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

[Going Rogue]

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

I actually did see that previously and agree it can be viewed as them implicating Wendi, but I think the ‘exercise’ that Fulford had Rivera go through that she explained was just to establish that Rivera did NOT know that Donna was involved. She effectively made her point and the fact that Rivera indicated Wendi as the person that ‘wanted Dan killed’ couldn’t be concealed when making her point. I maintain that neither Zelman or Fulford care about protecting Wendi or Charlie. I personally don’t think they are going to attempt to implicate Wendi but I also believe that they don’t care if that impression is left with the jury. I can definitely agree this can be viewed as ‘implicating’ Wendi, but I don’t think this will be a theme moving forward (trying to implicate her), but I also don't think they’re going to throw Wendi any lifelines like Rashbaum did.

 

[Knitpicker]

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

“The woman who wanted him to be killed was Wendi Adelson, correct”?
“Yes Ma’am”

“Mr Rivera….(Exhibit 50)…..Please put the number 5 next to the lady that wanted this man killed …did you do that?…and was that with Wendi Adelson”?

Thx for posting this

 

[Going Rogue]

“The woman who wanted him to be killed was Wendi Adelson, correct”?
“Yes Ma’am”

“Mr Rivera….(Exhibit 50)…..Please put the number 5 next to the lady that wanted this man killed …did you do that?…and was that with Wendi Adelson”?

Thx for posting this

The question I have for you, or anyone, where previously, 9 years after Rivera’s proffer, did he ever allege that Wendi wanted Dan killed, Wendi hired them, or had any involvement? As you know I’ve followed this case closely, and the best we can come up with is in his proffer he said the reason they were hired to kill Dan was because "the lady wanted full custody". I have said this many times, Katie only knew what Charlie told her, Sigfredo only knew what Katie told him, and Rivera only knew what Sigfredo told him.

Sigfredo never spoke, and Katie has already indicated that she NEVER had any direct communication with any of the Adelsons except Charlie about the plans AND Rivera didn’t know any of the Adelsons from a hole in the wall.

 

[opt]

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.

The complete absence of friends is silent evidence of Donna's toxicity. The defense stupidly created this display.

 

[MMurphy]

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

And Wendi changing their last names. I was surprised that wasn't mentioned in the opening.

 

[Knitpicker]

The question I have for you, or anyone, where previously, 9 years after Rivera’s proffer, did he ever allege that Wendi wanted Dan killed, Wendi hired them, or had any involvement? As you know I’ve followed this case closely, and the best we can come up with is in his proffer he said the reason they were hired to kill Dan was because "the lady wanted full custody". I have said this many times, Katie only knew what Charlie told her, Sigfredo only knew what Katie told him, and Rivera only knew what Sigfredo told him.

Sigfredo never spoke, and Katie has already indicated that she NEVER had any direct communication with any of the Adelsons except Charlie about the plans AND Rivera didn’t know any of the Adelsons from a hole in the wall.

Rivera answers questions. He’s asked and he answers. He’s not offering up information,
Its “Yes Ma’am, no ma’am”.

He asked Sigfredo “what is she doing UP here”?
He thought Wendi was in Miami (after all they were hired there-and he was at Yardbird in a truck watching when the 4 were there), and that her ex took her kids away from her and they were in Tallahassee 8 hours away from their mother.

It wasn’t about FULL custody as you say above.

He said “the lady wants her kids back”.
Luis believed that she didn’t have any custody of the kids.
That her kids were taken away from her.

For all we know, Charlie could have told Katie that, or Wendi could have told Katie that herself

 

[Knitpicker]

And Wendi changing their last names. I was surprised that wasn't mentioned in the opening.

The state won that battle. Hopefully tomorrow W will be asked once again about that.

 

[Going Rogue]

Rivera answers questions. He’s asked and he answers. He’s not offering up information,
Its “Yes Ma’am, no ma’am”.

He asked Sigfredo “what is she doing UP here”?
He thought Wendi was in Miami (after all they were hired there-and he was at Yardbird in a truck watching when the 4 were there), and that her ex took her kids away from her and they were in Tallahassee 8 hours away from their mother.

It wasn’t about FULL custody as you say above.

He said “the lady wants her kids back”.
Luis believed that she didn’t have any custody of the kids.
That her kids were taken away from her.

For all we know, Charlie could have told Katie that, or Wendi could have told Katie that herself

Rivera just testified two days ago that he was hired by Sigfredo who was hired by Katie but he didn’t know who hired Katie. We can dissect the way he responded to certain questions all day long and we can speculate all day long.

I am speculating that Rivera knew the least of anyone that was involved and that his testimony has somewhat evolved over time. Again, I’m not suggesting he is doing is purposely.

 

[Luna20]

The complete absence of friends is silent evidence of Donna's toxicity. The defense stupidly created this display.

What was the objective for them to create the display?

 

[Wishbone]

Rivera just testified two days ago that he was hired by Sigfredo who was hired by Katie but he didn’t know who hired Katie. We can dissect the way he responded to certain questions all day long and we can speculate all day long.

I am speculating that Rivera knew the least of anyone that was involved and that his testimony has somewhat evolved over time. Again, I’m not suggesting he is doing is purposely.

IMO he believed they were to kill DM because “the lady wanted her kids”. I don't see that his testimony has really changed over the years.

 

[Missyrocks5]

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.

I did go back and reread them last night for the first time in like two years. Now I have forgotten again, but I believe that one email they could potentially argue is not identifying as to who wrote it. The other ones refer to the other family members and that would make it difficult to say it was not Donna. There is plenty of damage in those other emails to show how angry she was.

I also remember there is a text from Donna to Charlie where she is talking about something she was complaining about, it's been years, but it was either that Wendi lost a motion, or Dan showed up at the kids's game or something. Donna wrote how upset W was, how angry Harvey was that he had to try to cool down that it was beyond words, just how livid he was.

I think there is plenty of evidence, but I am saying that it is clear that this defense team is not going to be cooperative the way Rashy was. They are going to object to everything along the way, I put nothing past what Wendi will say during her testimony, and I also think they will do everything they can to shift blame to any other family member but Donna. A different tact to be sure. Then, at the end, claim that the State has not met their burden. It sure looks like that's where they are going.

 

[Knitpicker]

Rivera just testified two days ago that he was hired by Sigfredo who was hired by Katie but he didn’t know who hired Katie. We can dissect the way he responded to certain questions all day long and we can speculate all day long.

I am speculating that Rivera knew the least of anyone that was involved and that his testimony has somewhat evolved over time. Again, I’m not suggesting he is doing is purposely.

He knew who paid. He said “The Lady”. Asked further I believe he said “Wendi”. Of course theres 3 trials to go through to find it. But yes, you are right. And we know Wendi didn’t hire him.

 

[BearWatcher]

In my opinion only: They are going to say the dental practice was no longer owned by HA, but by CA, per opening comments. Which will lead them to say CA asked for me (DA) to write these checks- I didn't ask questions. CA asked me to bring this money to his apartment- and she did as she was asked. That is the direction- he was the boss, she was the meek bookkeeper. Also she will say she just agreed with Wendy on emails.

 

[Tapeartree]

What was the objective for them to create the display?

Perhaps they want to give the allusion to the jury that if they convict their client of murder this poor elderly gentleman will be all alone.

 

[Knitpicker]

In my opinion only: They are going to say the dental practice was no longer owned by HA, but by CA, per opening comments. Which will lead them to say CA asked for me (DA) to write these checks- I didn't ask questions. CA asked me to bring this money to his apartment- and she did as she was asked. That is the direction- he was the boss, she was the meek bookkeeper. Also she will say she just agreed with Wendy on email

It wasn’t Charlies office. JF got that wrong yesterday.
Remember when the UC called the practice and Charlie even says to Erica that it isn't his office, it’s his father’s?
I hope GC caught that. JF tried to confirm the checks were authorized by CA bc it was his practice.

 

[IQuestion]

Wendi in the house!!!
Picture #14 in this article and carousel of pictures. Upper rt of picture..(accompanied court companion, coiled ringlets shadow? Upper left in photo.)

PHOTOS: First week of Donna Adelson’s murder trial wraps with testimony from hitman

This week, we saw a jury seated, opening arguments and the start of testimony. See this week's biggest moments here. Photos from Alicia Devine/Pool

www.wctv.tv

 

[Going Rogue]

IMO he believed they were to kill DM because “the lady wanted her kids”. I don't see that his testimony has really changed over the years.

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.

 

[IQuestion]

It wasn’t Charlies office. JF got that wrong yesterday.
Remember when the UC called the practice and Charlie even says to Erica that it isn't his office, it’s his father’s?
I hope GC caught that. JF tried to confirm the checks were authorized by CA bc it was his practice.

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!

 

[Wishbone]

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 just remember his saying that from the very beginning and don't recall GC saying LR got that particular statement wrong. He just repeated what he was told by his cohorts......

 

[vislaw]

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 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.