’ve seen, including Rivera’s own testimony, is that Sig was not in a gang, and that although Luis was in a gang, he did not go along to Tallahassee pursuant to his role in the gang, this was simply a personal thing he did with Sig. Luis was expressly asked about this, as I recall, and he testified that the Latin Kings were in no way involved in the murder.

The only evidence I’ve seen as to any gangs being involved in this case is Charlie’s testimony in this trial that while in the car outside Dolce Vita - nearly two years later and conveniently when the FBI was not able to record him - Katie told him that Luis was a Latin King and was involved in killing Dan and extorting him. This testimony, in my opinion, is self-serving.

The claim by Charlie that he’s currently being threatened in prison by angry gang members, in my opinion, is simply an effort to bolster Donna’s defense. It’s certainly possible that they might be upset that Charlie accused them of extortion, but, for me that’s not easy to believe, given that the ONlY time he alleged that any gang member extorted him was in his (in my opinion self-serving) testimony about what Katie said to him in the car outside Dolce Vita.

Another subject- do you remember Marcia Rodriguez from KMs trial? She was supposed to be a witness at DAs trial
.
She was the expert at cell phone extraction.
Seems DR is barking up the wrong tree w/ extractions.
I don’t want to give him ideas- is it possible he he missed her testimony/
I understood she was coming out of retirement for this trial..
And was hoping she had more re Wendi.
None of the newbies know of her -and i have never heard her mentioned by people.

 

[Going Rogue]

I believe it would be disingenuous for the defense to claim he was in fear “of gangs” from the day of the murder, or that Donna was in fear “of gangs” from the moment he told her he was being extorted. It is possible they could argue they were in fear of murdering thugs, and perhaps that is a distinction without a difference.

But I think it does make a difference, because “gang members,” to me, is an inherently inflammatory and prejudicial term to use. And in my opinion any claim that either Donna or Charlie were in fear of “gang members” from the day of the murder is not supported by the evidence that I’ve seen.

The evidence that I’ve seen, including Rivera’s own testimony, is that Sig was not in a gang, and that although Luis was in a gang, he did not go along to Tallahassee pursuant to his role in the gang, this was simply a personal thing he did with Sig. Luis was expressly asked about this, as I recall, and he testified that the Latin Kings were in no way involved in the murder.

The only evidence I’ve seen as to any gangs being involved in this case is Charlie’s testimony in this trial that while in the car outside Dolce Vita - nearly two years later and conveniently when the FBI was not able to record him - Katie told him that Luis was a Latin King and was involved in killing Dan and extorting him. This testimony, in my opinion, is self-serving.

The claim by Charlie that he’s currently being threatened in prison by angry gang members, in my opinion, is simply an effort to bolster Donna’s defense. It’s certainly possible that they might be upset that Charlie accused them of extortion, but, for me that’s not easy to believe, given that the ONlY time he alleged that any gang member extorted him was in his (in my opinion self-serving) testimony about what Katie said to him in the car outside Dolce Vita.

Obviously it’s a silly story that no one bought, but Charlie claimed Katie’s ‘friends’ threatened to kill him if he didn’t pay them a 1/3 of a million dollars – fear was a big part of Charlie’s double extortion defense. I would bet anything that ‘fear’ will also be a major component of Donna’s defense – stressed more so than in Charlie’s trial. Whether they work in the ‘gang’ angle / reference remains to be seen. I do believe they will work that in to the story, however it’s not necessarily critical to specify a ‘gang’ was extorting them – simply that they were being ‘extorted’ by someone threatening to kill them (or at least Charlie) has the same impact. Opinions may vary on that point.

 

[arielilane]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) - Donna Adelson was back in court Friday morning, less than two weeks before the start of her murder and conspiracy trial.

State prosecutors allege Adelson conspired with her son, Charlie Adelson, to kill her former son-in-law, Dan Markel, in July 2014. Markel was a young father who worked as a law professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Jury selection for the 74-year-old’s trial starts September 17.

...

After judge denies motion to toss out case, Donna Adelson returns to court Friday

Donna Adelson was back in court Friday morning, just shy of two weeks before her murder and conspiracy trial.

www.wctv.tv

Updated: 22 hours ago

 

[amicuscurie]

Obviously it’s a silly story that no one bought, but Charlie claimed Katie’s ‘friends’ threatened to kill him if he didn’t pay them a 1/3 of a million dollars – fear was a big part of Charlie’s double extortion defense. I would bet anything that ‘fear’ will also be a major component of Donna’s defense – stressed more so than in Charlie’s trial. Whether they work in the ‘gang’ angle / reference remains to be seen. I do believe they will work that in to the story, however it’s not necessarily critical to specify a ‘gang’ was extorting them – simply that they were being ‘extorted’ by someone threatening to kill them (or at least Charlie) has the same impact. Opinions may vary on that point.

Oh, it’s not critical to the story, in my opinion, but I think the defense will raise it, I think it gives the story more impact, and I think the defense is aware of that. I think it’s good that at the very least the state was successful in keeping them from invoking the name of the “Latin Kings” (Although I must confess I’ve never heard of them before)

 

[Knitpicker]

Hello, trying to catch up here with this…….

Can you share a link with us for this please:

‘I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her …… ‘

Thank you!

I am almost positive Charlie has said that his mother only knew about the extortion after the bump.

 

[Knitpicker]

Listening to Charlies trial and Rashbaum questioning him I caught something.

When Yindra was a guest on a channel, she was asked “when did Katie Contact you to babysit for the kids” by someone in the chat.

She said 2:30-3:30 Pm on the 18th.
Ok, so Rashbaum asks Charlie, (after Charlie saying he got a call from Donna that Wendi called him that Dan was shot), “are you aware that after that call, Katie was frantically going around and trying to get a babysitter for her kids”?

Well, thats a lie if we are to believe Yindra.
Unless Yindra is lying, and I doubt that.
So it was already known to Katie of course that a hit happened inthe afternoon.

So how did Rashbaum know that past 7PM on 7/18 this happened with Katie?
Georgia, did you hear that?

And Katie already knew of course—and didn’t find out when Charlie found out. Supposedly... And from what source can Rashbaum make that bogus claim about the babysitter?

 

[Knitpicker]

I am almost positive Charlie has said that his mother only knew about the extortion after the bump.

No it was when he went over Donnas house to pick up checks for Katie-that is when he told her he was being extorted. Correcting myself.

 

[amicuscurie]

I am almost positive Charlie has said that his mother only knew about the extortion after the bump.

I remember he said he told her about the “first extortion” a few months after the murder when he needed her to start writing the checks.

Remember he said when try bump happened, she thought it was a “second extortion.” Then, I believe he said he met with Katie in her car outside the restaurant, and Katie told him a Latin Kings member was involved.

In my understanding, the “double extortion” story at Charlie’s trial was used to explain both the checks and the bump in order to be a defense for Donna, the “first extortion” for thr chrcks, and the “second extortion” for the bump.

 

[Knitpicker]

Hello, trying to catch up here with this…….

Can you share a link with us for this please:

‘I’m almost certain that Charlie testified that he told Donna he was being extorted very early on and well before the bump and he claims he asked her …… ‘

Thank you!

Charlie told his mother when he went to pick up checks for Katie. She had been questioning him on why he put Katie on Salary “1,000.00 is a lot” supposedly said Donna. So Charlie told her. He put her on the payroll 9/2014.
And remember that Harvey owned the practice at that time.

 

[Knitpicker]

I remember he said he told her about the “first extortion” a few months after the murder when he needed her to start writing the checks.

Remember he said when try bump happened, she thought it was a “second extortion.” Then, I believe he said he met with Katie in her car outside the restaurant, and Katie told him a Latin Kings member was involved.

In my understanding, the “double extortion” story at Charlie’s trial was used to explain both the checks and the bump in order to be a defense for Donna, the “first extortion” for thr chrcks, and the “second extortion” for the bump.

You are right. Why I was confused. It was the double extortion part after the bump. It was now “Donnas extortion”.

 

[Knitpicker]

I remember he said he told her about the “first extortion” a few months after the murder when he needed her to start writing the checks.

Remember he said when try bump happened, she thought it was a “second extortion.” Then, I believe he said he met with Katie in her car outside the restaurant, and Katie told him a Latin Kings member was involved.

In my understanding, the “double extortion” story at Charlie’s trial was used to explain both the checks and the bump in order to be a defense for Donna, the “first extortion” for thr chrcks, and the “second extortion” for the bump.

Yes I am rewatching Rashbaum questioning Charlie at 2X and I corrected myself. It’s where I also heard Rashbaum say Katie was FRANTICALLY looking for a babysitter after 7Pm when CA was called by Donna. And Yindra comment popped up in my mind,
It may not be a big deal but any time you can find out Rashbaum is lying…it’s a good thing. As if he had any contacts or as if Katie told him that. And it refutes that Katie and Charlie were unaware of what happened..we know Katie has now changed her tune-at least somewhat.

 

[61Montcalm]

Every ruling is against the defense. Properly so. A plea deal would presumably require ratting out Wendi or convincing the state that she had no knowledge. I don’t think ratting out Harvey would matter much.

I agree completely - but Harvey should be punished if it can be proven that he's involved.

And in that case he should be exposed.

Harvey being present at the money drop is very incriminating in my opinion.

When did they book the hotel in Orlando? Or did they just show up on spec thinking that a room may be available? To any old 1950s motel at the side of the freeway, or one that would be acceptably luxurious for Donna?

I'd bet that Georgia has investigated this point comprehensively. Harvey may well be a super laid back nice guy and kudos to him if he is, but if he's involved in this he should be in the penitentiary with his wife.

I've rambled a bit there and didn't mean to hijack your post, but wanted to get these thoughts off of my mind.

 

[Zedzded]

I agree completely - but Harvey should be punished if it can be proven that he's involved.

And in that case he should be exposed.

Harvey being present at the money drop is very incriminating in my opinion.

When did they book the hotel in Orlando? Or did they just show up on spec thinking that a room may be available? To any old 1950s motel at the side of the freeway, or one that would be acceptably luxurious for Donna?

I'd bet that Georgia has investigated this point comprehensively. Harvey may well be a super laid back nice guy and kudos to him if he is, but if he's involved in this he should be in the penitentiary with his wife.

I've rambled a bit there and didn't mean to hijack your post, but wanted to get these thoughts off of my mind.

Which was why I was maintaining that DR would state that DA and HA did visit CA on the 18th of July. It can be easily proven. They texted CA at 8.57PM "outside your house." Even if they meant driving past your house, the drive to Orlando is 3 hours, which means they would have arrived at 12.00am, but they arrived at 1.30am which ties in exactly with when CA said to KM that left his house (at 10.30pm).So where were they for that missing 90mins if they weren't at CAs?

This really drops HA in it. The case against him isn't strong and is very defendable. This really strengthens the case against him. His lawyer must be livid. He must be livid!

 

[IQuestion]

I didn't anticipate DA would look this broken and I don't think that look is contrived. I feel like she is a very dark place. She could take an Alford plea, maintain her innocence, but accept the courts sentence. She doesn't necessarily have to rat out WA or HA, although at this stage neither CA or DA probably care. They've given up.

ZZ, I always look forward to reading your posts. bbm above. Remembering DA's infamous emails, "They haven't beaten the Adelsons, yet!" I think Donna will be a scrapper to the end. (envisioning a mother grizzly...) My question of course is: What is her end game? Defiant martyr? DA has issues (major) when it comes to "boundaries." What happened in her head? Or, who got into her head?? Is it her fake, hapless daughter who wanted her parents (and their financial backing ergo Charlie) to figure out how to get her back to South Florida?
SNAP!! Possible angle....maybe HA was initially manipulated by DA into believing he was paying for legal fees & relocation proposal? Was he "Caspar Milquetoast" and it was the other 3 A's who conceived & planned the murder? Oh "Un-Snap" ....HA did say, "I didn't think they were that smart." when discussing LE in the Dolce Vida recording. Guess WA got her acting skills from both parents after all.
edited to add: Would like thoughts on who/what and how he fits into this crime: Milquetoast? financier? CA follower? passive/aggressive? DA follower? sympathetic father? morally empty? in denial, stepped away reality?