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

[geevee]

It certainly seems that GC is laying the groundwork to charge WA next, does anyone remember if this same scenario played out during CA's trial, a path to DA being laid? And yes, it sure seems like the defense is helping her along with that.

 

[Zedzded]

What about the position that the defense is taking? Are they trying to imply it was WA and CA or are they just skimming through without focusing on CA and WA? It seems like DA is ok turning on them, put it on anybody but herself. I believe strongly that she was the master planner for eliminating DM.

It’s hard to believe a mother would do that but maybe she hadn’t really been a good mother all along. I can see that she is manipulative, bossy, selfish, and hateful. I wonder if CA and WA are subconsciously resentful of DA.

Yes they are implying it was WA and CA. I just don't know how harmful that is to them.

 

[minusfour]

I am resigned to Wendi never being charged, but must confess to a slight quickening of my heart on this matter already.

I didn't understand that Donna actually worked full time at the practice. That is a hard gig, although I can well understand the horror of that dental practice. Honestly, imagine being managed by Donna. Shivers!

(My problem is that I actually can!)

 

[Zedzded]

I am resigned to Wendi never being charged, but must confess to a slight quickening of my heart on this matter already.

Early days in the trial, but it does seem that it's now every man for themselves, which works against them, they have little choice. DA's defence ditches CA's double extortion theory, which means DA will most likely admit she did see CA on the night of the shooting, destroying CA's extortion narrative. This pretty much leaves CA with no defence if he ever got a new trial.

If the defence also want to paint WA as a potential perpetrator too, which they have started to do, then I can imagine WA not wanting to defend her "protective" Mum anymore. It's dog eat dog baby!

 

[MTW2011]

I think Jackie F was better here than the ridiculous story Dan R had. I think it was pretty good, and certainly considering what little they have to work with. The evidence is so overwhelming. Sarah D was excellent. It's interesting that they are leaning into the state's cases against all of them, including Charlie. I think she is arguing that the state proved Charlie's guilt, but that does not mean that the defense here agrees that he is guilty. That's certainly an interesting dichotomy, although I doubt that will fly.

I always thought it was going to be a good defense for her to say she just did what her son told her so she wrote checks, etc. But I think all the other evidence is just too overwhelming. We would expect her to argue that she thought she was going to be arrested, so she was trying to leave, not that she was guilty and trying to leave. I love the little tidbit we got about her writing a script for the inmate to testify at this trial. This case gets more mafia like by the day. Hopefully that doesn't extend to the jury.

I thought Zelman did a good job with Isom, as (at least if you view it on a surface level) it sounded as if he got Isom to admit to several things that sound like they are good for Donna. For example, getting Isom to say they didn’t really find other employment records/performance reviews, or that he didn’t look at construction records for the interstate and compare them to other info, etc….on a surface level that sounds like (emphasis on the “sounds like”) that the defense is showing potential holes in the investigation.

Or getting Isom to admit that emails were from their shared account. Zelman was able to elicit that testimony from Isom and when it came for redirect, Georgia focused on pulling out emails that said they were from Donna. I think this was the most helpful piece to the defense, as they were able to successfully sucker the state into refuting what they just said rather than introducing more of (almost surely damning) the actual content of the emails again with Isom. If you watch it back you’ll likely see that Cappleman pulled out more emails that showed Donna’s name but the content of those weren’t discussed again. The jury not hearing more of the actual content of those emails was surely a small “win” for Donna’s team.

I was honestly a bit surprised to see GC fall into that small trap set by the defense. Perhaps she was already a bit discombobulated from the repeated objections and not expecting the court to require the whole foundational issue to that extent, I’m not sure.

Of course none of this will outweigh the rest of the overwhelming evidence against Donna, but I’ve referred to them as “little wins” for Donna; little things that her defense will hope can become bigger things in the mind of at least one juror. Jmoo

 

[Luna20]

I am resigned to Wendi never being charged, but must confess to a slight quickening of my heart on this matter already.

I didn't understand that Donna actually worked full time at the practice. That is a hard gig, although I can well understand the horror of that dental practice. Honestly, imagine being managed by Donna. Shivers!

(My problem is that I actually can!)

You know she had to have her own schedule so she could fit her personal beauty routine in though (hair, Botox, mani pedi’s etc). I don’t see her being there 8-5 everyday. She must of attended some of the kids school parties with WA and a few annual lunches with her buddies. Moo

No doubt she was a conniving office manager. I wouldn’t have wanted to work anywhere near her type. I’m curious if any of her friends and employees will testify. It doesn’t look like she has any support showing up for her. Since her personality is manipulative and bullying I’m sure there were some employees that didn’t like her that are now silently celebrating.

 

[Luna20]

I thought Zelman did a good job with Isom, as (at least if you view it on a surface level) it sounded as if he got Isom to admit to several things that sound like they are good for Donna. For example, getting Isom to say they didn’t really find other employment records/performance reviews, or that he didn’t look at construction records for the interstate and compare them to other info, etc….on a surface level that sounds like (emphasis on the “sounds like”) that the defense is showing potential holes in the investigation.

Or getting Isom to admit that emails were from their shared account. Zelman was able to elicit that testimony from Isom and when it came for redirect, Georgia focused on pulling out emails that said they were from Donna. I think this was the most helpful piece to the defense, as they were able to successfully sucker the state into refuting what they just said rather than introducing more of (almost surely damning) the actual content of the emails again with Isom. If you watch it back you’ll likely see that Cappleman pulled out more emails that showed Donna’s name but the content of those weren’t discussed again. The jury not hearing more of the actual content of those emails was surely a small “win” for Donna’s team.

I was honestly a bit surprised to see GC fall into that small trap set by the defense. Perhaps she was already a bit discombobulated from the repeated objections and not expecting the court to require the whole foundational issue to that extent, I’m not sure.

Of course none of this will outweigh the rest of the overwhelming evidence against Donna, but I’ve referred to them as “little wins” for Donna; little things that her defense will hope can become bigger things in the mind of at least one juror. Jmoo

Well said. I agree that there were missed opportunities for the state. Not sure if they will or how try to circle back to that subject to elaborate. It fell flat in terms of implicating that DA was deceptive.

 

[Knitpicker]

This is pissing me off. They are wasting so much time on something that should have been taken care of. It may push WA to Monday.

1.5 ours wasted. More time for WA to stay in Tallahassee

 

[Knitpicker]

I think they have gone to the “anyone but my client” defense which includes Wendi and Charlie

If WA would have testified Friday would she and her attorney have known the bomb the defense dropped on her? So the weekend now gives her and Lauro more time to strategize.
Was that the plan by Zellman and JF by the 1.5 hour delay?

 

[Knitpicker]

As long as DA gets off, it will be a new jury for WA and who knows that they will come up with for that!

 

[Tortoise]

Is the tactic going to be that Wendy will try to pretend that it was not Donna who sent the emails? That it is a Joint email account and she will pretend that it was Harvey? They could even call him to lie and say it was him who sent those emails. I don't think that's going to help, but it would not surprise me. The argument is that they don't have the proof to tie it to Donna so that seems to fit right in.

Did Wendi ever testify before that those emails were with Donna? Or that those were her mother's sentiments towards Danny?

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1959099065003651184

 

[Knitpicker]

Did Wendi ever testify before that those emails were with Donna? Or that those were her mother's sentiments towards Danny?

Yes she was asked about them by Georgia and her answers confirmed they were from her mother.
Charlie even confirmed by responding to his mothers choice of foul words.
With the million dollar bribe, the email said “Dad and I”so saying they were from Harvey won’t fly-but that was a different jury.
But let’s see how WA responds to GC this trial regarding the emails.
The defense strategy is going to be to confuse the jury. Like the game of Clue. Who done it?
I really hope that doesnt happen.

Edited

 

[Tortoise]

Yes she was asked about them by Georgia and her answers confirmed they were from her mother.so saying they were from Harvey won’t fly-but that was a different jury.
But let’s see how WA responds to GC this trial regarding the emails.
The defense strategy is going to be to confuse the jury. Like the game of Clue. Who done it?
I really hope that doesnt happen.

Can they impeach her with prior testimony if needed?

 

[Knitpicker]

Can they impeach her with prior testimony if needed?

Yes just show those emails. And question WA about it. (I edited my last comment when I remembered the bribe email). But thats a good strategy to claim they weren’t all from Donna

 

[nodamselindistress]

1.5 ours wasted. More time for WA to stay in Tallahassee

Oh the irony, poor Wendi - stuck in Tallahassee again!

Of course, she isn't really "stuck", she can go somewhere else for 2 days but back to court Monday am.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Ah, the beauty of seeing DA throw everyone of her family under the bus. Want to see a picture of a toxic parent, look no further. This reveals, and with no subtlety, that DA is always about DA. Wanting Dan killed, as far as she was concerned, was not about WA, it was about her hate for Dan. I bet WA is spending the weekend with Bulleit bourbon to prep for the testimony.

 

[vislaw]

I believe the defense strategy is in focus now. I am pretty confident that we are not going to see either Charlie or Donna testify in this trial. I hope I'm wrong, as I've really been looking forward to both cross examinations. However, it is clear to me that the entire defense is going to be predicated on an emphatic claim that Donna cannot be convicted unless the state proves every element of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. By telling the jury to accept the prosecution's theories regarding Wendi and Charlie, they are setting up what they hope will highlight the lack of clear evidence that Donna had prior knowledge.

Having Charlie blather on about his ridiculous double-extortion claim wouldn't help Donna's cause so I don't think they will call him. I hope I'm wrong. With regard to Donna, I can't imagine the defense exposing her to cross examination with so much material out there showing how vile she was and how much hatred she held for Danny.

Of course, we do know that Donna has a massive ego and is a control freak. Whether she testifies or not is ultimately up to her and being the narcissist that we know she is, she just might believe that she can talk her way out of this and get the jury on her side.

 

[JerseyPride]

But I believe it was the first time he directly said it was Wendi that wanted DM killed:

“She continued with her questions, leading in a direction that seemed to try to implicate her client, Donna Adelson’s daughter, Wendi Adelson.

“The woman who wanted him killed was Wendi Adelson, correct?” she asked. Rivera said yes.

“It was she wanting her children, correct?” she asked. He said yes again.”

Hitman testifies Friday in Donna Adelson trial after judge nearly stops testimony due to objections

The first day of testimony in the murder and conspiracy trial of Donna Adelson was marked with a constant back-and-forth between the prosecution and defense with multiple objections and a frustrated judge threatening to send the jury home early.

www.wctv.tv

None of that testimony is particularly probative of this issue (same goes for LR’s testimony that Donna wasn’t involved). Why? Because everything LR knew about these matters came from SG, which in turn came from KM and which, in turn, came from “the Dentist.” At most, this testimony shows what LR understood (or, more accurately, what LR remembers understanding) based on what was passed through multiple layers of the train car conspiracy, which is like a game of telephone designed to ensure that the first and last car know as little as possible about each other. There is much, much stronger evidence of WA’s involvement than LR’s attenuated testimony. Likewise, LR’s testimony that Donna wasn’t involved really just boils down to him not being told she was involved.

 

[Knitpicker]

Right and I don’t think GC asked about the call from SG to Katie where Katie said “I know”, and also about seeing W and boys on the day prior. I guess I’ll revisit it later.