GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #9 *arrests*

[Gardenista]

A commenter on the videos had a good point that this could be a case of the 20-30 crowd and the CSI phenomenon (paraphrasing). They can't accept that circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Jurors in that age group find people guilty all of the time with just circumstantial evidence. Think about it. This juror thinks the privileged Wendi is guilty with only circumstantial evidence.

I think it is mostly about SJWs which are going to be impossible to weed out in a small college town.

 

[computantis]

I read @vislaw’s presentation multiple times. Great insights! This is the type of posting that makes Websleuths worthy.

I do not know the expression for one that would antagonize a "Social justice warrior" (SJW) at the other side of the spectrum; but, let us call it anti-SJW. Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman (2002 Florida bad admitted) appears to be such an anti-SJW. She has some ingrained habits that betrays her upbringing from start.

E.g., every time Circuit Judge James Hankinson asked her to speak up or to speak to the microphone, she exaggeratedly raised her voice instead of just complying. This is akin to nagging, a deep-seated behavior of the anti-SJW of the gender and ethnicity of Georgia Cappleman. Second e.g., when prosecutor Georgia Cappleman speaks to the judge, she barely stood, as if reluctant to recognize the Honorable Judge. Her attitudes give the appearance of incompetency.

For the last couple of decades plus, it is my observation that this nagging behavior of the deep south anti-SJW women catches the ethnicity of Georgia Cappleman from about the 6th grade. At times, the nagging is used as a silent protest in response to request for correction of one’s bad attitude, such as “would you please speak up?” At other times, the nagging is to hide one’s incompetency, as to say, “it is what it is. I cannot or would not do better. Deal with it!” Such an attitude carries into adulthood because it has been so efficient with their less educated Southerner parents.

Fortunately, it is not a generalized behavior. As a counter example, Attorney General Ashley Moody (2001 Florida bad admitted), who is about the same generation as Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman, is a personification of correctness. She is always so polite and articulate to the point of commanding acquiescence by mere statement of platitudes. Look up some of her videos when she was an adjunct professor at the New Judges College, Advanced Judicial Studies, and the Circuit Judges Conference.

Katherine Magbanua’s retrial is not taken as given in my opinion, as the State of Florida would have to bring about sufficient reasons, such as likelihood of success supported by new incriminating pieces of information, for this legal action. If such retrial were to take place, I would not be surprised to see a different prosecutor, rather than Georgia Cappleman again.

 

[fred&edna]

There are SJWs and then there are people who just can't connect dots. And, some of those who can't connect the dots are more focused on... which attorney has the most compelling delivery, or has the snappiest attire, or is just somehow more appealing.

 

[Gardenista]

There are SJWs and then there are people who just can't connect dots. And, some of those who can't connect the dots are more focused on... which attorney has the most compelling delivery, or has the snappiest attire, or is just somehow more appealing.

I agree to some extent, but if this was the case with this juror, how did she connect the dots to Wendi?

 

[MsArk]

SJW or not, a juror should be able to make educated inferences based on the testimony and evidence. As much as possible, putting away any personal bias aside.

 

[TTF14]

There are SJWs and then there are people who just can't connect dots. And, some of those who can't connect the dots are more focused on... which attorney has the most compelling delivery, or has the snappiest attire, or is just somehow more appealing.

I’m thinking that juror may have been a bit enamored by the Kawass sisters.

And also the sarcastic and argumentative tones of the defense attorneys worked on her as a manipulative tactic.

 

[clearskies1]

Per this juror, some jurors seemed to initially doubt whether SG had the same intention to kill as LR (hence the jury's question about a principal and accomplice's intent). This blew me away. They went all that way to Tallahassee twice with guns and hotel aliases .... what??? JMO.

 

[dawnz]

She said "there was nothing compelling about the wiretaps". OMG WTH!! She said that she basically disregarded the wiretaps because in the bump they mentioned Katie's name so any conversations from that were biased. I just can't even with this juror. My take is she's one of the 21 year olds, SJW and completely biased against law enforcement or maybe authority figures in general.

 

[Gardenista]

This juror literally said she doesn't think SG is an evil person--he just made a bad choice. Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

 

[Wishbone]

If there was a dislike button on here, I would have clicked it for a certain post. But I am in no mood to debate prejudice and uninformed bias.

 

[computantis]

She said "there was nothing compelling about the wiretaps". OMG WTH!! She said that she basically disregarded the wiretaps because in the bump they mentioned Katie's name so any conversations from that were biased. I just can't even with this juror. My take is she's one of the 21 year olds, SJW and completely biased against law enforcement or maybe authority figures in general.

I agree 100% that the SJW attitude is a minor reason. The main reason is these jurors, such as the lesser educated Tallahassee jurors, who are unable to connect the dots. They are uncapable of 1) evaluating the veracity of facts presented; and, 2) looking into how these facts should apply to existing laws.

These dot-disconnector-jurors rather reason backward. Such as 1) prosecutors say the Adelsons are to blame as the commandeers of the killers; 2) instead, this poor thing Magbanua is just one of the multiple sex toys of one of the multiple commandeers; 3) Magbanua is presented to me as a proxy because the State / the Government / the authority etc. could not catch the Adelsons; 4) therefore … Magbanua is NOT guilty!

No wonder why the rest of the developing countries are making fun of us. We, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, need to spend much more money for education! Mostly in the areas of reading to avoid the “I dunno what she said. I cannot find it in my thesaurus. Hence, she is wrong!” attitude. In some modern languages, logic is taught as a subject matter independent from mathematics. In most Deep South high schools, logic is taught as part of mathematics. The type of attitudes such as “I dislike numbers. Hence, I dunno what is inference” is rooted in the lack of an independent subject matter Logic, save the few best private schools.

 

[Wishbone]

dbm

 

[kooshx]

In part 7, the juror says the initial breakdown was 10-2; it only flipped to 9-3 after the judge asked them to further deliberate.

The state needs to adjust, but they should be able to put KM away. I'm not sure how strongly the other dissenting vote felt, but given this particular woman's personality, there's probably a strong likelihood that she (the interviewed juror) was the primary antagonist.

[It's probably also why she was so eager to share her thoughts; she really thinks she struck a blow for "social justice".]

It seems like this happens in lots of high profile cases that are covered by Dateline, etc. The jury hangs one or two times but then the defendant goes down. (Even the recent Cosby case initially had one holdout and then they convicted him several months later.) Too bad it happens to give the A's more time to yuck it up outside of prison, though.

I hope KM's attorneys watch this and explain to her that they caught a break with a snowflake (or two) on the jury this time, but they can't count on that for the next round. Time to thank God that this woman was on your jury this time and make a deal, Katie.

 

[dawnz]

She said that she didn't believe the story that the prosecution was pushing. I think she even said something at one point about how yes that story fits best but that doesn't mean that is the only possible story. Okay nevermind the fact that that is basically the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes there may be other possibilities but IF THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE then what is more likely the truth is the story that best fits the facts. Occam's razor ......

Anyway ...... lets say for arguements sake that is was LR that was contracted. And he was smart enough to say don't ever contact me about this because we could get caught instead lets find a go between. Hey I have this buddy who happens to have a girlfriend who happens to work in a dental office go befriend her and date her and get her to be the go between. Wait, in that scenario ..... KM is still involved in the conspiracy and is guilty. And if it was LR, and it's SG that KM is protecting (because the juror doesn't believe she would sit in jail without her kids for 3 years to protect CA but would for SG) then why wouldn't she take an immunity deal to get less time for SG and roll over on LR and CA. If the above situation was the correct version (insert eye roll) and she had information for an immunity deal then I'm guessing she could have packaged it with a deal for 19 years for SG to give up LR and CA. Why .... because while this version is one of those possibilities IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Prosecution was "pushing" a theory that best fit the facts of the case. That is what every prosecution in every case does. But this juror decided to throw out this theory saying that *the prosecution was biased in pushing their theory* yet claims that she herself is unbiased and objective. No, an objective person would be able to put aside any feelings about any atty and look at what story the evidence best tells.

 

[Wishbone]

In part 7, the juror says the initial breakdown was 10-2; it only flipped to 9-3 after the judge asked them to further deliberate.

The state needs to adjust, but they should be able to put KM away. I'm not sure how strongly the other dissenting vote felt, but given this particular woman's personality, there's probably a strong likelihood that she (the interviewed juror) was the primary antagonist.

[It's probably also why she was so eager to share her thoughts; she really thinks she struck a blow for "social justice".]

It seems like this happens in lots of high profile cases that are covered by Dateline, etc. The jury hangs one or two times but then the defendant goes down. (Even the recent Cosby case initially had one holdout and then they convicted him several months later.) Too bad it happens to give the A's more time yuck it up outside of prison, though.

I hope KM's attorneys watch this and explain to her that they caught a break with a snowflake (or two) on the jury this time, but they can't count on that for the next round. Time to thank God that this woman was on your jury this time and make a deal, Katie.

IMO The time for simply verbal evidence deals has expired. All that will fly now is hard core irrefutable concrete evidence. If SG or KM has that hidden away remains to be seen but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

 

[Wishbone]

This juror literally said she doesn't think SG is an evil person--he just made a bad choice. Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

He definitely chose to do evil regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. And that includes all the A's, KM and LR. And not to forget Wendi, because she has such a special place in my heart.

 

[computantis]

She said that she didn't believe the story that the prosecution was pushing. I think she even said something at one point about how yes that story fits best but that doesn't mean that is the only possible story. Okay nevermind the fact that that is basically the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes there may be other possibilities but IF THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE then what is more likely the truth is the story that best fits the facts. Occam's razor ......

Anyway ...... lets say for arguements sake that is was LR that was contracted. And he was smart enough to say don't ever contact me about this because we could get caught instead lets find a go between. Hey I have this buddy who happens to have a girlfriend who happens to work in a dental office go befriend her and date her and get her to be the go between. Wait, in that scenario ..... KM is still involved in the conspiracy and is guilty. And if it was LR, and it's SG that KM is protecting (because the juror doesn't believe she would sit in jail without her kids for 3 years to protect CA but would for SG) then why wouldn't she take an immunity deal to get less time for SG and roll over on LR and CA. If the above situation was the correct version (insert eye roll) and she had information for an immunity deal then I'm guessing she could have packaged it with a deal for 19 years for SG to give up LR and CA. Why .... because while this version is one of those possibilities IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Prosecution was "pushing" a theory that best fit the facts of the case. That is what every prosecution in every case does. But this juror decided to throw out this theory saying that *the prosecution was biased in pushing their theory* yet claims that she herself is unbiased and objective. No, an objective person would be able to put aside any feelings about any atty and look at what story the evidence best tells.

We, at Websleuths, are sharing insights and interpretations, such as yours and @vislaw’s thoughtful presentation. We, fortunately, are not writing personal letters to each other. Hence, the differing of opinions. Some of us like one-liners and others exchange critical reasoning.

What does it mean to be a competent lawyer? Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman was in a situation to read the cultural background (Tallahassee!, where she lives), the body languages, and the facial expressions of the jurors. She was unable to turn-off her deeply rooted nagging and entitlement behaviors.

DeCoste is from Miami, a multi-pot culture with similarity to New York, as opposed to the sleepy Deep South college town Tallahassee. He was able to pickup the culture and attitudes of some of the jurors. DeCoste knew what it takes to have one juror cause a mistrial! DeCoste was a personification of politeness when addressing the judge!

Have not some of us noticed during the trial how DeCoste pushed the button of deference “to the government”? DeCoste repeated the word “government” multiple times on purpose! He knew that some SJW would resent the government’s accusatory arguments against this “poor thing Magbanua, taken as proxy for rich people’s wrong-doing!”

Politely and with deference, DeCoste displayed the appearance of competence when he articulated these trite lines of thought such as “you would agree that … it was 2016 and not 2014, right?” DeCoste was not doing it for the well-educated FBI agent on the stand! He was doing it for the SJW juror listening to him, who mentally responds “yes, you are right”, to every flatness DeCoste delivers!

I cannot wait to see the days, if these days ever materialize, when DeCoste and Marcus teaming up to defend one or four of the Adelsons. They will make these Tallahassee jurors agree with every dullness and insipidity they will feed them! Such as treat is unlikely to happen because "the train has passed." Unless, miracle, the state brings in new incriminating pieces of information against Magbanua, and against one, or four, Adelsons.

 

[fred&edna]

Some are fair assessments in your post. I may not like them but can't disagree with validity of some.

Also, I found info in the link below quite interesting, as well.

This article was published in the Summer 2012 edition of the Oregon State Bar's Litigation Journal.

Publications | Miller Nash Mobile


* I don't know the writers source material but here is a snippet of the article. (Seems so much time wasted, imo)

Recent studies disclose that jury deliberation time is devoted to a discussion of the following issues in the following percentages of total deliberation time:

• 50 percent discussing general experiences;
• 35 percent discussing procedural issues;
• 8 percent discussing jury instructions; and
• 7 percent discussing perceived admissible evidence.

I agree 100% that the SJW attitude is a minor reason. The main reason is these jurors, such as the lesser educated Tallahassee jurors, who are unable to connect the dots. They are uncapable of 1) evaluating the veracity of facts presented; and, 2) looking into how these facts should apply to existing laws.

These dot-disconnector-jurors rather reason backward. Such as 1) prosecutors say the Adelsons are to blame as the commandeers of the killers; 2) instead, this poor thing Magbanua is just one of the multiple sex toys of one of the multiple commandeers; 3) Magbanua is presented to me as a proxy because the State / the Government / the authority etc. could not catch the Adelsons; 4) therefore … Magbanua is NOT guilty!

No wonder why the rest of the developing countries are making fun of us. We, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, need to spend much more money for education! Mostly in the areas of reading to avoid the “I dunno what she said. I cannot find it in my thesaurus. Hence, she is wrong!” attitude. In some modern languages, logic is taught as a subject matter independent from mathematics. In most Deep South high schools, logic is taught as part of mathematics. The type of attitudes such as “I dislike numbers. Hence, I dunno what is inference” is rooted in the lack of an independent subject matter Logic, save the few best private schools.

 

[justice1960]

IMO The time for simply verbal evidence deals has expired. All that will fly now is hard core irrefutable concrete evidence. If SG or KM has that hidden away remains to be seen but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

In any event, the both of them are exactly right where they belong with little or no chance to see the light of day again. The world knows all the players who were behind this sick crime and I believe the Omnipresent One / God /Nature, who knows all and sees all will mete out the Justice they truly have ordered for themselves.

 

[Wishbone]

In any event, the both of them are exactly right where they belong with little or no chance to see the light of day again. The world knows all the players who were behind this sick crime and I believe the Omnipresent One / God /Nature, who knows all and sees all will mete out the Justice they truly have ordered for themselves.

You do have nice thoughts on getting justice. But, KM is not there yet and if we keep getting jurors like the one I listened to, well then let's just say I have my doubts.