FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *4 Guilty* #26

[BUF]

What was the objective for them to create the display?

The defense asked for the first two rows behind the defense for family and friends….but said so people in the gallery couldn’t read their laptops on the defense table.

Since those two rows are basically empty except for Harvey and the couple of people they asked to sit there for a little while, the whole thing kind of backfired. The empty rows are not a good look for the jury and the lack of people really doesn’t hide their laptop screens.

 

[Luna20]

Donna is going all-in on doing whatever it takes to not be found guilty. She doesn’t care if people know that she is acting, moaning, crying (no tears) because she just needs one person to believe it. Her silent aggression though can’t be hidden. Her control and manipulation are innate. If she escapes a guilty verdict I can see her going crazy about how poorly she was treated. Her opinions can’t be contained.

If she were my mother I would be disgusted to witness her acting this ‘way’. She is acting ‘this’ way to save her life at the expense of her children. It’s her saving herself and not her children. We have seen mothers who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their children and can understand their denial of admission. The opposite is creepy.

The take down of the family reveals the truth about their individuality. The ringleader is fighting as though she had nothing to do with this horrible crime.

 

[Luna20]

The defense asked for the first two rows behind the defense for family and friends….but said so people in the gallery couldn’t read their laptops on the defense table.

Since those two rows are basically empty except for Harvey and the couple of people they asked to sit there for a little while, the whole thing kind of backfired. The empty rows are not a good look for the jury and the lack of people really doesn’t hide their laptop screens.

So if it were filled with friends and family it would be okay for them to see the laptops?

 

[Zedzded]

In Cappleman’s closing arguments (don’t recall if it was Katie’s 1 or 2nd trial) she even pointed out that Rivera (her quote) ~ "got a lot of things wrong.” 11 years has elapsed since Dan’s murder and 9 since his proffer, and now he is testifying that Katie got Dan’s schedule from Wendi?

To my knowledge that has never been alleged by Rivera prior to this past Friday – unless we count “the blog was Wendi” as the first time during Charlies trial. So if I’m unfairly placing that in the bucket of ‘evolving’ testimony, I’m guilty.

I don't think there's much in LR's statement re WA or Fulford's strategy to implicate WA. It's simply to muddy the waters. If they can paint WA and CA out to be the chief architects behind the murder then that might help DA be found not guilty. She was a loving Mum, who had no clue what her crazy kids were up to and now she's getting dragged into this mess.

And this doesn't strengthen the case against WA, it simply weakens, or attempts to weaken the case against DA. It won't work though.

 

[Knitpicker]

Damn KNITPICKER!!!! (Did I ever tell you what a great sleuth you are?) Absolutely great comeback!! Even a citation to the exact moment on the recorded phone line when queried about employment records for KatieM. Charlie began strategizing on how to stall as soon as he got a call from Erica. "It's not my office, it's my Dad's office" .....
This is the actual FBI recording played in court..... provided for your listening entertainment!

Well we need to keep our ears perked to see what else Jackie is going to try and sneak in!
Thx for the compliment and for the call!

 

[iamshadow21]

Donna is going all-in on doing whatever it takes to not be found guilty. She doesn’t care if people know that she is acting, moaning, crying (no tears) because she just needs one person to believe it. Her silent aggression though can’t be hidden. Her control and manipulation are innate. If she escapes a guilty verdict I can see her going crazy about how poorly she was treated. Her opinions can’t be contained.

If she were my mother I would be disgusted to witness her acting this ‘way’. She is acting ‘this’ way to save her life at the expense of her children. It’s her saving herself and not her children. We have seen mothers who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their children and can understand their denial of admission. The opposite is creepy.

The take down of the family reveals the truth about their individuality. The ringleader is fighting as though she had nothing to do with this horrible crime.

The thing that's really awful is, supposedly, one of the main reasons Dan was executed so brutally was that she could have a lot more access to her grandchildren.

Not only is she throwing both Charlie and Wendi under the bus, by so blatantly saying that Wendi, not her, was the mastermind, she's potentially giving police enough ammunition to actually arrest and charge Wendi. Depriving her grandchildren not only of herself, but of their mother.

But the only thing that matters to Donna is not dying in prison, so screw everyone else.

Man, they're the actual worst. As a family. I'm so glad that one other son got out.

MOO

 

[Knitpicker]

It kind of slipped under the radar with all of the pre-trial DA excitement but on July 30, the First District Appeals Court of Florida denied KM's appeal and it is considered CLOSED now. I believe she can still appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. This process took almost exactly three years, if you're watching the CA appeal in progress.

It's also still a wildcard to see if KM can get any sentencing relief by appearing on behalf of the State at various Adelson trials.

She admitted to murdering Dan Markel through Sigfredo. On what grounds could she ever appeal?

 

[Weki]

I agree totally with your assessment of Rivera's testimony. If Katie's attorneys (Kawass and Decoste) were handling the defense, I have no doubt they would have done an aggressive cross examination of Rivera and would have pointed out the discrepancies and evolution of his testimony over time that you recited. But Donna's counsel is taking a different tack in this trial and is not putting up any fight with respect to the prosecution's theory on Wendi and Charlie's involvement. It seems pretty clear to me that Jackie wants the jury to accept Wendi and Charlie as culpable because she is trying to emphasize that there is insufficient direct evidence to tie Donna to the deed. By essentially saying to the jury, "here's your murderers" she's able to give the jury a succinct picture of the crime and those involved while cutting Donna out of the herd. I think it's a pretty smart defense, although I doubt it is going to work given the amount of evidence there is that shows Donna's involvement.

By the way, a few months ago I had to suffer through a deposition in another case where I was an expert witness for the prosecution and the defendant was represented by Kawass and Decoste. I don't personally like their style, but there is no question they work hard for their clients, and it took two days for them to complete their questioning of me. Very tedious and unpleasant, but I do believe every defendant deserves a zealous advocate whether guilty or not, and I do grudgingly respect their commitment to their client's interests.

BBM

I’m wondering if they get over involved with their clients and lose perspective. I say this because they weren’t able to straighten Katie out w/r/t the immunity deal she was offered and the way that Kawass bawled during the verdict/sentencing. I think they become enmeshed with the clients and, paradoxically, this lowers the clients respect/trust in their opinion. They went through 2 trials with KM and worked hard I’m sure only for her to get LWOP when she could’ve been free. I can’t get past that when it comes to them. They should’ve threatened to withdraw - done whatever it took - but I’m guessing they don’t have that in them. I don’t see the point of working so hard for a client who was offered immunity when you know she will be convicted. I couldn’t do it because it would demoralize me.

JMO

 

[Knitpicker]

I agree totally with your assessment of Rivera's testimony. If Katie's attorneys (Kawass and Decoste) were handling the defense, I have no doubt they would have done an aggressive cross examination of Rivera and would have pointed out the discrepancies and evolution of his testimony over time that you recited. But Donna's counsel is taking a different tack in this trial and is not putting up any fight with respect to the prosecution's theory on Wendi and Charlie's involvement. It seems pretty clear to me that Jackie wants the jury to accept Wendi and Charlie as culpable because she is trying to emphasize that there is insufficient direct evidence to tie Donna to the deed. By essentially saying to the jury, "here's your murderers" she's able to give the jury a succinct picture of the crime and those involved while cutting Donna out of the herd. I think it's a pretty smart defense, although I doubt it is going to work given the amount of evidence there is that shows Donna's involvement.

By the way, a few months ago I had to suffer through a deposition in another case where I was an expert witness for the prosecution and the defendant was represented by Kawass and Decoste. I don't personally like their style, but there is no question they work hard for their clients, and it took two days for them to complete their questioning of me. Very tedious and unpleasant, but I do believe every defendant deserves a zealous advocate whether guilty or not, and I do grudgingly respect their commitment to their client's interests.

But they didn’t advise her to take the deal with the state-twice.

 

[Luna20]

The thing that's really awful is, supposedly, one of the main reasons Dan was executed so brutally was that she could have a lot more access to her grandchildren.

Not only is she throwing both Charlie and Wendi under the bus, by so blatantly saying that Wendi, not her, was the mastermind, she's potentially giving police enough ammunition to actually arrest and charge Wendi. Depriving her grandchildren not only of herself, but of their mother.

But the only thing that matters to Donna is not dying in prison, so screw everyone else.

Man, they're the actual worst. As a family. I'm so glad that one other son got out.

MOO

Good point. Also it’s as if she was asserting herself as a better person than their mother to brainwash them. She wants the kids to hate their father because she hates their father so much. So much so that it came down to murdering him. That is deep seated hate.

I’m sure as soon as Wendi mentioned divorce that Donna became very involved. They were going to win because they were the Adelson’s. She never imagined that they would lose control. Her hate multiplied and it hasn’t stopped.

I’m wondering if the judge thinks that she is guilty and that is the reason he told her no emotional outburst. Removing her attempt to manipulate. Just my thoughts.

 

[Going Rogue]

I agree totally with your assessment of Rivera's testimony. If Katie's attorneys (Kawass and Decoste) were handling the defense, I have no doubt they would have done an aggressive cross examination of Rivera and would have pointed out the discrepancies and evolution of his testimony over time that you recited. But Donna's counsel is taking a different tack in this trial and is not putting up any fight with respect to the prosecution's theory on Wendi and Charlie's involvement. It seems pretty clear to me that Jackie wants the jury to accept Wendi and Charlie as culpable because she is trying to emphasize that there is insufficient direct evidence to tie Donna to the deed. By essentially saying to the jury, "here's your murderers" she's able to give the jury a succinct picture of the crime and those involved while cutting Donna out of the herd. I think it's a pretty smart defense, although I doubt it is going to work given the amount of evidence there is that shows Donna's involvement.

By the way, a few months ago I had to suffer through a deposition in another case where I was an expert witness for the prosecution and the defendant was represented by Kawass and Decoste. I don't personally like their style, but there is no question they work hard for their clients, and it took two days for them to complete their questioning of me. Very tedious and unpleasant, but I do believe every defendant deserves a zealous advocate whether guilty or not, and I do grudgingly respect their commitment to their client's interests.

It’s a small world. Very interesting that you crossed paths with Kawass and Decoste. I fully agree that every defendant deserves a zealous advocate whether guilty or not. Defense attorneys play an important role in due process and the fact that they are ethically obligated to provide a zealous defense is what likely what helps them sleep at night when they represent the worst of the worst. It’s easy to justify representing someone like Charlie or Donna when its your ethical duty to provide a zealous defense.

As far as Rivera, ‘if’ this were Wendi’s trial, and he made these new allegations about Katie getting Dan’s travel schedule from Wendi, it would have been easy work for Lauro to clear up on cross. The outcome would have been Rivera would have walked back the statements re Wendi passing on Dan’s schedule once asked pointed questions OR Lauro would have made him look like a liar OR an unreliable witness making up facts / changing his testimony. Anyone that has followed this case should know there has been no evidence that Wendi passed on Dan schedule – if there were evidence of that, Wendi would have been arrested LONG ago. Yes, I believe it’s obvious that Fulford and Zelman don’t care to challenge this new allegation as it likely plays into their strategy. I also agree its a smart strategy and they have many hurdles ahead, but, objectively, I think they got off to a good start. Had they aligned themselves with the double extortion defense / theory, it would have been an easy conviction – IMO, this strategy gives them a glimmer of hope.

 

[iamshadow21]

Good point. Also it’s as if she was asserting herself as a better person than their mother to brainwash them. She wants the kids to hate their father because she hates their father so much. So much so that it came down to murdering him. That is deep seated hate.

I’m sure as soon as Wendi mentioned divorce that Donna became very involved. They were going to win because they were the Adelson’s. She never imagined that they would lose control. Her hate multiplied and it hasn’t stopped.

I’m wondering if the judge thinks that she is guilty and that is the reason he told her no emotional outburst. Removing her attempt to manipulate. Just my thoughts.

I think that it's more about the rules of courtroom decorum. They apply to everyone, that's why everyone observing in the public seating is advised that if they can't control their emotions they need to leave and get that under control before they will be allowed back inside.

MOO

 

[Luna20]

I think that it's more about the rules of courtroom decorum. They apply to everyone, that's why everyone observing in the public seating is advised that if they can't control their emotions they need to leave and get that under control before they will be allowed back inside.

MOO

Wishful thinking on my part but I’m glad that he called her out on it. When he spoke to her she responded emotionally. Go figure, she is trying to assert herself at every turn.

 

[clearskies1]

Re people saying that Donna is throwing Charlie and Wendi under the bus -- I didn't follow all of the first day of testimony but from what I've read, I'm not sure that anything her lawyers have done so far jeopardizes Charlie or Wendi legally. Rivera's statements about what someone allegedly told him about Wendi don't really matter. It's hearsay and won't come in against Wendi. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong about what's happened so far. Of course going along with Charlie and Wendi being involved won't exactly get her mother of the year....JMO.

 

[iamshadow21]

Re people saying that Donna is throwing Charlie and Wendi under the bus -- I didn't follow all of the first day of testimony but from what I've read, I'm not sure that anything her lawyers have done so far jeopardizes Charlie or Wendi legally. Rivera's statements about what someone allegedly told him about Wendi don't really matter. It's hearsay and won't come in against Wendi. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong about what's happened so far. Of course going along with Charlie and Wendi being involved won't exactly get her mother of the year....JMO.

That's why it's vile. It likely won't save her, but she is absolutely lighting those relationships on fire as a last attempt to die free.

It's mercenary, and the very antithesis of maternal.

MOO

 

[Zedzded]

BBM

I’m wondering if they get over involved with their clients and lose perspective. I say this because they weren’t able to straighten Katie out w/r/t the immunity deal she was offered and the way that Kawass bawled during the verdict/sentencing. I think they become enmeshed with the clients and, paradoxically, this lowers the clients respect/trust in their opinion. They went through 2 trials with KM and worked hard I’m sure only for her to get LWOP when she could’ve been free. I can’t get past that when it comes to them. They should’ve threatened to withdraw - done whatever it took - but I’m guessing they don’t have that in them. I don’t see the point of working so hard for a client who was offered immunity when you know she will be convicted. I couldn’t do it because it would demoralize me.

JMO

I think so. I wrote a long post months ago on my thoughts on TK, I won't repeat it. But agree re enmeshment. TK posted some really unprofessional social media posts, defending KM. It really made me question TK and what her agenda was.

Did she sell KM down the river for her own personal gains i.e she vehemently denied KM's involvement, claiming she was a victim, did this result in TK pressuring KM into not taking the deal? Was TK seeking her 15 minutes of fame? Fighting for a poor, single working class Mum, set up by a rich, white, murderous family... what a headline. I can imagine TK sitting in court, dreaming of who would play her in her Netflix docudrama...

 

[IQuestion]

What was the objective for them to create the display?

I call it "arrogant social blindness" an inability to perceive and understand unspoken social cues, rules, and the emotions of others, making social navigation difficult. How could anyone want to stand in solidarity with HA, DA or CA after the release of the emails and tapes? The words are not those of educated, genteel or kind minds. Definitely not befitting the cultured, financially successful social group for which they so desperately craved inclusion. It takes a lot of effort to get in, yet the door slams quickly when they don't want your crimes to cast a shadow upon them.
Per AI generated questions: When someone defies social mores, they face social sanctions ranging from disapproval and ostracism to legal punishment. Mores are social norms that carry a moral significance within a particular culture, and their violation is seen as a serious offense against the group's values.
Sorry Luna20 for lengthy thought. The defense attorneys totally missed the optics.... again. Mistake
#8

 

[LetsSolvIt]

I think I had read somewhere that it was the defense’s paralegal’s mother and son, but who knows? Harvey didn’t seem to have any interaction with them. I’m guessing that they wanted more people in those empty defense reserved rows than just Harvey.

It seems like that paralegal was hired to be Donna’s minder….constantly rubbing her back and talking to her….imo.

Jo on STS commented on that paralegal’s comforting and back rubbing as being inappropriate. Not only is the defendant (and everyone in the gallery) to not be reacting but lawyers and paralegals should definitely not be emoting and/or touching / comforting clients. Normally the bailiffs would have put a stop to that interaction.

When I watched DA take her glasses off at end and blot her face with a tissue, I saw no moisture. I kept thinking of Donna telling Wendi she was the best actress ever when she wanted to be Like daughter, like mother. Her trial performance felt very much like the van scene. Biggest faker ever! MOO.

 

[Niner]

Monday, August 25th:
*Trial continues (Day 2) (@ 8:30am (Attorneys) & @ 9:15am (Jury) ET) - FL - Daniel Eric Markel (41) (shot to death July 18, 2014, Tallahassee) - *Donna Sue Adelson (64 @ time of crime/73/now 75) arrested by FBI @ Miami Intl. Airport (11/13/23) on out-of-County warrant from Leon County arrest Warrant [#FW23102353] & indicted (11/15/23), charged (11/21/23) & arraigned (12/11/23) with 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder & solicitation to commit 1st degree murder. No bond. Held at Miami-Dade County Jail (Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center. Leon County has 15 days to extradite from Miami-Dade County). Transferred from Miami-Dade to Leon County on 11/20/23. Transferred to Wakulla Detention Facility on 6/6/25. Held without bond (murder), $25K (conspiracy) & $25K (solicitation) on 11/21/23. Plead not guilty. Transferred to Leon County jail on 8/14/25. Leon County
Jury selection began on 8/19/25 & ended on 8/21/25. Jury: 12 jurors & 2 alternates [8 men & 6 women]
Trial began on 8/22/25. [thru 9/5/25] [9am to 5:30pm]
Leon County Circuit Judge Stephen S. Everett presiding. Prosecutor Georgia Cappelman & Assistant State attorney Sarah Dugan. Defense attorney Adam J. Komisar, Jackie Fulford & Joshua D. Zelman.
Case & Court info from 11/13/23 thru 8/18/25 & Jury Selection Days 1-3 (8/19-21/25) reference post #757 here:
https://websleuths.com/threads/fl-f...murdered-by-hitmen-4-guilty-26.739874/page-38
8/22/25 Friday, Trial Day 1: *Judge Everett DENIES the motion by Adelson to move the trial from Leon County. Then judge gave preliminary instructions & a course in note taking for the jurors.
*Opening statements by Sarah Dugan & defense opening by Jackie Fulford.
*State witnesses: James Geiger, who was a neighbor to Dan Markel. He says he heard loud bangs around the time Markel was shot. David Sims, a retired Tallahassee Police sergeant. He was the first on scene & made contact with Geiger, Markel’s neighbor. The State showed crime scene photos. Joanne Maltese, a retired Tallahassee Police Dept. Forensics Specialist. Responded to crime scene. State showed a series of images Malese took. Dr. Anthony Clark, worked in Tallahassee as an assistant medical examiner. They’re going through some pretty disturbing autopsy photos with Dr. Clark. [Retired] Tallahassee Police Investigator Craig Isom [lead detective]. Convicted hitman Luis Rivera.
[see post #768, page 39 for Day 1 updates]. The jury is to report back at 9:15am Monday & the attorneys will be back at 8:30am. Trial continues on Monday, 8/25/25.

 

[IQuestion]

Listened to JF opening again and suddenly the SaraY light bulb lit up, brightly!! Didn't Sarah say that after DM's murder, DonnaA was still criticizing her one and only son-in-law:
According to motion Sara overheard Donna saying shortly after the murder, “They’re talking about him like he was a beloved professor. But you know something? He was a jerk.”
I find JF's opening to be offensive and really screwy because it is diametrically opposite of not only SaraY's observations, but also those of JeffreyL. He said he met the parents, but that they did not talk to him very much. (Of course not. DA & HA must have had quite a start when WA walked in with a
DannyM look alike from Tallahassee who taught at the same university.) But, he did glean from his encounter (with Florida Adelsons) that hating DM occupied a great deal of their lives and conversations. G'night Tomorrow will be wild, IMO.
Hi Niner!!