FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #25

[amicuscurie]

What is bad guidance?

Is it bad guidance if DA tells them she's innocent and they go in to bat for her, doing their best to defend her dog of a case vs telling DA you may be innocent, but the evidence against you is overwhelming. We will do our best for you, but you need to understand in all likelihood you will be found guilty.

For me bad guidance is not being 100% honest, open and transparent. I don't want a lawyer schmoozing me, telling me I'll be home in time for summer, the State's case is weak yadda, yadda, yadda. I want transparency. It prepares you for the inevitable, but also allows you to strategise. If you know you're going down, you can think of other options e.g cooperation.

I wonder in 5 years time when all the Adelsons are locked up, if anyone of them could go back in time, to before they were convicted, what would they change? Would they cooperate?

In my experience, if a client is not open to the message of your suggested approach, he or she can move on and find a lawyer who will tell him or her what he or she wants to hear. There are all kids of lawyers, in my experience, and people find the one they want. There’s no ethical duty that I know of to do anything other than offer zealous representation and avoid presenting evidence that is false or having your client say something you know is a lie on the stand.

 

[Going Rogue]

What is bad guidance?

Is it bad guidance if DA tells them she's innocent and they go in to bat for her, doing their best to defend her dog of a case vs telling DA you may be innocent, but the evidence against you is overwhelming. We will do our best for you, but you need to understand in all likelihood you will be found guilty.

For me bad guidance is not being 100% honest, open and transparent. I don't want a lawyer schmoozing me, telling me I'll be home in time for summer, the State's case is weak yadda, yadda, yadda. I want transparency. It prepares you for the inevitable, but also allows you to strategise. If you know you're going down, you can think of other options e.g cooperation.

I wonder in 5 years time when all the Adelsons are locked up, if anyone of them could go back in time, to before they were convicted, what would they change? Would they cooperate?

With the facts that we have and where we currently stand, ‘bad guidance’ would be if they are just placating her and never sat her down and fully disclosed to her that her chances are slim based on the evidence. Stated another way, not setting proper expectations and explaining realistic outcomes if they go to trial and laying out what her options are – which I’d bet they did. Ultimately they can’t force her to take a plea deal and the reality is there is NO WAY she would accept a plea deal, and they know that because the state wouldn’t give her anything worthwhile in a plea deal UNLESS she gave up Wendi. I think we all agree she’d never give up Wendi – so rolling the dice at trial is really her only option. The reality is she was never taking a plea deal and I’m sure her new legal team told her they’d zealously represent her to the best of their ability – which is their sworn obligation anyway. I’d also bet they told her that her chances of winning aren't great – not zero but not great.

 

[LinasK]

The reason the ‘this is so sweet’ text is a such big red flag, is because she deleted it that day... I find that very curious and it seems to me it shows, at a minimum, she had knowledge. You are correct it could have been about anything – but why did she delete it?

Donna will play dumb.. she wont turn on Charlie... her defense will be she just listened to Charlie and he attorneys will argue she was clueless... That is the reason when Robert Adelson was deposed, that state made it a point to ask him if Donna was easily fooled. They are anticipating that defense... I see it coming a mile away

Oh goody! Can't wait to hear what Robert has to say about his family.

 

[LinasK]

What is bad guidance?

Is it bad guidance if DA tells them she's innocent and they go in to bat for her, doing their best to defend her dog of a case vs telling DA you may be innocent, but the evidence against you is overwhelming. We will do our best for you, but you need to understand in all likelihood you will be found guilty.

For me bad guidance is not being 100% honest, open and transparent. I don't want a lawyer schmoozing me, telling me I'll be home in time for summer, the State's case is weak yadda, yadda, yadda. I want transparency. It prepares you for the inevitable, but also allows you to strategise. If you know you're going down, you can think of other options e.g cooperation.

I wonder in 5 years time when all the Adelsons are locked up, if anyone of them could go back in time, to before they were convicted, what would they change? Would they cooperate?

Not likely. They are a bunch of narcissistic sociopaths. Leopards don't change their spots.

 

[Sustained]

I wonder in 5 years time when all the Adelsons are locked up, if anyone of them could go back in time, to before they were convicted, what would they change? Would they cooperate?

RSBM -

They would have all run right after SG/LR were arrested.

 

[Luna20]

Agree with this. I also know that many, if not most, defense attorneys don’t ask their clients if they did it.

They wouldn’t have a job if they did

I’m always amazed at attorneys who defend someone like Charles Manson.

 

[opt]

RSBM.

I’d also bet they told her that her chances of winning aren't great – not zero but not great.

In my opinion her chance of acquittal is not low; it's zero. The best she can get is a hung jury, which won't get her out of prison. She will never walk free.

 

[Zedzded]

I think we all agree she’d never give up Wendi – so rolling the dice at trial is really her only option.

Well The Adelson's like to think they have this tight loving family and I think for some reason, possibly ego, the thought of flipping on one another is too abhorrent for them to consider. But in reality, there is no love, just tenuous connections, toxic bonds, easily broken.

I think what they will do and have done to an extent is to "accidentally" drop each other in it, without necessarily flipping. e.g
1. WA saying CA joked about hiring hitmen.
2. WA saying CA hated DanM, providing a motive.
3. WA emailing Sara Yousef (I'm speculating she hints at her families involvement).
4. WA stating that she is not responsible for CA's actions (SIC)
5. DA saying she only paid KM because CA told her to.
6. CA saying stuff on the phone that incriminated WA, knowing he was being recorded e.g going on and on about WA's choice to drive to the crime scene.

DA will continue to drop breadcrumbs regarding CA's involvement and complicity without saying outright he planned the whole thing. She will, for example, admit to the money drop, destroying CA's double extortion defence. She will state that CA told her to drop off $150k on the night of the shooting so she did, no questions asked.

I'm not sure if that qualifies as DA flipping on CA, but if she states that, it will be the final nail in CA's coffin. In DA's trial if WA takes the stand we will see a less defiant person, someone that realises she can no longer defend her family as it makes her look complicit. Her email to Sara Yousef will come out and she'll need to explain that.

I think DA will slowly become aware that her daughter has sold her down the river and whilst she may never "give her up" she may just drop a few more breadcrumbs..

 

[IQuestion]

Great accessible & local article with pics.

Judge denies Donna Adelson request for bond in Dan Markel murder-for-hire case

Donna Adelson will not be getting out of jail before her murder trial starts in June on charges she helped orchestrate the 2014 murder of Dan Markel.

www.tallahassee.com

****Just a helpful suggestion: Hawaii has several relaxing resorts. You don't need a passport to board the plane. The flight is a lot shorter. You are still in the United States. English is spoken by most everyone. They take American dollars. (no need for currency exchange!) The weather and scenery magnificent. The food is recognizable and medical care is always available.

 

[lisette]

How old are Dan’s boys now?You have to wonder what they have seen and heard outside the Adelson’s storyline.

 

[Ferpo]

How old are Dan’s boys now?You have to wonder what they have seen and heard outside the Adelson’s storyline.

One is ~16 years old, the other is ~15.

 

[amicuscurie]

Great accessible & local article with pics.

Judge denies Donna Adelson request for bond in Dan Markel murder-for-hire case

Donna Adelson will not be getting out of jail before her murder trial starts in June on charges she helped orchestrate the 2014 murder of Dan Markel.

www.tallahassee.com

****Just a helpful suggestion: Hawaii has several relaxing resorts. You don't need a passport to board the plane. The flight is a lot shorter. You are still in the United States. English is spoken by most everyone. They take American dollars. (no need for currency exchange!) The weather and scenery magnificent. The food is recognizable and medical care is always available.

That excuse was ridiculous, in my opinion. First, it seems to me she’s saying they just chose Vietnam because it was a peaceful place they liked; but then, if I recall correctly, she says they chose it because it had no extradition. To me, these statements seem contradictory. And, as you say, if you hypothetically didn’t want to be arrested and put in jail in a foreign country, why leave the country at all? To me, even believing you might be put in a foreign jail shows some consciousness of guilt. Also, if the country has extradition, hypothetically, wouldn’t they just extradite you? I imagine they might have to hold you for a short period to initiate the extradition proceedings, but I don’t imagine it would be for a very long time. In my understanding, the only reason one might hypothetically remain in a foreign jail for a very long time is if one chose to fight extradition.

 

[Sustained]

They wouldn’t have a job if they did

I’m always amazed at attorneys who defend someone like Charles Manson.

Publicity and reputation - look at Jose Baez - he would likely not have the Gardner case had Casey Anthony been convicted.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well The Adelson's like to think they have this tight loving family and I think for some reason, possibly ego, the thought of flipping on one another is too abhorrent for them to consider. But in reality, there is no love, just tenuous connections, toxic bonds, easily broken.

I think what they will do and have done to an extent is to "accidentally" drop each other in it, without necessarily flipping. e.g
1. WA saying CA joked about hiring hitmen.
2. WA saying CA hated DanM, providing a motive.
3. WA emailing Sara Yousef (I'm speculating she hints at her families involvement).
4. WA stating that she is not responsible for CA's actions (SIC)
5. DA saying she only paid KM because CA told her to.
6. CA saying stuff on the phone that incriminated WA, knowing he was being recorded e.g going on and on about WA's choice to drive to the crime scene.

DA will continue to drop breadcrumbs regarding CA's involvement and complicity without saying outright he planned the whole thing. She will, for example, admit to the money drop, destroying CA's double extortion defence. She will state that CA told her to drop off $150k on the night of the shooting so she did, no questions asked.

I'm not sure if that qualifies as DA flipping on CA, but if she states that, it will be the final nail in CA's coffin. In DA's trial if WA takes the stand we will see a less defiant person, someone that realises she can no longer defend her family as it makes her look complicit. Her email to Sara Yousef will come out and she'll need to explain that.

I think DA will slowly become aware that her daughter has sold her down the river and whilst she may never "give her up" she may just drop a few more breadcrumbs..

I think Donna will flat out deny the money drop. It will be interesting to see how her legal team addresses the ‘outside your house text’ and I believe she will simply deny that stop and align herself with Charlie’s testimony. We know its BS but agreeing to the money drop is a sure conviction and it would also blowup Charlie’s ‘extortion’ defense and she is holding on hopes that he wins his appeal.

I predict her defense will be the clueless old lady that was following Charles orders. With that defense they don’t have to go against the ‘double extrusion’ defense and expose Charlie. There are definitely some hurdles in using that defense strategy, but there aren’t any great options. Donna is very cunning and intelligent, I think she had a long time to weigh all her options and I firmly believe she cares more about Charlie and Wendi's fate than herself at this point. She will never flip on either of them.

 

[Going Rogue]

In my opinion her chance of acquittal is not low; it's zero. The best she can get is a hung jury, which won't get her out of prison. She will never walk free.

Juries can be unpredictable. I agree her chances of acquittal are very low, but not zero. Ask anyone that watched the Casey Anthony trial

 

[amicuscurie]

I think Donna will flat out deny the money drop. It will be interesting to see how her legal team addresses the ‘outside your house text’ and I believe she will simply deny that stop and align herself with Charlie’s testimony. We know its BS but agreeing to the money drop is a sure conviction and it would also blowup Charlie’s ‘extortion’ defense and she is holding on hopes that he wins his appeal.

I predict her defense will be the clueless old lady that was following Charles orders. With that defense they don’t have to go against the ‘double extrusion’ defense and expose Charlie. There are definitely some hurdles in using that defense strategy, but there aren’t any great options. Donna is very cunning and intelligent, I think she had a long time to weigh all her options and I firmly believe she cares more about Charlie and Wendi's fate than herself at this point. She will never flip on either of them.

I have always thought that her best defense would be to say that Charlie approached her after the murder and asked her to write the checks to Katie so she could get insurance for her kids. (I believe that this may have actually been what the checks were for. However, I also believe that the arrangement for Katie to receive employment checks from the business so she could get insurance for the kids was made as some kind of compensation for the murder, and I believe Donna knew that.). Indeed, it’s entirely possible that they believed that the checks could easily be explained away using the insurance story, thereby keeping Donna from being connected to the murder plot or the payoff. Unfortunately, the bump recordings make that less plausible, in my opinion.

It’s true that on the stand Charlie said he told his mother the checks were for the “extortion” after the murder. But if he doesn’t testify in Donna’s trial, the jury will not know this, I don’t think. And, either way, in my opinion, both stories -extortion checks or insurance scheme - would seem to support a potential defense theory that Donna did not know about the murder.

If Donna were to testify that she thought the checks were for some sort of insurance scheme for Katie, hypothetically she could claim that she thought the bump was about that, and that either the cops were onto the scheme, or one of Katie’s friends wanted money to keep it quiet. (Whether any of that is credible is a decision for the jury; presumably they will hear the bump calls, many of which in my opinion contain statements which could indicate that Donna knows the bump is related to the murder, such as “this TV is 5.”)

In my opinion, her attempted flight to Vietnam creates problems for this or any defense. Even more problematic, in my opinion, would be the money drop and the “outside your house” text, which in my opinion strongly indicate she knew about the murder before it occurred. I believe it will be difficult to get around that, and I believe her defense will fight to keep the text out, as they did before. As you say, it’s possible that if the money drop evidence does come in, her defense will say that she just was told to drop off the money and she didn’t know what it was for.

 

[Zedzded]

Also CA's legal team called the conflict of in

In my opinion, her attempted flight to Vietnam creates problems for this or any defense. Even more problematic, in my opinion, would be the money drop and the “outside your house” text, which in my opinion strongly indicate she knew about the murder before it occurred. I believe it will be difficult to get around that, and I believe her defense will fight to keep the text out, as they did before. As you say, it’s possible that if the money drop evidence does come in, her defense will say that she just was told to drop off the money and she didn’t know what it was for.

The text isn't her biggest issue in relation to the money drop its the cell town info that shows her and HA's phone at CA's house from 9pm-10.40pm. Plus KM stated CA told her his parents left at 10.40PM.

DA's team will need to address that. They will have to say we popped in to say hello, we stopped near his house and went for dinner, we were at the shops buying a new TV...something.

DA does not seem to get that credibility is important and that any story will do as it's a story. e.g her farcical testimony about reasons for travelling to Vietnam. If her lawyer does not reiterate how important it is for DA to produce semi-credible statements then maybe she'll just continue denying and denying, but her lawyer will want that cell tower info dealt with.

 

[IQuestion]

Hope someone can answer this question: Is DA's son, Charlie able to watch the same hearing (exhaustive complaint session) that has been on Youtube and many television channels? I am thinking because she was so open about her perceived issues and hardships, perhaps there was another message being sent. (I was embarrassed for her, but it didn't seem to bother her in the least.) I got the same "too much information/yuck feeling" when CA spoke about his mother having diarrhea all night and unable to sleep in a conversation with KM. Maybe she wants CA to feel sorry for her plight and stick to the scenario of, "My mother knows nothing and she simply did what I told her to do."
DA seemed to know how to manipulate him and get him to do her bidding. However, someone else (a new attorney who has no loyalties to Donna!) is now giving him legal advice. Wake up Charlie...you're the fall guy! I'm sure "The Fam" has decided it should all end with you and there is no need for the rest of them to be prosecuted. I can't believe no one came to his trial...not even his parents. By now he knows his sister didn't even ask about his well being. There is an obvious widening schism of loyalties occurring. The "One for all, and all for Wendi" defensive line seems to finally be faltering. CA, they just voted you off. "You are the weakest link. Good-bye."

 

[Knitpicker]

DA had sciatica issues before she was arrested...jail did not cause it. Not everyone gains 30% of their original weight while awaiting trial...some people lose weight. She has had the concern (perhaps proclivity) for weight gain/body image in the past per her daughter's podcast. Ie, (paraphrasing) My mother thinks she's fat and was not allowed to join Weight Watchers. Sorry Donna, incarceration does not schedule private trainers like the one available at the South Beach luxury condo. However, she may meet their WW weight guidelines, now. She has turned down medical care that was offered to her because she wants "her choice of treatment." (Oh don't we all know the constraints of an HMO vs a PPO.)
Many poor and indigent people who have never committed a crime wish they had the medical care available in a Tally jail. A bed, clean sheets, telephone privileges, hot showers, calorie laden meals, biscuits and gravy....sounds like the Taj Mahal compared to the plight of the mentally ill and homeless. I carefully watched DA's retelling of her "horrible, tortuous incarceration conditions" and then watched again with NO SOUND. Never once does she have an issue answering every single question. She is never so "choked up" she can not reply to every query! Never red faced, traumatized, or able to "force tears" no matter how many times she tightly squeezes her eyes. Nor is she so traumatized she can not recall each and every second of her shock an horror of someone touching her back in a shower and she screamed. (Why does this iconic "movie shot" come to mind?) Janet Leigh"
And, don't get me started on HA finally making it to a courtroom for one of his family members. (I couldn't help but notice the "GQ stubble" which actually looked good on him, IMO.) His suit/accessorizing was impeccable. However, still trying to figure out where the "he's almost 80 years old and can't make the 7 mile drive home from the airport" excuses went?? Now, forward two years, he can get housing, care for his spouse and manage transportation to a courthouse in Tally. (Is he aging in reverse?) Can't figure out if he is devoted or deluded.
I'll remove my Joan-of-Snark hat now and duck as I back out of the room. Has anyone ever followed a WS case in which pleadings to be let out of jail pending a murder trial ever heard such complaints? Sciatica and narrow ear canals...SMH.

It would definitely be hard to keep a Paleo/Mediteranean diet in jail. She’s the kind of woman who lived the South Beach Diet life.

 

[Knitpicker]

I have always thought that her best defense would be to say that Charlie approached her after the murder and asked her to write the checks to Katie so she could get insurance for her kids. (I believe that this may have actually been what the checks were for. However, I also believe that the arrangement for Katie to receive employment checks from the business so she could get insurance for the kids was made as some kind of compensation for the murder, and I believe Donna knew that.). Indeed, it’s entirely possible that they believed that the checks could easily be explained away using the insurance story, thereby keeping Donna from being connected to the murder plot or the payoff. Unfortunately, the bump recordings make that less plausible, in my opinion.

It’s true that on the stand Charlie said he told his mother the checks were for the “extortion” after the murder. But if he doesn’t testify in Donna’s trial, the jury will not know this, I don’t think. And, either way, in my opinion, both stories -extortion checks or insurance scheme - would seem to support a potential defense theory that Donna did not know about the murder.

If Donna were to testify that she thought the checks were for some sort of insurance scheme for Katie, hypothetically she could claim that she thought the bump was about that, and that either the cops were onto the scheme, or one of Katie’s friends wanted money to keep it quiet. (Whether any of that is credible is a decision for the jury; presumably they will hear the bump calls, many of which in my opinion contain statements which could indicate that Donna knows the bump is related to the murder, such as “this TV is 5.”)

In my opinion, her attempted flight to Vietnam creates problems for this or any defense. Even more problematic, in my opinion, would be the money drop and the “outside your house” text, which in my opinion strongly indicate she knew about the murder before it occurred. I believe it will be difficult to get around that, and I believe her defense will fight to keep the text out, as they did before. As you say, it’s possible that if the money drop evidence does come in, her defense will say that she just was told to drop off the money and she didn’t know what it was for.

..And June’s stating DA’s “Dan is haunting me from the grave” comment to her. Why would someone say that if they had no part in his murder?