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

[Ferpo]

State evidence list attached. Interesting that a painting was allegedly being used as payment. Perhaps cash is getting low?

 

[IQuestion]

State evidence list attached. Interesting that a painting was allegedly being used as payment. Perhaps cash is getting low?

Maybe the cash is getting low or all that is left are $100 bills with staple holes in them? And, we all know how that went over before.... (I JUST COULDN'T HELP MYSELF)

 

[Knitpicker]

"Does he try to make a deal with prosecutors in exchange for a future life at age 65? In the hierarchy of the Adelson family, surely CA has realized he is the low man on the totem pole now."

Yes. It's what I've been maintaining for a while now, CA will try and make a deal. But he needs to do it quick. I'm sure he's heard SY's deposition with her stating WA said "what if my crazy brother Charlie hired hitmen to kill Dan?"

So CA would now know his sister triued to throw him under the bus at the first opportunity. I believe its every man for himself now. I believe there's nothing DA can do or say that will mean she will ever see the light of day again. Even if she cooperated, she will die in prison. 10 years = life for her.

But yes for CA, he could potentially get a similar sentence to LR. 19 years and he's out in his 60s still with another 20 years to live. He would be beyond deluded if he thinks a new trial will produce a different outcome. His situation is much worse than it was pre-trial. The evidence against his is even stronger plus his double-extortion defence has been destroyed by the "drug dealers killed Dan" text exchange.

And that's how I believe WA will be pinched. CA will spill the beans. Why wouldn't he?

Is he still appealing?

 

[opt]

Is he still appealing?

I never found him appealing, and I can't understand what KM saw in him.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that setup.

 

[Zedzded]

Is he still appealing?

I believe so. Based on the claim a presiding judge erred when he denied a defense motion for a change of venue. He's demanding a new trial. I almost want him to be granted a new trial just to hear his new defence.

 

[61Montcalm]

I believe so. Based on the claim a presiding judge erred when he denied a defense motion for a change of venue. He's demanding a new trial. I almost want him to be granted a new trial just to hear his new defence.

Goodness knows what on earth that might be! Rubbish no doubt!

 

[IQuestion]

I believe so. Based on the claim a presiding judge erred when he denied a defense motion for a change of venue. He's demanding a new trial. I almost want him to be granted a new trial just to hear his new defence.

If CA gets a new trial, I won't be listening. Something about his voice is as unsettling as nails on a chalk board. I've listened to so many wiretaps of him and I keep asking myself...."How did this individual ever get a dental license?" He may have the "gift of gab" in the eyes/ears of his parents.
But to me, there is a real ugly side to his use of words, comments about and treatment of women.
It totally belies the assumptions I have of how a medical professional should speak and appear in public. (Yah,,,,it is the same "prejudgment" I have about certain professions: LE, teachers, care givers, Parents, Pilots, clergy, lawyers, etc. People who get extra titles and respect because they are in positions of trust.) If I feel so strongly about this, perhaps he also comes across that way to jurors. too? I could walk away from his testifying, shut off the TV, record and play in small increments.
The poor jurors had to sit there, for hours, day after day listening to his voice and the disjointed
puzzle pieces (say what?!) screaming of his attorney. The only question left for the jurors was, "Shall we have lunch before we vote to convict him?"
If his appeal is granted, he is still majorly unappealing as a person....just sayin'.

 

[LinasK]

If CA gets a new trial, I won't be listening. Something about his voice is as unsettling as nails on a chalk board. I've listened to so many wiretaps of him and I keep asking myself...."How did this individual ever get a dental license?" He may have the "gift of gab" in the eyes/ears of his parents.
But to me, there is a real ugly side to his use of words, comments about and treatment of women.
It totally belies the assumptions I have of how a medical professional should speak and appear in public. (Yah,,,,it is the same "prejudgment" I have about certain professions: LE, teachers, care givers, Parents, Pilots, clergy, lawyers, etc. People who get extra titles and respect because they are in positions of trust.) If I feel so strongly about this, perhaps he also comes across that way to jurors. too? I could walk away from his testifying, shut off the TV, record and play in small increments.
The poor jurors had to sit there, for hours, day after day listening to his voice and the disjointed
puzzle pieces (say what?!) screaming of his attorney. The only question left for the jurors was, "Shall we have lunch before we vote to convict him?"
If his appeal is granted, he is still majorly unappealing as a person....just sayin'.

He did lose his dental license didn't he?

 

[Ferpo]

Is he still appealing?

CA's appeal is definitely active. Next deadline is August 5 on which the State will submit their Answer Brief to CA's Initial Brief filed in May.

To understand how long this could take, I think it is helpful to look at Adam Frasch's case, where he was also represented by CA's appellate attorney. Appeal activity continued for eight years after AF's sentencing in 2014, up to Florida Supreme Court.

 

[Ferpo]

Speaking of appeals, KM's arguments for appeal were denied today (attached). This will go down as one of the most confounding questions of this entire saga: why did KM and her attorneys choose life in prison vs. an immunity deal?

 

[Zedzded]

Speaking of appeals, KM's arguments for appeal were denied today (attached). This will go down as one of the most confounding questions of this entire saga: why did KM and her attorneys choose life in prison vs. an immunity deal?

I wrote a long post on this a while ago, so won't repeat it. But I believe Kawass was chasing her 15 minutes of fame. She wanted the accolades for winning a trial. Ensuring a poor single Mum, wrongly jailed for a crime she didn't commit was finally freed. Kawass would lie awake in bed, fantasising about standing on the steps of the Supreme Court hand in hand with her tearful client, giving a gushing, emotional statement to the press.....

So I think perhaps KM mentioned the idea of accepting the plea deal and Kawass persuaded her not to, convincing her they would win. "Why would you admit to a murder you didn't commit? You're innocent!" Zero risk for Kawass, they lose, she still gets paid.

People have said KM refused the deal to save SG from a potential death sentence which is garbage. If she loved and cared for him she would not have coerced him in to killing an innocent man for money. Ultimately she had the chance to walk out of jail and not serve another day inside or roll the dice and face being convicted for life, dying in prison and seeing your kids twice a year through a plate of glass. No-one in their right mind would do that.

Note - there is still the unresolved issue of who paid KM's legal fees.

 

[Zedzded]

I think what saddens me about this case, other than the murder of an innocent man, is the immoral and unethical behaviour of all the legal defence counsel in this tragedy. Everyone deserves a defence, but seeing the likes of Rashbaum and Kawass acting so unprofessionally and unethically is so disappointing. I'm being naive and idealistic, but you would like to think they would act within the ethical boundaries they swore to abide by when they became lawyers.

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe so. Based on the claim a presiding judge erred when he denied a defense motion for a change of venue. He's demanding a new trial. I almost want him to be granted a new trial just to hear his new defence.

For that? Wow

 

[Knitpicker]

CA's appeal is definitely active. Next deadline is August 5 on which the State will submit their Answer Brief to CA's Initial Brief filed in May.

To understand how long this could take, I think it is helpful to look at Adam Frasch's case, where he was also represented by CA's appellate attorney. Appeal activity continued for eight years after AF's sentencing in 2014, up to Florida Supreme Court.

Charlie has lots of time. Thx for the info.

 

[Knitpicker]

I never found him appealing, and I can't understand what KM saw in him.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that setup.

Good one!

 

[Knitpicker]

I wrote a long post on this a while ago, so won't repeat it. But I believe Kawass was chasing her 15 minutes of fame. She wanted the accolades for winning a trial. Ensuring a poor single Mum, wrongly jailed for a crime she didn't commit was finally freed. Kawass would lie awake in bed, fantasising about standing on the steps of the Supreme Court hand in hand with her tearful client, giving a gushing, emotional statement to the press.....

So I think perhaps KM mentioned the idea of accepting the plea deal and Kawass persuaded her not to, convincing her they would win. "Why would you admit to a murder you didn't commit? You're innocent!" Zero risk for Kawass, they lose, she still gets paid.

People have said KM refused the deal to save SG from a potential death sentence which is garbage. If she loved and cared for him she would not have coerced him in to killing an innocent man for money. Ultimately she had the chance to walk out of jail and not serve another day inside or roll the dice and face being convicted for life, dying in prison and seeing your kids twice a year through a plate of glass. No-one in their right mind would do that.

Note - there is still the unresolved issue of who paid KM's legal fees.

It was the first judge that was “satisfied” the money for KMs trial did not come from the Adelsons right? He was an old timer Hankinson I think was the name—do you think he had any connection with Meggs when there was talk of the A’s being protected?

 

[Zedzded]

It was the first judge that was “satisfied” the money for KMs trial did not come from the Adelsons right? He was an old timer Hankinson I think was the name—do you think he had any connection with Meggs when there was talk of the A’s being protected?

I don't think he had any connections. Perhaps apathy or laziness on his part or perhaps not understanding the specific nuances of the case. The Magbanua's were not a family with a lot of wealth. They certainly did not have the means to provide the $1 million+ needed for KM's multiple trials. This should have been a red flag to the judge who should have initiated a deep financial audit.

Again being idealistic here, but in another world a defence attorney would also question the source of the money and ask questions as opposed to blindly accepting the money came from their impoverished client who had kept it under their mattress,,,

It's almost like an elephant in the room scenario. Everyone running around pretending to be these highly ethical lawyers, doing everything by the book, but in reality are completely morally corrupt. Kawass has slid under the radar, her actions seemingly disregarded. I'd like to see her held accountable one day.

 

[Knitpicker]

It was the first judge that was “satisfied” the money for KMs trial did not come from the Adelsons right? He was an old timer Hankinson I think was the name—do you think he had any connection with Meggs when there was talk of the A’s being protected?

I asked you this awhile back-maybe you missed it. On the police report, the Best Buy guy said that when he was there, WA was texting someone and he thought it was her brother..but what we were told is that she called and spoke to her brother either while he was there or after. What about that text? Maybe he was just wrong about that? Or maybe it was on a burner phone?

 

[Knitpicker]

I don't think he had any connections. Perhaps apathy or laziness on his part or perhaps not understanding the specific nuances of the case. The Magbanua's were not a family with a lot of wealth. They certainly did not have the means to provide the $1 million+ needed for KM's multiple trials. This should have been a red flag to the judge who should have initiated a deep financial audit.

Again being idealistic here, but in another world a defence attorney would also question the source of the money and ask questions as opposed to blindly accepting the money came from their impoverished client who had kept it under their mattress,,,

It's almost like an elephant in the room scenario. Everyone running around pretending to be these highly ethical lawyers, doing everything by the book, but in reality are completely morally corrupt. Kawass has slid under the radar, her actions seemingly disregarded. I'd like to see her held accountable one day.

Darn I replied to my own comment -please read above for you^^^

 

[Zedzded]

I asked you this awhile back-maybe you missed it. On the police report, the Best Buy guy said that when he was there, WA was texting someone and he thought it was her brother..but what we were told is that she called and spoke to her brother either while he was there or after. What about that text? Maybe he was just wrong about that? Or maybe it was on a burner phone?

Interesting. They have the technology to determine if she had a burner phone i.e cell tower records would should a random number pinging from her house.

Why do you think she was not texting CA? She could have been texting him and then called him?