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

[clearskies1]

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.

Agree with this. LR's testimony about Wendi wanting him killed would not be admitted in a trial against Wendi. It's inadmissible hearsay. LR never had direct communication with Wendi. In a trial against Wendi, the state would need someone who Wendi communicated with directly to get her alleged statements in to evidence. JMO.

 

[Ferpo]

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.

 

[Tapeartree]

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.

To think she could have been free right now if she would have just told investigators everything she knew nine years ago....It baffles the mind.

 

[IQuestion]

I enlarged the screen on my ipad. There wasn’t a tear in either eye.

KNITPICKER....You are so correct....not one tear! I noticed someone squeezing her right arm...almost as if indicating, "Ok DA, time to look like you are in distress and crying in front of the jury."
Please notice, HA is sitting ramrod straight, stoically looking forward. Ironically (for me anyways) it just emphasizes his "aloneness" the rest of the row is empty. Same for the reserved row behind him.
(It's nice to have a loyal husband in the audience for all of one's televised appearances.)

 

[opt]

I think the defense made a big mistake in praising "Danny" and insinuating that Donna respected or even admired him. The evidence will conclusively show that to be the opposite from the truth. The jury will infer that all the defense's arguments are similarly false.

Your argument needs to be plausible. Non-hatred of Dan is not plausible.

 

[Missyrocks5]

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

I had written about this as soon as I saw what the attorneys were arguing yesterday. I think that is going to be the strategy. Wendi is going to say that she doesn't know who wrote those emails, or she will say it was from Harvey. I think it is a pretty smart strategy. I have to go back and read the emails to see how they are worded. Of course, if the wording shows that she is referring to her husband and her, then the jury will not buy that. But, if she is speaking in general terms about go get them, baptized, etc., unless there is something identifying within the emails, they can argue there's no proof it was written from her.

One, I don't think that they are ever going to charge Harvey so there is not much to lose. Two, if I understand it, and I would like to see a defense attorney give analysis on this issue, the Kastigar issues will prohibit Georgia from being able to Impeach her on cross exam with that prior testimony. Remember, she has both types of immunity. Therefore, as far as I understand it, I don't think that they will be able to say that she lied due in her testimony at the prior trial because that would be utilizing information gained when she had immunity. It will not be allowed.

They would have to go for a whole other Case of perjury against her because the immunity requires that she testify truthfully. So if you're going to say that she didn't testify truthfully, then you have to go after her for perjury.

I have no idea if I am correct. That is just my thinking. And if so, I absolutely believe that is the way that they are going to go.

 

[Zedzded]

I had written about this as soon as I saw what the attorneys were arguing yesterday. I think that is going to be the strategy. Wendi is going to say that she doesn't know who wrote those emails, or she will say it was from Harvey.

Are you referring to the emails re dressing the kids as Nazis, taking them to a catholic church etc?

They are mostly signed "by Mom" with plenty of references to "your father" or "Dad" e.g "Dad and I have changed our lives." And other information that makes it clear it's Donna writing the emails.

 

[Tortoise]

There is also the issue of the divorce papers citing Donna as poisoning the children against him.

 

[Knitpicker]

KNITPICKER....You are so correct....not one tear! I noticed someone squeezing her right arm...almost as if indicating, "Ok DA, time to look like you are in distress and crying in front of the jury."
Please notice, HA is sitting ramrod straight, stoically looking forward. Ironically (for me anyways) it just emphasizes his "aloneness" the rest of the row is empty. Same for the reserved row behind him.
(It's nice to have a loyal husband in the audience for all of one's televised appearances.)

Yes, it was emphasized even more (aloneness) with all those ‘reserved” papers and empty seating. Like he invited friends to a party and no one showed.

 

[Knitpicker]

Maybe I’m the only one with this opinion,.

Does anyone else agree with me that when asked about the blog, that Rivera actually said “The blog was Wendi”(not the “blonde” was Wendi)
.. aka “I didn’t read about Markels travel plans through a blog but (we) learned through Wendi”.

That “the blog was Wendi” was actually a clever answer?

 

[Going Rogue]

Are you referring to the emails re dressing the kids as Nazis, taking them to a catholic church etc?

They are mostly signed "by Mom" with plenty of references to "your father" or "Dad" e.g "Dad and I have changed our lives." And other information that makes it clear it's Donna writing the emails.

Exactly, this point was brought up in the past based on the fact its a shared email account and this argument could be made. There are plenty of references on the emails that matter (ones that establish Donna’s motive and pure hatred towards Dan) that she was the author. I haven’t been glued to all the testimony thus far, but if the prosecution isn’t hammering home that that emails are written by Donna by highlighting the phrases that make it crystal clear – e.g. “your father and I”, they are not focusing on detail. IMO, its important to drill this point home and there is plenty of references that prove Donna wrote the emails that have been part of the previous cases beyond any doubt.

 

[Going Rogue]

Maybe I’m the only one with this opinion,.

Does anyone else agree with me that when asked about the blog, that Rivera actually said “The blog was Wendi”(not the “blonde” was Wendi)
.. aka “I didn’t read about Markels travel plans through a blog but (we) learned through Wendi”.

That “the blog was Wendi” was actually a clever answer?

I recall he said ‘The Blog” – but its irrelevant to the case. He is trying to be a helpful witness to the prosecution and must continue to testify to the truth or his deal is in jeopardy. IMO, he didn’t know what the word ‘blog’ was or meant and Cappleman should have never used that word – there were far better ways to ask that question to establish if they got Dan’s travel plans from “the Internet”. The way the question was phrased, he likely thought ‘blog’ meant someone that passed on information so he responded by saying “the blog was Wendi”. Important to point out that that prior to that, he had never provided any information on where Sigfredo got any of his information from other than from Katie. Rivera’s testimony is evolving and it's not being done in any purposeful manner. He is likely learning more details after his initial proffer in 2016 (9 years ago!) and testifying for the 4th time in the past 6 years and is likely confusing what he knew with what he learned or heard throughout this process. In his initial proffer he didn’t know Charlie’s name, he referred to him as ‘the dentist’ - now refers to him as ‘Charlie’. There are other examples of his evolving testimony, and to be clear, I do not think he is doing it on purpose.

 

[Knitpicker]

I recall he said ‘The Blog” – but its irrelevant to the case. He is trying to be a helpful witness to the prosecution and must continue to testify to the truth or his deal is in jeopardy. IMO, he didn’t know what the word ‘blog’ was or meant and Cappleman should have never used that word – there were far better ways to ask that question to establish if they got Dan’s travel plans from “the Internet”. The way the question was phrased, he likely thought ‘blog’ meant someone that passed on information so he responded by saying “the blog was Wendi”. Important to point out that that prior to that, he had never provided any information on where Sigfredo got any of his information from other than from Katie. Rivera’s testimony is evolving and it's not being done in any purposeful manner. He is likely learning more details after his initial proffer in 2016 (9 years ago!) and testifying for the 4th time in the past 6 years and is likely confusing what he knew with what he learned or heard throughout this process. In his initial proffer he didn’t know Charlie’s name, he referred to him as ‘the dentist’ - now refers to him as ‘Charlie’. There are other examples of his evolving testimony, and to be clear, I do not think he is doing it on purpose.

I recall he said ‘The Blog” – but its irrelevant to the case. He is trying to be a helpful witness to the prosecution and must continue to testify to the truth or his deal is in jeopardy. IMO, he didn’t know what the word ‘blog’ was or meant and Cappleman should have never used that word – there were far better ways to ask that question to establish if they got Dan’s travel plans from “the Internet”. The way the question was phrased, he likely thought ‘blog’ meant someone that passed on information so he responded by saying “the blog was Wendi”. Important to point out that that prior to that, he had never provided any information on where Sigfredo got any of his information from other than from Katie. Rivera’s testimony is evolving and it's not being done in any purposeful manner. He is likely learning more details after his initial proffer in 2016 (9 years ago!) and testifying for the 4th time in the past 6 years and is likely confusing what he knew with what he learned or heard throughout this process. In his initial proffer he didn’t know Charlie’s name, he referred to him as ‘the dentist’ - now refers to him as ‘Charlie’. There are other examples of his evolving testimony, and to be clear, I do not think he is doing it on purpose.

So you agree he said “The blog was Wendi” not “the BLONDE was Wendi”.
That was my point.

And that the information acquired about DMs travel plans was through her.
He may have quit school at 14 to join a gang his uncle put him in, but I do think he may be smarter than many may think.

 

[Tapeartree]

Exactly, this point was brought up in the past based on the fact its a shared email account and this argument could be made. There are plenty of references on the emails that matter (ones that establish Donna’s motive and pure hatred towards Dan) that she was the author. I haven’t been glued to all the testimony thus far, but if the prosecution isn’t hammering home that that emails are written by Donna by highlighting the phrases that make it crystal clear – e.g. “your father and I”, they are not focusing on detail. IMO, its important to drill this point home and there is plenty of references that prove Donna wrote the emails that have been part of the previous cases beyond any doubt.

Exactly, this point was brought up in the past based on the fact its a shared email account and this argument could be made. There are plenty of references on the emails that matter (ones that establish Donna’s motive and pure hatred towards Dan) that she was the author. I haven’t been glued to all the testimony thus far, but if the prosecution isn’t hammering home that that emails are written by Donna by highlighting the phrases that make it crystal clear – e.g. “your father and I”, they are not focusing on detail. IMO, its important to drill this point home and there is plenty of references that prove Donna wrote the emails that have been part of the previous cases beyond any doubt.

I think that GC did say that the there were emails in evidence signed "Mom". If I recall, the hate filled emails referring to DM as "Jibbers" are signed by Mom. I think the jury will see this and disregard the defense. JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

So you agree he said “The blog was Wendi” not “the BLONDE was Wendi”.
That was my point.

And that the information acquired about DMs travel plans was through her.
He may have quit school at 14 to join a gang his uncle put him in, but I do think he may be smarter than many may think.

Yes I agree he said ‘the blog’ but as I said its irrelevant. His testimony is evolving and despite saying in Charlie’s trial ~ “the blog was Wendi”, the facts do not support that Rivera ever had any information that Dan’s travel plans came from Wendi. All he knew is that Sigfredo’s information came from Katie. I have seen many make the claim in other forums that Wendi passed on Dan’s schedule but there is no proof of this – although Rivera’s 'the blog' statement supports this theory, if he was cross-examined on how he knew 'the blog' was Wendi, it will easily fall apart. Donnas defense team has no reason to challenge him on a claim of this nature because in reality it helps their case. They wouldn’t mind the jury believing Charlie and Wendi worked in concert.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes I agree he said ‘the blog’ but as I said its irrelevant. His testimony is evolving and despite saying in Charlie’s trial ~ “the blog was Wendi”, the facts do not support that Rivera ever had any information that Dan’s travel plans came from Wendi. All he knew is that Sigfredo’s information came from Katie. I have seen many make the claim in other forums that Wendi passed on Dan’s schedule but there is no proof of this – although Rivera’s 'the blog' statement supports this theory, if he was cross-examined on how he knew 'the blog' was Wendi, it will easily fall apart. Donnas defense team has no reason to challenge him on a claim of this nature because in reality it helps their case. They wouldn’t mind the jury believing Charlie and Wendi worked in concert.

So you think it would be impossible for Sigfredo to mention to his best friend that the information on Dan Markel leaving on 7/18th came from Wendi? Luis didn’t have to answer that in any affirmative way.
Plenty of times he has said ‘I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”.
Its very important to Wendi’s involvement that they knew when he had to be murdered.

So who do you think told the guys and how did they find out?

 

[Going Rogue]

So you think it would be impossible for Sigfredo to mention to his best friend that the information on Dan Markel leaving on 7/18th came from Wendi? Luis didn’t have to answer that in any affirmative way.
Plenty of times he has said ‘I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”.
Its very important to Wendi’s involvement that they knew when he had to be murdered.

So who do you think told the guys and how did they find out?

Like everyone else, I can give you multiple theories. No, I don’t think its impossible that Sigfredo said it came from Wendi, but there are no facts to support that claim - zero, just speculation. I’m not making the argument its impossible. Its also not impossible that Donna and Charlie plotted this entire murder behind Wendi’s back – do you think that’s impossible?

 

[Knitpicker]

Like everyone else, I can give you multiple theories. No, I don’t think its impossible that Sigfredo said it came from Wendi, but there are no facts to support that claim - zero, just speculation. I’m not making the argument its impossible. Its also not impossible that Donna and Charlie plotted this entire murder behind Wendi’s back – do you think that’s impossible?

Oh Boy……..even Donnas lawyers are implicating Wendi!

 

[Going Rogue]

Oh Boy……..even Donnas lawyers are implicating Wendi!

I’m not fully caught up, but I’ve seen a lot of the ‘YouTube’ highlights (shorts etc.) and I haven’t seen anything that convinces me they are ‘implicating’ Wendi. I do believe their strategy is (and smartly) not to align themselves with the double extortion theory and if the jurors want to believe or speculate that Wendi was involved it doesn’t matter to them. They have ZERO interest in protecting Charlie (his appeal) or Wendi if she were to be charged at some future date. Their ethical and legal obligation is to provide Donna with a zealous defense – I can almost guarantee you that they don’t give two $hits about Charlie or Wendi. Zelman & Fulford’s interests don’t necessary align 100% with Donna’s interests. I am sure Donna wants to protect both Charlie & Wendi. Zelman & Fulford are smart enough to know that in Wendi’s upcoming direct examination the prosecution will implicate Wendi plenty and if the jury believes Wendi was involved, it doesn’t matter to them. They are not going to ‘defend’ Wendi like Rashbaum did - all they care about is getting (their client) Donna off and don't care what the repercussions may be for Charlie's appeal or a 'potential' case against Wendi. Rashbaum’s withdrawal was the best thing that happened to Donna.

 

[Wishbone]

I’m not fully caught up, but I’ve seen a lot of the ‘YouTube’ highlights (shorts etc.) and I haven’t seen anything that convinces me they are ‘implicating’ Wendi. I do believe their strategy is (and smartly) not to align themselves with the double extortion theory and if the jurors want to believe or speculate that Wendi was involved it doesn’t matter to them. They have ZERO interest in protecting Charlie (his appeal) or Wendi if she were to be charged at some future date. Their ethical and legal obligation is to provide Donna with a zealous defense – I can almost guarantee you that they don’t give two $hits about Charlie or Wendi. Zelman & Fulford’s interests don’t necessary align 100% with Donna’s interests. I am sure Donna wants to protect both Charlie & Wendi. Zelman & Fulford are smart enough to know that in Wendi’s upcoming direct examination the prosecution will implicate Wendi plenty and if the jury believes Wendi was involved, it doesn’t matter to them. They are not going to ‘defend’ Wendi like Rashbaum did - all they care about is getting (their client) Donna off and don't care what the repercussions may be for Charlie's appeal or a 'potential' case against Wendi. Rashbaum’s withdrawal was the best thing that happened to Donna.

Snip of the defense trying to use LR's testimony to implicate WA and exonerate DA and HA.