I did not see the previous trials and only very, very casually followed this case over the years. Coming into this trial I only knew about the following people: Dan Markel; H, D, W, and C Adelson; and the three people already convicted.
So I comment as a newbie to the case and the facts surrounding it.
I think the prosecution has provided a strong case. I would vote “guilty” as a juror. But I also think the prosecution case has been a little bit confusing. Reading the comments here (I’ve read everything only in threads 14 and this current one) I think that many things mentioned in these pages would have made things much clearer and, more importantly, stronger. But as things stand now, the prosecution has not much to be worried about, I think. Also, based on comments here, it seems the prosecution can offer powerful rebuttal evidence.
A few of my observations:
—Charlie’s attitude toward women (except perhaps his mother!) would make a caveman proud. He even evinces no respect for his own sister. His comments about younger women for dating and the baggage children represent will surely create strong feelings among the women of the jury as well as those men who don’t see women as mere objects for their personal delight. This attitude will bolster the idea that he considers himself clearly superior to others, like when he suggests that if an oral surgeon kills a gang-banger, the doc will be believed with any old story. It’s only a small, incremental step to his assuming “no one would believe I would kill my brother-in-law”, even when he did. I think the jury will see this.
—Ex-girlfriend June seemed to treat her time on the stand as a modeling interview for hair care products. Again, it does not reflect well on CA that he seeks out beautiful but vapid and shallow women who coo and bubble over him out of love for his wallet. It was crystal clear to me that she did make numerous observations about CA at the time of her LE interview that support the prosecution’s case, even if she now wishes to minimize them.
—Lacasse was a good choice by Wendi, if she was indeed looking to litter the landscape with potential suspects not named Adelson. Even all these years later, he seemed remarkably emotional and at times bitter, especially for someone versed in social work and interpersonal relations. Nonetheless, I found his testimony believable, if slightly neurotic.
—Magbanua is a liar, there is no getting around that. However, the problem for the defense is that much of what she admits to now is supported by other evidence before the jury. The defense will, inevitably, argue that the jury should consider every single thing she says as rubbish. I don’t think they will. And the wiretaps make clear who was the conductor and who was the second trombone in this orchestrated murder.
—I think it was smart of the prosecution to place Wendi and Lacasse as witnesses close in time. Lacasse had moments of stumbling and stuttering testimony that were congruent with the emotional impact of the specific events recounted. Wendi, on the other hand, was almost unbelievably calm, even when caught in lies (claiming Mama didn’t know about DM’s motion for only supervised visits between DA and the kiddoes, claiming she didn’t know the significance of being found in contempt). I’m sure the jury thought back to how easily Wendy lied when she said Dan’s family had “unfettered access” to the boys after they heard FBI agent Sanford testify that this was patently untrue.
—I wondered how obvious the code stuff would be, and I think now that all the calls and texts and the like have come into evidence, I believe the jury will believe what the prosecution believes: that codes were indeed used by this ruthless family.
—Some of the wiretap recordings are so hard to hear that it hurts. I confess that I have read here in this thread to get the gist of some of them, because I am too lazy to strain and stretch my brain and ears to make them coherent. I trust that the jury, with the headphones, are having a better time of it. I do wonder how they will deliberate over them. I hate to think they might have to listen to them again! If there’s anything which could trip up a conviction, I fear it will be a single juror saying, “I couldn’t make any sense of the wiretaps and there is not enough evidence to convict without them.” (If I understand correctly, this was also the prosecution position: They only proceeded with charging CA after they cleaned up the audio on the most important wiretaps, right?) What I heard was not cleaned up enough for easy listening.
—These comments may be pointless by tomorrow if CA hangs himself, as he is wont to do, with his own words. His arrogance will seal his fate.
