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

[Missyrocks5]

I know. Like you, I'm cautious.
IDK why any upcoming state's witness is still giving interviews ( Whether that's Fitzpatrick on STS or Webster who's also been on several channels) and with previous witnesses from past trials ( Yindra on three channels although she's unlikely to testify in any future trial) , you have to be so careful.

They're all free to talk - no gag order.

Which reminds me, on CA's old jail calls, he was explicit that his lawyers would continue to monitor the SM of past jurors, in the hope that one of them slips up.
Thankfully, those Tally jurors seem pretty smart - they've not been clamouring to do interviews

Yes. I understand they can talk, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Webster, I'm not as worried about because he's an attorney and understands repercussions far greater of what to say and what not to say. It makes me nervous, but I would like to hear what a Florida criminal law attorney has to say about any potential dangers.

And so we still get back to you, why the smug smile on CA? Something is brewing, which sounds like it's going to be a different type of defense. Or false bravado.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yes. I understand they can talk, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Webster, I'm not as worried about because he's an attorney and understands repercussions far greater of what to say and what not to say. It makes me nervous, but I would like to hear what a Florida criminal law attorney has to say about any potential dangers.

And so we still get back to you, why the smug smile on CA? Something is brewing, which sounds like it's going to be a different type of defense. Or false bravado.

IMO this case is so overanalyzed and ‘reading’ something simply by Charlie’s expression in his latest mug shot is a great example. I’ve seem many other past comments on the mug shots of Katie & Donna where people are trying to ‘read’ something simply by their facial expression. I do think its normal to look for physical appearance changes that are anticipated from any major life change like someone being incarcerated, but I don’t think we should be reading anything by their facial expressions in a mug shot which is just snapshot in time. You would expect a newly incarcerated person’s appearance to change more drastically and not look better over time. IMO both Katie and Charlie look better in their latest mug shots than at any point since their arrests which was a shocker to me.

As far as witnesses ‘talking’, there should be nothing anyone is afraid of UNLESS a witness isn’t telling the truth. Our judicial system relies on witnesses giving truthful testimony AND we should hope anyone that lies under oath is exposed and reprimanded. If someone is testifying and making false statements about anything under oath, we should hope they are exposed while making public statements that contradict their testimony ‘IF” they were lying under oath. That does not appear to be the case with either Ryan or Yindra so there is nothing to fear. The Karen Read case is a great example of (in my opinion) witnesses that are willing to lie under oath and if you follow that case you know how that can change the dynamics of a trial. I would love it if some of the witnesses that testified in the Karen Read case would ‘talk’ on shows like STS, but I can bet they wont because they probably have something to hide. Ryan and Yindra have nothing to hide. I’m sure no one reading this thread would want anyone testifying ‘falsely’ against them about untrue things that would strengthen the case against them in a legal proceeding.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes. I understand they can talk, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Webster, I'm not as worried about because he's an attorney and understands repercussions far greater of what to say and what not to say. It makes me nervous, but I would like to hear what a Florida criminal law attorney has to say about any potential dangers.

And so we still get back to you, why the smug smile on CA? Something is brewing, which sounds like it's going to be a different type of defense. Or false bravado.

Indeed. Cautious, as posted.

In one respect I feel bad for Ryan. He also said he was sick and tired of the abuse he gets from anons and case followers on social media. ( That's been happening for over a year)

As for Charlie... Well he's not crazy like Lori Vallow so something amused him or he's simply doing it for effect.

( Re latter, think back to the jail call content with the mother of his son. So many personal grudges. Also conveying news and opinions from outside. )

As for Charlie collaborating on the latest defense theory, who would the new attorney be? Hufferman is not going to do it, not going to pass info to Rashbaum for Charlie but it requires a private line.

 

[amicuscurie]

Robert Alexander Morris

• Graduation from Florida State University College of Law, 1998
• Florida bar admission: 09/22/1998
• “Mr. Morris has regularly lectured on aspects of psychology and the law. He has lectured on the unique art of communication with jurrors (sic) during a jury trial. He teaches continuing education classes to other lawyers about the current state of the law surrounding jury selection and the art of jury selection.”

(Source: Robert Morris)

Morris is a long time resident of Tallahassee, FL. Undoubtedly, he is going to use his “art” to select jury members with whom he could buddy.

Have you noticed Morris’ scornful stare and facial expression toward the two State Attorneys when these women spoke in court? It is of concern what would be the Jury members’ attitude toward these women and the State witnesses such as Jeff LaCasse and Luis Rivera and Katie Magbanua, when Morris conveys such obvious contempt and disdain toward the State Attorneys he seems to consider as despicable and unworthy.

Will Dr. Robert Adelson be testifying on behalf of the State? How will look Donna Adelson and Morris’ facial expressions toward Dr. Robert Adelson if he were to be on the stand.

I personally thought Morris spoke too slowly, although perhaps that plays well with southern juries. I also did not hear a southern accent. Overall, I was expecting something more impressive from local counsel, but that is just my opinion. Perhaps a jury will like him more than Rashbaum, who speaks fast and with a slight New York accent.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Indeed. Cautious, as posted.

In one respect I feel bad for Ryan. He also said he was sick and tired of the abuse he gets from anons and case followers on social media. ( That's been happening for over a year)

As for Charlie... Well he's not crazy like Lori Vallow so something amused him or he's simply doing it for effect.

( Re latter, think back to the jail call content with the mother of his son. So many personal grudges. Also conveying news and opinions from outside. )

As for Charlie collaborating on the latest defense theory, who would the new attorney be? Hufferman is not going to do it, not going to pass info to Rashbaum for Charlie but it requires a private line.

We will find out soon enough. Katie had a big smile in her pic when she was transferred to testify against CA. Who knows. Probably false bravado.

Ryan I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, he was certainly fine being in business with him when money and trips were flowing. He was his good friend after everyone said they were suspects. If whatever went down between them over the money and all that that led to Charlie suing him, if that hadn't have happened, it would've been interesting to see if he would've stuck around until Charlie got arrested. I wonder about him, but I absolutely think that he has had it with testifying at trials & still having to deal with the As, understandably. And yes, he certainly has never kept it a secret that he thinks that he is guilty.

CA's attorneys are Morris and Rashy so they would handle any of the tomfoolery that may transpire. I don't know who Hufferman is.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes. I understand they can talk, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Webster, I'm not as worried about because he's an attorney and understands repercussions far greater of what to say and what not to say. It makes me nervous, but I would like to hear what a Florida criminal law attorney has to say about any potential dangers.

And so we still get back to you, why the smug smile on CA? Something is brewing, which sounds like it's going to be a different type of defense. Or false bravado.

With respect to the text between Donna and Charlie after Sig’s arrest, my understanding is that the ruling was limited to its being allowed in only to rebut the specific defense of the double extortion story. As I recall, the state originally argued that it was admissible as a statement between co-conspirators. The judge, as I recall, asked to hear more about that. The state, as I recall, did not address that particular point, and instead began to argue that the texts should also be admissible because they can rebut the defense theory of extortion. The judge then, as I understand it, narrowly tailored his ruling specifically to only that second argument. I believe this ruling may have been too narrow.