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

[cottonweaver]

The Corbett motion continued, Corbett testifying, Dougan up.

very effective imo

One section:
Donna's Gmails.
Dougan: Are they Voluminous?
Corbett: Yes. WA has 87K, DA has 57K emails.
Dougan: We're only using around 5 emails in this Powerpoint

Dougan: Texts. Voluminous?
Corbett: Yes. ' Hundreds of thousands' in total. WA has 10K whatsapp chats & approx 20K instant messages. CA's ICloud has circa 280K messages
Dougan: We're only using around 20 message chats, totalling c 50 messages in this Powerpoint

 

[cottonweaver]

Maybe there are a lot of messages on the cloud.

yes, I was mainly disgusted at the contents of that 2016 cocaine message which Dougan just read

 

[Niner]

snipped...

@IQuestion 5.1 earthquake !

4.7 in Malibu

edited to add - hopefully there will be a "summary" of what happened at this hearing. And hoping jury selection is still on 9/17

 

[amicuscurie]

yes, I was mainly disgusted at the contents on the 2016 cocaine message which Dougan read

I really hope that this is allowed to come in, and the defense will be that Charlie told her he was extorted. In my opinion the judge’s ruling was too narrow on allowing them only in that situation. I believe the argument that they are statements between co-conspirators should have prevailed.

 

[IQuestion]

Jansen says that he thinks Charlie will testify as to Donna’s defense and Donna might not need to.

AMICUSCURIE Charlie was not believable or liked at his last trial. I can't imagine his "juror appeal" has improved with time. As a prosecutor I would emphasize CA has nothing to lose because he has already been convicted, LWOP. Charlie was not DA's superior or employer... Claiming his mother was not involved because "he directed her" to do illegal things is ludicrous. I see her as a partner/accomplice in crime, his senior shadow who enjoyed/relished being part of his constant fraud and deceptions.

 

[cottonweaver]

Right now, Donna is looking as weary and confused as everybody else. By Rashbaum.

 

[Ferpo]

yes, I was mainly disgusted at the contents of that 2016 cocaine message which Dougan just read

It definitely brought out CA's hatred for DM. Horrendous.

 

[amicuscurie]

AMICUSCURIE Charlie was not believable or liked at his last trial. I can't imagine his "juror appeal" has improved with time. As a prosecutor I would emphasize CA has nothing to lose because he has already been convicted, LWOP. Charlie was not DA's superior or employer... Claiming his mother was not involved because "he directed her" to do illegal things is ludicrous. I see her as a partner/accomplice in crime, his senior shadow who enjoyed/relished being part of his constant fraud and deceptions.

Thanks! I hope you’re right!

 

[amicuscurie]

Dbm

 

[cottonweaver]

I do not understand why the defense wants Markus to testify- in my opinion what might say would support the idea of a conspiracy, at least between Charlie and Katie. What am I missing? I thought the state withdrew its subpoena, but the defense objected to the motion to quash, and that’s what this hearing was on, the defense’s objection.

That's what Markus had said in his motion but when Cappleman got up she didn't concur with that.
Need to listen to the exchange again to be sure of how she answered that.

As for the Defense, maybe Morris & Rashbaum have to rethink a new defense now?

ETA: Watching STS Live, Tim J has just said that would be the biggest bombshell in response to somebody's Q. ( If they had to change it up)

 

[amicuscurie]

That's what Markus had said in his motion but when Cappleman got up she didn't concur with that.
Need to listen to the exchange again to be sure of how she answered that.

ETA- on re- listen, it would appear to me that the defense is arguing they should be allowed to call Markus because the state is planning to make certain arguments regarding Markus’s call to Isom and his alleged inquiry about paying Katie’s fees, and the defense believes that what Markus has to say will actually REBUT what the state is trying to show with respect to both the call to Isom asking if Charlie was arrested, and the alleged question about paying Katie’s fees. The defense appears to me to be arguing that Markus’s testimony will NOT show that there was a conspiracy.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes they both wanted Markus to testify but with different goals. Anyway, you just know this will end badly.

Donna this weekend? Hopping mad, imo ( Mad about all the lost motions)

She'll be tearing up those clothes. Tantrum

 

[amicuscurie]

That's what Markus had said in his motion but when Cappleman got up she didn't concur with that.
Need to listen to the exchange again to be sure of how she answered that.

As for the Defense, maybe Morris & Rashbaum have to rethink a new defense now?

ETA: Watching STS Live, Tim J has just said that would be the biggest bombshell in response to somebody's Q. ( If they had to change it up)

I can’t imagine what a different defense might be, but there was a “surprise” defense in Charlie’s trial, so if there was a different defense this would not surprise me. I think it’s possible the defense may be that Charlie told Donna some story other than the extortion story. I do think that it’s possible Donna may say (if she testifies) that she now believes Charlie was involved, or, even if she does not testify, the defense may try to point the finger at Charlie.

ETA- I believe if the defense were to try to point the finger at Charlie, that could possibly create a conflict with respect to Rash’s prior representation of Charlie.

 

[Going Rogue]

There must be a treasure trove of information on Donna’s cell phone. The text re Dan potentially being involved in drug deal gone bad would have buried Charlie – so its got to be a new discovery made after Charlie’s conviction. That’s going to a hard one for the defense to get around without making a strong implication that Charlie must have been involved and was doing exactly what the prosecution argued today ‘mocking and relishing in the fact that alternate theories were being publicly discussed’. Assuming Donna’s defense is she just did what Charlie told her to do and she believe he was being extorted, and per Charlie, he told her about the extortion at the time he asked her to write the checks - this ‘new’ text was in Aug of 2016 and WAY after she had knowledge that Dan was murdered by the ‘extortionists’.

What a major curve ball today! Need to see the full text exchange to provide a reasonable defense response to what the prosecution raised today. The only logical response I can see based on what was presented today, is that Donna immediately called Charlie because she was confused at what the allegations meant and how that tied into the extortionists that blackmailed Charlie. It’s going to be very difficult to get around this new text. Obviously If anyone in the jury is to buy Donnas ‘anticipated’ defense, logic would dictate that she should have immediately texted Charlie back “I thought Dan was murdered by the people extorting you”? This text is going to bury her unless Rashbaum and team pivot from the defense that Donna was in the dark and just believed what Charlie was telling her.

 

[arielilane]

A Tallahassee Police Sergeant Chris Corbett was also called to the stand Thursday morning to discuss cell phone location data. Attorneys are arguing over a summary that will be shared with the jury. The judge ruled that it would be considered a demonstrative aid, not evidence, in the case.

Donna Adelson makes final court appearance before trial

Donna Adelson appeared in a Leon County courtroom Thursday, just days before she's scheduled to stand trial for the murder of her former son-in-law, FSU Law professor Dan Markel.

www.wctv.tv

Updated: 1 hour ago

 

[JerseyPride]

A Tallahassee Police Sergeant Chris Corbett was also called to the stand Thursday morning to discuss cell phone location data. Attorneys are arguing over a summary that will be shared with the jury. The judge ruled that it would be considered a demonstrative aid, not evidence, in the case.

Donna Adelson makes final court appearance before trial

Donna Adelson appeared in a Leon County courtroom Thursday, just days before she's scheduled to stand trial for the murder of her former son-in-law, FSU Law professor Dan Markel.

www.wctv.tv

Updated: 1 hour ago

This is actually incorrect reporting. Everett ruled that the summary would be admitted to the jury.

 

[IQuestion]

Yes they both wanted Markus to testify but with different goals. Anyway, you just know this will end badly.

Donna this weekend? Hopping mad, imo ( Mad about all the lost motions)

She'll be tearing up those clothes. Tantrum

Imagine the conversation: "Do you think this dress makes me look guilty?"

 

[Knitpicker]

“Those messages, as I understand it, can come in if Donna’s defense is that Charlie told her he was extorted. It’s always been my feeling that she should have gone with the defense that he told her to write the checks because Katie needed them to get insurance for her kids. I’m wondering if she could still use that defense if Charlie doesn’t testify.”

That is REALLY why she needed to be on the payroll. To get gov assisted health insurance (about 22.00/month for a single mother in S FL with 2 small kids at that time) she has to show employment. And not over a certain amount..

 

[amicuscurie]

Imagine the conversation: "Do you think this dress makes me look guilty?"

Perhaps we will see a message asking that she be buried in it.

 

[amicuscurie]

“Those messages, as I understand it, can come in if Donna’s defense is that Charlie told her he was extorted. It’s always been my feeling that she should have gone with the defense that he told her to write the checks because Katie needed them to get insurance for her kids. I’m wondering if she could still use that defense if Charlie doesn’t testify.”

That is REALLY why she needed to be on the payroll. To get gov assisted health insurance (about 22.00/month for a single mother in S FL with 2 small kids at that time) she has to show employment. And not over a certain amount.

I believe this arrangement was made for her in order to keep her quiet and in exchange for facilitating the murder, just like the Lexus. I do recall that when asked on the stand what the checks were for, Katie said “for the murder.” I believe that Donna thought that she was protected, because she could argue that the checks were not payment for the murder. I believe she could argue that when the bump happened, she thought it was related to this insurance scheme.

ETA :I don’t know why this happens, with the orange block.