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

[Going Rogue]

I heard an expert on one of the channels the other day mention an interesting (to me) possibility for a surprise at trial.

This person raised the possibility that Charlie might get on the stand and admit that he did pay to have Dan killed, BUT claim that he told his mother that he was being extorted and she believed him.

The expert noted that this would hurt his chances on appeal, but is it possible he would do this to save his mother, believing that he stands little chance on appeal anyway?

One could argue, in my opinion, that it’s possible the jury might find this easier to believe than if he got on the stand and stuck to the extortion story, and so it might make him a more credible witness for the defense.

I hope that the state has at least considered this possibility; it seems to me they were blindsided by the extortion defense at the last trial.

An ‘expert’? I hate to ask what’s the definition of an expert is – someone on YouTube with a microphone in their face? Here is a non-expert opinion on that - not going to happen. All the defense needs to do is stick to the story she believed Charlie – it matters not whether Charlie was directly involved or not for that defense. They just need to convince the jury that she believed Charlie. I don’t see Charlie as the type of guy that is going to admit guilt – that may possibly happen MANY years down the line, but not this soon.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Agree, I do not see Charlie admitting anything at this point. He is a mama's boy though, I do agree about that.

 

[amicuscurie]

An ‘expert’? I hate to ask what’s the definition of an expert is – someone on YouTube with a microphone in their face? Here is a non-expert opinion on that - not going to happen. All the defense needs to do is stick to the story she believed Charlie – it matters not whether Charlie was directly involved or not for that defense. They just need to convince the jury that she believed Charlie. I don’t see Charlie as the type of guy that is going to admit guilt – that may possibly happen MANY years down the line, but not this soon.

It was a lawyer. I should have said lawyer, or perhaps panelist. I agree with you that it’s not likely, but I think it’s an interesting possibility for which the state should be prepared. Nothing would surprise me about these people, and in my opinion one must consider the extent to which a son can be enmeshed with his mother. I believe he is not likely to admit guilt, but I also believe he’s done a lot of unlikely and unwise things to please his mother.

 

[Going Rogue]

Do you think it’s ethical for the Judge to say “I’ll see what I can find out”?

Absolutely nothing unethical about it UNLESS he is passing information on that is clearly and intentionally (you can also argue unintentionally) aiding someone that had a hand in the crime or is passing information on that is beneficial to someone suspected. ‘IF' he told Wendi “your family is suspected, give them a heads up”, not only is it unethical it’s illegal BUT as I keep saying I sincerely doubt that’s what happened. Without more information, its irresponsible to suggest either judge did anything wrong or unethical. How do you know the judge in Tallahassee didn’t tell his friend, it’s sealed, I can’t tell you anything more? Maybe he even told him something in confidence, but please stop assuming the judge in Miami would have passed information onto Wendi that is prejudicial to the case. Hopefully I’m saying this for last time, because you keep challenging me on this, lets give both judges a little more credit and stop jumping to conclusions. By saying "he passed info onto Wendi she was not privy to" you are jumping to a conclusion that is not fair to either of the judges reputation or integrity. My guess is the reason ML took the videos down is because of all the allegations that are being made about judicial misconduct or impropriety – you are fueling that fire.

 

[Knitpicker]

It puzzles me that Wendi would have intentionally wanted to draw their attention to Charlie, as this woman seems to conclude. In my opinion, doing that might have brought their attention dangerously close to her. And also, in my opinion, it seems unlikely that Donna would have wanted her to do that as part of their plan.

In my opinion it is possible that the reason she kept bringing up how scared she was, how she was worried about her kids, and how the police didn’t seem to want to protect her, was to establish a justification for her move to South Florida. As I recall, on the stand in one of the trials she was asked why she stayed in South Florida and never went back, and she answered that she had requested police protection in Tallahassee, and they wouldn’t give it to her.

It’s never made sense to me that she would need to uproot her whole life and leave Tallahassee at all after her ex-husband died. I believe that at the time of the murder they had been separated for over a year and living on her own, so why would her life there be impacted by his loss to the extent that she would need to return to her parents’ home for help?

Hypothetically, it’s possible she might have felt that if she could show that she was afraid of a killer on the loose, people wouldn’t ask these types of questions or think the move was suspicious. In theory, it might seem even more suspicious given that she had told Jeff (and possibly others) that the only thing keeping her in Tallahassee was Dan (he says this in his police interview).

I always feel I should really take time responding to your comments because there is so much wisdom in them and thought. In a bit of a rush but heres my take..

She not only drew attention to Charlie, she drew attention to a lot of people. In case they look to her family, she was making sure it wasn’t going to be herself they were looking at. So if they got close to her family, Charlie was the one.
Not sure telling the BB guy “the joke” was part of the plan.

Re: “Scared” Yes about the move- her same excuse to why she IMMEDIATELY (although not permanently), changed the boys names. Just excuses.

They were seperated one year and divorced a year, so it’s 2 years they were apart as a couple.

“Killer on the loose” suggests she doesn’t know who it was.
She threw out anyone and everyone she could think of. Disgruntled student, jealous boyfriend, Rabbis in Brooklyn,(maybe New Jersey I forget) Charlie…

 

[Knitpicker]

Absolutely nothing unethical about it UNLESS he is passing information on that is clearly and intentionally (you can also argue unintentionally) aiding someone that had a hand in the crime or is passing information on that is beneficial to someone suspected. ‘IF' he told Wendi “your family is suspected, give them a heads up”, not only is it unethical it’s illegal BUT as I keep saying I sincerely doubt that’s what happened. Without more information, it’s irresponsible to suggest either judge did anything wrong or unethical. How do you know the judge in Tallahassee didn’t tell his friend, it’s sealed, I can’t tell you anything more? Maybe he even told him something in confidence, but please stop assuming the judge in Miami would have passed information onto Wendi that is prejudicial to the case. Hopefully I’m saying this for last time, because you keep challenging me on this, let’s give both judges a little more credit and stop jumping to conclusions. By saying "he passed info onto Wendi she was not privy to" you are jumping to a conclusion that is not fair to either of the judges reputation or integrity. My guess is the reason ML took the videos down is because of all the allegations that are being made about judicial misconduct or impropriety – you are fueling that fire.

I’m not fueling any fire and you are giving me too much credit. As if ML took down the videos because of one comment I made. If I can insert the word “Possibly” I would. But as you know this site does not allow you to do that. Thats actually laughable that you have given me that much credit. I should feel honored.
Everything on social media is speculation unless proven.
By your own reasoning, almost every video on this case should be taken down.

Obviously Donna was not going to be specific about Wendi’s conversation with the judge.
If he didn’t find anything Donna would not have mentioned it to Charlie. It would be insignificant.
And I know you’re a smart guy and you know that,

 

[Knitpicker]

I didn’t hear the Mentour video say anything about any judge being paid off, either.

I watched and listened to both a few times before it was taken down. NOTHING about this. People can point the finger and spin this to whatever narrative they want. The last thing anyone wants to do is misquote a lawyer or make inferences that are unwarranted. Just to stir the pot.

 

[amicuscurie]

Absolutely nothing unethical about it UNLESS he is passing information on that is clearly and intentionally (you can also argue unintentionally) aiding someone that had a hand in the crime or is passing information on that is beneficial to someone suspected. ‘IF' he told Wendi “your family is suspected, give them a heads up”, not only is it unethical it’s illegal BUT as I keep saying I sincerely doubt that’s what happened. Without more information, its irresponsible to suggest either judge did anything wrong or unethical. How do you know the judge in Tallahassee didn’t tell his friend, it’s sealed, I can’t tell you anything more? Maybe he even told him something in confidence, but please stop assuming the judge in Miami would have passed information onto Wendi that is prejudicial to the case. Hopefully I’m saying this for last time, because you keep challenging me on this, lets give both judges a little more credit and stop jumping to conclusions. By saying "he passed info onto Wendi she was not privy to" you are jumping to a conclusion that is not fair to either of the judges reputation or integrity. My guess is the reason ML took the videos down is because of all the allegations that are being made about judicial misconduct or impropriety – you are fueling that fire.

I agree that it is possible the Tallahassee judge told the Miami judge that it was sealed and so he couldn’t tell him anything. Speaking generally, in my understanding it is not ethical to reveal information in a document that has been filed under seal, and there is no evidence that any judge did so in this case.

However, speaking generally I believe that would be perfectly ethical for a judge to vacate an order requiring a document to be sealed, thereby making its contents accessible to the public. From what I understand, this is what the Tallahassee judge did.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’m not fueling any fire and you are giving me too much credit. As if ML took down the videos because of one comment I made. If I can insert the word “Possibly” I would. But as you know this site does not allow you to do that. Thats actually laughable that you have given me that much credit. I should feel honored.
Everything on social media is speculation unless proven.
By your own reasoning, almost every video on this case should be taken down.

Obviously Donna was not going to be specific about Wendi’s conversation with the judge.
If he didn’t find anything Donna would not have mentioned it to Charlie. It would be insignificant.
And I know you’re a smart guy and you know that,

Donna was not specific because she didn’t know anything - all she knew is Wendi told her the judge was getting her information.

I’m not saying he took it down because of you. It was probably the backlash and public perception to immediately question the ethics of the judges and in my opinion the video was highly suggestive to some ‘potential’ judicial impropriety. Personally, I was a little surprised at what he video was suggesting and he did the right thing by taking it down. Not sure it was his intention, so I give him the benefit of the doubt because I think he is rock solid and I respect him greatly but that video was not his best moment – I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Knitpicker]

I agree that it is possible the Tallahassee judge told the Miami judge that it was sealed and so he couldn’t tell him anything. Speaking generally, in my understanding it is not ethical to reveal information in a document that has been filed under seal.

However, I believe that it is perfectly ethical to vacate the order requiring it to be sealed, thereby making its contents accessible to the public. From what I understand, this is what the Tallahassee judge did.

The sequence appears to me to be as follows: 1. the Tallahassee judge orders that the document is to be filed under seal; 2. Donna tells Charlie the Miami judge knows the Tallahassee judge and wants to talk to her about something; 3. the Tallahassee judge issues an order vacating the prior order.

I believe this is the timeline Mentour Lawyer noted in the recent video, and I believe the video expresses concern that it is possible that this timeline might create the appearance of impropriety.

Yes. Thanks for that. I went back to relisten just for this as someone in the comments in his video explained that it was unsealed and then sealed again. So they are wrong.

 

[Knitpicker]

This person raised the possibility that Charlie might get on the stand and admit that he did pay to have Dan killed, BUT claim that he told his mother that he was being extorted and she believed him.

What do you think about the fact that Donna may have dropped off the $ to Charlies before Katie even knew about the extortion? We know he denies this. But if it is proven at her trial…that would prove she knew before she started writing checks to Katie (when he claimed he told her, right?) My understanding unless I’m remembering wrong is that Donna asked about the checks for Katie (it was Harveys office at that time), and that is when Charlie told her he was being extorted.
So, are you saying he told her before Katie even knew?
There lies the issue if he goes that way (if the money drop is proven-need to wait on Corbitt)

 

[Going Rogue]

It was a lawyer. I should have said lawyer, or perhaps panelist. I agree with you that it’s not likely, but I think it’s an interesting possibility for which the state should be prepared. Nothing would surprise me about these people, and in my opinion one must consider the extent to which a son can be enmeshed with his mother. I believe he is not likely to admit guilt, but I also believe he’s done a lot of unlikely and unwise things to please his mother.

The states case and evidence against Donna doesn’t change if Charlie admits guilt and ‘claims’ Donna wasn’t involved. I guarantee they are fully prepared for the defense alleging that Donna knew nothing beyond what Charlie told her and she believed him. From my perspective, it makes little difference whether or not Charlie was directly involved ‘if’ that’s her defense strategy, so ‘IF’ Charlie makes that admission it doesn’t change any of the evidence they have against Donna. The ONLY possible benefit is potentially clouding a juror’s judgement if Charlie admits guilt and alleges his mom had no involvement. I still think it’s highly unlikely Charlie admits guilt even though I’m not an expert

 

[amicuscurie]

What do you think about the fact that Donna may have dropped off the $ to Charlies before Katie even knew about the extortion? We know he denies this. But if it is proven at her trial…that would prove she knew before she started writing checks to Katie (when he claimed he told her, right?) My understanding unless I’m remembering wrong is that Donna asked about the checks for Katie (it was Harveys office at that time), and that is when Charlie told her he was being extorted.
So, are you saying he told her before Katie even knew?
There lies the issue if he goes that way (if the money drop is proven-need to wait on Corbitt)

Yes, in my opinion the money drop is key evidence of Donna’s involvement, and it counters the defense that Charlie told her he was being extorted and so she wrote the checks.

 

[IQuestion]

True or False? Hypothetically a judge could remind (admonish?) a witness to just answer Yes or No to the questions being asked.
?Fact: There is a wiretap in which DA is telling CA that W works for Judge Jordan who knows a judge in Tally?
?Fact: Donna says on the wiretap the judge wants to talk to W about an ongoing investigation.
?Fact: "Despite being there a relatively short time, Jordan was named a partner at Steel, Hector & Davis by his fifth year, where he focused on appellate and commercial law."
?Fact: "Sjostrom received an A.A. degree from Okaloosa Walton Junior College. He then received a B.S. degree in political science and a J.D. degree from Florida State University. Sjostrom was a partner with Steel Hector & Davis, LLP.[1]

I choose not to give anyone credit for anything on this case, just yet. However, I will a least consider moving it over to my lengthening chart of incredible coincidences. (Insert pleasant smile emoji.)

 

[amicuscurie]

True or False? Hypothetically a judge could remind (admonish?) a witness to just answer Yes or No to the questions being asked.
?Fact: There is a wiretap in which DA is telling CA that W works for Judge Jordan who knows a judge in Tally?
?Fact: Donna says on the wiretap the judge wants to talk to W about an ongoing investigation.
?Fact: "Despite being there a relatively short time, Jordan was named a partner at Steel, Hector & Davis by his fifth year, where he focused on appellate and commercial law."
?Fact: "Sjostrom received an A.A. degree from Okaloosa Walton Junior College. He then received a B.S. degree in political science and a J.D. degree from Florida State University. Sjostrom was a partner with Steel Hector & Davis, LLP.[1]

I choose not to give anyone credit for anything on this case, just yet. However, I will a least consider moving it over to my lengthening chart of incredible coincidences. (Insert pleasant smile emoji.)

Many coincidences in this case, I would agree. Hypothetically one would not necessarily have to disclose any confidential information in order to make the information available. Hypothetically, one could simply take some action within one’s power to make it so the information was no longer confidential, either on one’s own initiative or at the request of someone else.

 

[Zedzded]

What do you think about the fact that Donna may have dropped off the $ to Charlies before Katie even knew about the extortion? We know he denies this. But if it is proven at her trial…that would prove she knew before she started writing checks to Katie (when he claimed he told her, right?) My understanding unless I’m remembering wrong is that Donna asked about the checks for Katie (it was Harveys office at that time), and that is when Charlie told her he was being extorted.
So, are you saying he told her before Katie even knew?
There lies the issue if he goes that way (if the money drop is proven-need to wait on Corbitt)

Apparently the extortion happened when KM arrived after 10.45PM on the 18th of July. But if the state can show DA turned up at CA's house then it will be a hard sell trying to imply the extortion happened after DA left.

 

[Knitpicker]

Apparently the extortion happened when KM arrived after 10.45PM on the 18th of July. But if the state can show DA turned up at CA's house then it will be a hard sell trying to imply the extortion happened after DA left.

Right. Hoping Corbitt has some new info that he may have been “saving”.

So why was Katie calling Yindra to babysit her kids at 2:30 that afternoon. She is on a channel today so Im going to watch it on rerun at 2x lol.
It’s actually on now. Just started

 

[amicuscurie]

Apparently the extortion happened when KM arrived after 10.45PM on the 18th of July. But if the state can show DA turned up at CA's house then it will be a hard sell trying to imply the extortion happened after DA left.

The defense could always argue that his parents were just visiting and did not drop off any money, I suppose. At Charlie’s trial, I recall the defense attempted to claim she was not in fact outside his house, but this is a different trial and she is not bound by what was argued in that one. In my opinion if the defense were to deny that she stopped by at all, this might make a jury more likely to believe that she did drop off the money and is trying to hide that.

 

[IQuestion]

Many coincidences in this case, I would agree. Hypothetically one would not necessarily have to disclose any confidential information in order to make the information available. Hypothetically, one could simply take some action within one’s power to make it so the information was no longer confidential, either on one’s own initiative or at the request of someone else.

amiscuscurie bbm: Your post is absolutely brilliant and thought provoking!

 

[amicuscurie]

amiscuscurie bbm: Your post is absolutely brilliant and thought

Dbm