GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 *arrests* #11

[Weki]

I too have wondered why KM would agree to do this. Yeah there’s the financial motive of course. But I wonder - what better way to have CA tied to you FOREVER!? Think of that one text where she admonishes him - hey you need to be nice to someone who did this for you, essentially. On an emotional level that is a HUGE amount of control. He’s over there offering to pay for things, take care of things for her, being all attentive. I bet he wasn’t like that while they were dating prior to the murder. She got his attention in a huge way! They are connected forever.

 

[Marysmith]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Marysmith]

I too have wondered why KM would agree to do this. Yeah there’s the financial motive of course. But I wonder - what better way to have CA tied to you FOREVER!? Think of that one text where she admonishes him - hey you need to be nice to someone who did this for you, essentially. On an emotional level that is a HUGE amount of control. He’s over there offering to pay for things, take care of things for her, being all attentive. I bet he wasn’t like that while they were dating prior to the murder. She got his attention in a huge way! They are connected forever.

Great point!

 

[Laura930]

OT: Just heard this line from a song by Turnpike Troubadours

“if you‘d married that girl, you‘d married her family, you dodged a bullet my friend”

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

at 2:38 mark

So sad.

On another note, Wendi testified the Markel’s saw the boys on April 20th for their bar mitzvah and Charlie’s indictment was dated April 20th and his arrest occurred on April 21st. Does anyone think they waited on the arrest until the Markel’s had the opportunity to see the boys?

 

[Marysmith]

Jurors want to review the Dulce Vida tape.

 

[TTF14]

OT: Just heard this line from a song by Turnpike Troubadours

“if you‘d married that girl, you‘d married her family, you dodged a bullet my friend”

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

at 2:38 mark

So sad.

On another note, Wendi testified the Markel’s saw the boys on April 20th for their bar mitzvah and Charlie’s indictment was dated April 20th and his arrest occurred on April 21st. Does anyone think they waited on the arrest until the Markel’s had the opportunity to see the boys?

Or there was a bug at the bar mitzvah that caught an incriminating conversation.....

 

[clearskies1]

Speculating that this is to confirm what they think they heard the first time. Making sure. JMO.

 

[Laura930]

Or there was a bug at the bar mitzvah that caught an incriminating conversation.....

Wow!!!! Did not think of that! It was mentioned that at last trial if Katie was convicted they would move to arrest Wendi, Charlie and Donna, as I recall, I bet the FBI is watching the Adelsons now.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

How on earth do they not have audio equipment, including headphones, in the deliberation room? The only lawyering that was impressive from the Defense in this case was in pre-trial in getting the transcripts thrown out.

 

[Weki]

The Charlie Adelson trial is gonna be wild! Can’t wait!

 

[MTW2011]

“Although we're not allowed in the room right now, the jury is back in the courtroom with headphones listening to the Dolce Vita video once again. That's enhanced audio of Magbanua and Charlie Adelson having a conversation about a FBI "Bump"
From reporter

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[KidonGadol]

Wow!!!! Did not think of that! It was mentioned that at last trial if Katie was convicted they would move to arrest Wendi, Charlie and Donna, I as I recall, I bet the FBI is watching the Adelsons now.

The don't have to go far to find Charlie - . This issue of jumpiong the border was surely a consideration with charging him with murder / homicide when they did.

 

[trialfan]

This is not good. This defendant got on the stand and couldn’t explain any of the evidence that points directly to her. She has no burden to do so, of course. But she chose to take the stand. In doing so, she took on a burden to create a defense for herself, or to refute the state’s evidence. And she offered nothing In the way of either. The state‘s evidence stands. There shouldn’t be any reason for the jury to go over any of the evidence in detail again. No need to look at each and every phone call or recording. They were all obviously bad for Katie, and the defense offered nothing to counter that. They also offered no evidence that Charlie arranged the murder with Sigfredo directly, which they said they would do in their opening. The State should have held them to that very strongly in its closing. It’s an own goal. The defense also said in closing that the state looked for a connection between the murderers and the Adelsons, and went for “the easiest” connection, Katie. But what else should they have done? Found another connection? There isn’t one. It’s true, Katie IS the easiest connection, because she’s the ONLY connection. There‘s no way this murder gets committed by Sigfredo without her telling him about it and getting him to do it. He doesn’t know Dan, or Charlie. She sat in that Dolce Vida restaurant listening to Charlie talk about a situation in which his family was being blackmailed, concerning an incident which appeared on international News. She admits that. She also admits she didn’t ask him what he was talking about. And she admits she then called Sigfredo, a person who just so happens to be the person also implicated in this situation with Charlie’s family that made international news. Her husband just happens to have murdered Charlie’s brother in law, without ever having met Charlie except for one time, the jet ski incident, which occurred AFTER the first murder trip to Tallahassee. After all of this, when the jury was sent back, there should’ve been an instant straw poll, resulting in everyone voting guilty. I think the strategy of putting Katie on the stand worked last time in that it got at least one or two jurors to feel bad for her. I think it will work this time, too. And unfortunately, without Katie, it will be much more difficult to convict Charlie because, as has been established ad nauseum, there is nothing to connect him to the trigger man except Katie. No direct payments from Charlie to
him. No communications from Charlie to him. That’s why Charlie used Katie as an intermediary in the first place! And thats why he’s going to go free? Terrible. If the state can’t get her convicted, they haven’t done their job. Sure, there’s not much direct evidence against Katie in the sense that she’s not on tape discussing the murder. But what murderer is? Why can’t juries ever understand that reasonable doubt doesn’t mean no doubt, (other wise, the defense could just argue that Martians could’ve come down with a spaceship and killed Dan, and there, case closed). Why can’t they understand that circumstantial evidence IS evidence? Again, a good prosecutor needs to be able to explain that. Otherwise the defense will, as they did here, just throw out all kinds of alternative explanations, and the jury will think it has to weigh those. Which is what this jury seems to be doing here, and why they have chosen to take up a holiday weekend deliberating. This should have been over today. I want to think that Katie didn’t take a deal all this time, because she really didn’t do it. But I can’t figure out, logically, how she wasn’t involved. Nothing else makes sense. Charlie could not have done this without her. Is this jury that dumb not to be able to put that together? Did they put it together, but still think the state didn’t give them enough to support that conclusion ? Just how big do they think the state’s burden is? The whole thing is nuts. End of rant. What does everyone else think? Talk me down.

 

[Marysmith]

This is not good. This defendant got on the stand and couldn’t explain any of the evidence that points directly to her. She has no burden to do so, of course. But she chose to take the stand. In doing so, she took on a burden to create a defense for herself, or to refute the state’s evidence. And she offered nothing In the way of either. The state‘s evidence stands. There shouldn’t be any reason for the jury to go over any of the evidence in detail again. No need to look at each and every phone call or recording. They were all obviously bad for Katie, and the defense offered nothing to counter that. They also offered no evidence that Charlie arranged the murder with Sigfredo directly, which they said they would do in their opening. The State should have held them to that very strongly in its closing. It’s an own goal. The defense also said in closing that the state looked for a connection between the murderers and the Adelsons, and went for “the easiest” connection, Katie. But what else should they have done? Found another connection? There isn’t one. It’s true, Katie IS the easiest connection, because she’s the ONLY connection. There‘s no way this murder gets committed by Sigfredo without her telling him about it and getting him to do it. He doesn’t know Dan, or Charlie. She sat in that Dolce Vida restaurant listening to Charlie talk about a situation in which his family was being blackmailed, concerning an incident which appeared on international News. She admits that. She also admits she didn’t ask him what he was talking about. And she admits she then called Sigfredo, a person who just so happens to be the person also implicated in this situation with Charlie’s family that made international news. Her husband just happens to have murdered Charlie’s brother in law, without ever having met Charlie except for one time, the jet ski incident, which occurred AFTER the first murder trip to Tallahassee. After all of this, when the jury was sent back, there should’ve been an instant straw poll, resulting in everyone voting guilty. I think the strategy of putting Katie on the stand worked last time in that it got at least one or two jurors to feel bad for her. I think it will work this time, too. And unfortunately, without Katie, it will be much more difficult to convict Charlie because, as has been established ad nauseum, there is nothing to connect him to the trigger man except Katie. No direct payments from Charlie to
him. No communications from Charlie to him. That’s why Charlie used Katie as an intermediary in the first place! And thats why he’s going to go free? Terrible. If the state can’t get her convicted, they haven’t done their job. Sure, there’s not much direct evidence against Katie in the sense that she’s not on tape discussing the murder. But what murderer is? Why can’t juries ever understand that reasonable doubt doesn’t mean no doubt, (other wise, the defense could just argue that Martians could’ve come down with a spaceship and killed Dan, and there, case closed). Why can’t they understand that circumstantial evidence IS evidence? Again, a good prosecutor needs to be able to explain that. Otherwise the defense will, as they did here, just throw out all kinds of alternative explanations, and the jury will think it has to weigh those. Which is what this jury seems to be doing here, and why they have chosen to take up a holiday weekend deliberating. This should have been over today. I want to think that Katie didn’t take a deal all this time, because she really didn’t do it. But I can’t figure out, logically, how she wasn’t involved. Nothing else makes sense. Charlie could not have done this without her. Is this jury that dumb not to be able to put that together? Did they put it together, but still think the state didn’t give them enough to support that conclusion ? Just how big do they think the state’s burden is? The whole thing is nuts. End of rant. What does everyone else think? Talk me down.

I hear you. It is worrisome. I’m hoping it’s for the benefit of 1 or very few jurors who just want to do their due prudence. I cannot imagine how she could be found not guilty honestly based on the evidence and her own testimony. I’m hoping they will go back, vote and come back with a guilty on the first degree murder charge. What other explanation makes sense for all these phone calls, texts, etc…?! Nothing else is even plausible!

 

[clearskies1]

This is not good. This defendant got on the stand and couldn’t explain any of the evidence that points directly to her. She has no burden to do so, of course. But she chose to take the stand. In doing so, she took on a burden to create a defense for herself, or to refute the state’s evidence. And she offered nothing In the way of either. The state‘s evidence stands. There shouldn’t be any reason for the jury to go over any of the evidence in detail again. No need to look at each and every phone call or recording. They were all obviously bad for Katie, and the defense offered nothing to counter that. They also offered no evidence that Charlie arranged the murder with Sigfredo directly, which they said they would do in their opening. The State should have held them to that very strongly in its closing. It’s an own goal. The defense also said in closing that the state looked for a connection between the murderers and the Adelsons, and went for “the easiest” connection, Katie. But what else should they have done? Found another connection? There isn’t one. It’s true, Katie IS the easiest connection, because she’s the ONLY connection. There‘s no way this murder gets committed by Sigfredo without her telling him about it and getting him to do it. He doesn’t know Dan, or Charlie. She sat in that Dolce Vida restaurant listening to Charlie talk about a situation in which his family was being blackmailed, concerning an incident which appeared on international News. She admits that. She also admits she didn’t ask him what he was talking about. And she admits she then called Sigfredo, a person who just so happens to be the person also implicated in this situation with Charlie’s family that made international news. Her husband just happens to have murdered Charlie’s brother in law, without ever having met Charlie except for one time, the jet ski incident, which occurred AFTER the first murder trip to Tallahassee. After all of this, when the jury was sent back, there should’ve been an instant straw poll, resulting in everyone voting guilty. I think the strategy of putting Katie on the stand worked last time in that it got at least one or two jurors to feel bad for her. I think it will work this time, too. And unfortunately, without Katie, it will be much more difficult to convict Charlie because, as has been established ad nauseum, there is nothing to connect him to the trigger man except Katie. No direct payments from Charlie to
him. No communications from Charlie to him. That’s why Charlie used Katie as an intermediary in the first place! And thats why he’s going to go free? Terrible. If the state can’t get her convicted, they haven’t done their job. Sure, there’s not much direct evidence against Katie in the sense that she’s not on tape discussing the murder. But what murderer is? Why can’t juries ever understand that reasonable doubt doesn’t mean no doubt, (other wise, the defense could just argue that Martians could’ve come down with a spaceship and killed Dan, and there, case closed). Why can’t they understand that circumstantial evidence IS evidence? Again, a good prosecutor needs to be able to explain that. Otherwise the defense will, as they did here, just throw out all kinds of alternative explanations, and the jury will think it has to weigh those. Which is what this jury seems to be doing here, and why they have chosen to take up a holiday weekend deliberating. This should have been over today. I want to think that Katie didn’t take a deal all this time, because she really didn’t do it. But I can’t figure out, logically, how she wasn’t involved. Nothing else makes sense. Charlie could not have done this without her. Is this jury that dumb not to be able to put that together? Did they put it together, but still think the state didn’t give them enough to support that conclusion ? Just how big do they think the state’s burden is? The whole thing is nuts. End of rant. What does everyone else think? Talk me down.

Talking you down: They are dotting i's and crossing t's. JMO.

 

[trialfan]

thanks everyone for talking me down. But I still think that the reason they need to listen to the tapes and phone calls is because at least one of them is arguing that they don’t prove that Katie was involved. And the others have to argue that she was, and so they have to listen to everything. It’s a holiday weekend! They want to go home! I’m sure the first thing they did was take a vote. If it was all guilty, no way they would need to waste their afternoon on hearing anything else.

 

[Marysmith]

thanks everyone for talking me down. But I still think that the reason they need to listen to the tapes and phone calls is because at least one of them is arguing that they don’t prove that Katie was involved. And the others have to argue that she was, and so they have to listen to everything. It’s a holiday weekend! They want to go home! I’m sure the first thing they did was take a vote. If it was all guilty, no way they would need to waste their afternoon on hearing anything else.

I do agree with you on this. I *hope* it’s not guilty on a charge, not not guilty altogether but who knows… gosh, it will be so disheartening if she is found not guilty.

 

[Laura930]

thanks everyone for talking me down. But I still think that the reason they need to listen to the tapes and phone calls is because at least one of them is arguing that they don’t prove that Katie was involved. And the others have to argue that she was, and so they have to listen to everything. It’s a holiday weekend! They want to go home! I’m sure the first thing they did was take a vote. If it was all guilty, no way they would need to waste their afternoon on hearing anything else.

Do they have to stay all weekend or can they stop and come back on Tuesday?

 

[clearskies1]

I would like a media report/tweet about the jury's body language.

 

[trialfan]

Defendants hardly ever take the stand. Maybe the fact that she has, makes the jury think she must not be guilty? It almost makes me think she isn’t. (That and the fact that she didn’t take a deal and has chosen to sit in jail). Every criminal defendant should try this! It seems to work!