FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *5 Guilty* #27

[opt]

Incredibly frugal. They were pulling in millions per year and then lying on autosales transfer papers - selling a car saying it was 2 years younger than it was to make $2k. Committing fraud so they could make an extra $2k... insane..

Chiseling was simply a habit. They only opened their wallets for the most valuable big-ticket items.

Like murder.

 

[Luna20]

And she didn’t count the money when she received it??

I thought Katie did much better at Charlie’s trial.

Only she knows what she really did because she hasn’t been truthful. She seemed to skip around mentioning Donna today. I wouldn’t be surprised if Donna, through a messenger encouraged her to lie. I can see Donna telling Katie that her children will have the very best of everything-education, etc if she would lie.

She had to have seen Donna more than once. I don’t buy that they only spoke once either. What was Katies objective today? She said “she wanted the right people to be found guilty”. Charlie is serving already, as she and the other two guys are so who are the “right people”?

 

[Zedzded]

so who are the “right people”?

HA and DA. The driving force behind the family dynamics. Pushing, cajoling and manipulating the kids from babies to adults.

WA did state on the stand that she had resigned herself to living in Tallahassee and that moving to Miami was in part due to the ongoing pressure from her parents. I wonder if that is true. DA was on WA's back the whole time during the divorce.

 

[Going Rogue]

So who would have bought it for her?

Maybe Judge Everett? He seems to be smitten for her

 

[Kakidoll]

I said most young women don’t have 345K cash sitting in the bank. I don’t think thats a stereotype. It’s a fact. I did not have that in the bank at her age. And I’d venture to say most don’t. And yes, she was a young woman.

I do Real Estate in SW Florida, 25 yrs now. It is very common for cash deals here from people you would NEVER expect to have it. For Ft Lauderdale/Miami, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. It could have been from relatives/inheritance, a trust, a 1031 exchange. Has anyone delved into is its ONLY her name on the title? Or was back then. 1031's go on constantly down here. And VERY creative to get the most out of it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Sure, they've been convicted, but not by this jury. They don't know the history of this case, like us trial-watchers. So the prosecution can't sidestep all that and just say, "trust us, Charlie did a bunch of bad stuff."

For example, you mentioned that CA made payments to KM even after they had broken up. The jury has to be made to understand that this was payment for the murder. Otherwise, during deliberations the jury may concoct their own explanation for the payments: He felt sorry for her, or they were still secretly sleeping together, and so on.

Yes, it's tedious, but necessary.

My feeling at the time was the prosecution wasn’t shifting the focus of their case away from arguing the ‘double extortion defense’ and were taking the cookie cutter approach. Based on Donna’s defense conceding Charlie was involved and throwing hints that Wendi may have been too, I feel they need to place more of an emphasis on the things Donna did – she is the one on trial. I don’t disagree they needed to lay the foundation of Charlie’s involvement – but its a very different case and Donna had far less exposure than Charlie. I firmly believe the jury is / was already 100% convinced Charlie was involved after the first 10 examples / pieces of evidence the prosecution laid out on Charlie – now the prosecution needs to focus on Donna. They better not believe if they can convince this jury Charlie was ‘rightfully’ convicted and simply show how ‘bad’ and ‘controlling’ Donna was and is, that will be the path to an easy conviction. I was getting the vibe they are treating this case that way.

 

[Snoopster]

Only she knows what she really did because she hasn’t been truthful. She seemed to skip around mentioning Donna today. I wouldn’t be surprised if Donna, through a messenger encouraged her to lie. I can see Donna telling Katie that her children will have the very best of everything-education, etc if she would lie.

She had to have seen Donna more than once. I don’t buy that they only spoke once either. What was Katies objective today? She said “she wanted the right people to be found guilty”. Charlie is serving already, as she and the other two guys are so who are the “right people”?

I'm late to the party today, but I have to say I was disappointed with Katie's testimony.
She was shown to be a liar despite her saying she wanted to come clean. There is not one person in the world who would believe that: 1) the hired murder would accept to do the job before knowing the total payment; 2) that KB would take the envelope of cash and presumed instructions to SG without looking at them; 3) that KB didn't know who the target was; 4) that KB would readily say she knew someone who would hurt people, without understanding what that meant; 5) that KB was in desperate NEED of the money (even though she didn't know how much she would get) and then she spent it on teeth whitening and a boob job; 6) that KB would take the final payment of an unknown amount of money in a bag and deliver it to SG, and then wait for him to give some of it back to her in payment. (Why wouldn't she just take her share first?)

If I was a juror I would dismiss anything she said. She did not help the prosecution.

And, yes, I wonder if Donna got to her. Made promises of support for her family.

 

[Zedzded]

I do Real Estate in SW Florida, 25 yrs now. It is very common for cash deals here from people you would NEVER expect to have it. For Ft Lauderdale/Miami, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. It could have been from relatives/inheritance, a trust, a 1031 exchange. Has anyone delved into is its ONLY her name on the title? Or was back then. 1031's go on constantly down here. And VERY creative to get the most out of it.

I think we're all aware of different ways people can get money, it's the fact its someone who doesn't earn much, was young at the time and connected to wealthy people who often used their money for nefarious purposes. It's not being outlandishly speculative to say the money came from the Adelsons.

 

[Knitpicker]

I think we're all aware of different ways people can get money, it's the fact its someone who doesn't earn much, was young at the time and connected to wealthy people who often used their money for nefarious purposes. It's not being outlandishly speculative to say the money came from the Adelsons.

Plus Georgia asked her directly if she was bought a condo. (Aside from other gifts).

 

[Luna20]

I'm late to the party today, but I have to say I was disappointed with Katie's testimony.
She was shown to be a liar despite her saying she wanted to come clean. There is not one person in the world who would believe that: 1) the hired murder would accept to do the job before knowing the total payment; 2) that KB would take the envelope of cash and presumed instructions to SG without looking at them; 3) that KB didn't know who the target was; 4) that KB would readily say she knew someone who would hurt people, without understanding what that meant; 5) that KB was in desperate NEED of the money (even though she didn't know how much she would get) and then she spent it on teeth whitening and a boob job; 6) that KB would take the final payment of an unknown amount of money in a bag and deliver it to SG, and then wait for him to give some of it back to her in payment. (Why wouldn't she just take her share first?)

If I was a juror I would dismiss anything she said. She did not help the prosecution.

And, yes, I wonder if Donna got to her. Made promises of support for her family.

The only thing she proved today is that she is a liar and she hasn’t changed a bit. The prosecution didn’t get any points from Katie.

I want to know who she thinks is responsible after she laid it all out point to point. That’s an oxymoron. She lacks simple intelligence.

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, August 27th:
*Trial continues (Day 4) (@ 8:45am 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]
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)& Trial Day 1-2 (8/22-25/25) reference post #44 here:
https://websleuths.com/threads/fl-f...lson-upcoming-trial-4-guilty-27.751508/page-3
8/26/25 Tuesday, Trial Day 3: State witnesses: Jeff Laasse, ex-bf of Wendi's. June Umchinda, ex-gf of Charlie Adelson after Dan's murder. Ryan Fitzpatrick, former friend [2013-2019] of Charlie's. Mary Hull, Forensic accountant. Clariza [Lebredo] Spoitore [longtime Adelson Institute employee]. Katherine Magbanua. TPD Sgt Christopher Corbitt.
[see post #51 page 3, thread 27 for Day 3 updates]. Trial continues on Wednesday, 8/27/25.

 

[minusfour]

Could somebody please explain why WA stipulating to the with prejudice to the rejection of the relocation motion matters? What did it matter if DA knew she had made this stipulation?

 

[minusfour]

Another question- how much credibility do you think the idea that WA might have been trying to set JL up? Surely she would understand that this would be, at best, a diversion, a red herring? She had good reason to wish for him to be discredited, he was one of the first people who suspected them, and many of his suspicions have proved to be almost uncannily correct. I'm not convinced that she could have seriously considered that JL would actually face trial. What do you think?

 

[minusfour]

This is the first Adelson trial that I've watched in real time. I sit up in bed with my ipad, and watch for an hour or two before I sleep. The first trial actually. I'm finding it all fascinating!

 

[IQuestion]

Katie: "The money was wet and starting to mold". "He (Charlie) told me his mom had washed the money"

Thank you LEGALMOMMA...Just a quick thought. Of course KM looked at the money. Remember she is the one who told SG "The money has mold on it." There has never been an issue that she didn't look at it 'til now. She has had memory issues (Covid 3 times in prison.) That said, she is still a grifter and a grifter always has an agenda! They just can't help themselves...it's as if they get a rush from scamming people, even when the benefit is not overtly evident. She and CA were actually two peas in a pod.

Plus Georgia asked her directly if she was bought a condo. (Aside from other gifts).

KNITPICKER This is the 2nd intriguing thought you have presented today! I wish I had more time to research/sleuth and deep dive some of them because I think you are onto some "known, but not yet revealed info."
If someone had a lot of cash around, facing criminal charges and or afraid of a huge lawsuit, "Where could they hide their money?" A safe?(Easily transported), gold bars? (easily stolen), expensive cars ? (depreciate in value, maintenance, registration fees and expensive to insure). Thinking JGrisham's novel, The Partner...putting assets in the name of a young, devoted, and not too bright female. Hmmm, an asset in hip-chic S. Florida , guaranteed to grow in value, one can literally watch it every single day, and it can't be transported or stolen, it can be homesteaded to stave off creditors, and receiving a gift is not a taxable event!! No capital gains and take principal residence tax free exclusion, when one decides to sell The gf gets to live in it for the next 15 to 20 yrs simply for the HOA and taxes. Sounds like a plan, huh? I like it. (Dinner napkin notes for now...but will develop other possible reasons further.) Nothing like a notarized, unrecorded quit claim deed for peace of mind? G'night

 

[minusfour]

Do you think Jackie Fulford has lost weight due to the stress of the trial. Her clothes appear to be too big for her. I'm sure they are working long hours, and the pressure must be immense.

 

[Tortoise]

Could somebody please explain why WA stipulating to the with prejudice to the rejection of the relocation motion matters? What did it matter if DA knew she had made this stipulation?

It goes to motive for killing Dan, if there is no way through the courts for Wendi to go back again on that issue. So prosecution need to prove she knew, and the evidence must be overwhelming that she did know for her to stipulate. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Another question- how much credibility do you think the idea that WA might have been trying to set JL up? Surely she would understand that this would be, at best, a diversion, a red herring? She had good reason to wish for him to be discredited, he was one of the first people who suspected them, and many of his suspicions have proved to be almost uncannily correct. I'm not convinced that she could have seriously considered that JL would actually face trial. What do you think?

I think she was setting him up. Her text to Rob saying he was a secret boyfriend was likely (IMO) part of a convoluted plan, like maybe Donna would tell police she had seen a strange car (JL's) outside Wendi's place, and Rob wouldn't connect Donna with the plot to frame him. IMO

But would they deny that Donna had ever met him? IDK

 

[lucegirl]

Could somebody please explain why WA stipulating to the with prejudice to the rejection of the relocation motion matters? What did it matter if DA knew she had made this stipulation?

Jackie first tried to challenge the State’s motive theory (on cross about the divorce file) arguing relocation became a moot issue after the denial was with prejudice, and henceforth Donna accepted the finality of it and life went back to “normal”. But Georgia drove a bus through that with all the emails showing Donna most certainly was not over it post motion, and built up more steam to a boiling point in spite of the dismissal with prejudice, resorting to non legal tactics (the whole baptism thing). So when Wendy got up and said she couldn’t remember if she had stipulated to the “with prejudice” part of the order, and/or couldn’t even recall if she would have known the significance of it (which is impossible for a lawyer to assert), Jackie tried to make Donna appear less unhinged for continuing to pursue relocation after the motion was denied because Wendi either intentionally or ignorantly withheld the fact from Donna and Donna thought relocation was still legally viable. At least that is what I think she was trying to argue - which is laughable. Essentially- the defense had to concede that Donna was still fighting the relocation after the motion was denied because Georgia busted them. Jackie was just trying to distract attention from Donna by impeaching Wendy - but at the end of the day Donna still carried on with the unhinged religious tactics, so the with prejudice thing is a red herring- I think

 

[lucegirl]

Another question- how much credibility do you think the idea that WA might have been trying to set JL up? Surely she would understand that this would be, at best, a diversion, a red herring? She had good reason to wish for him to be discredited, he was one of the first people who suspected them, and many of his suspicions have proved to be almost uncannily correct. I'm not convinced that she could have seriously considered that JL would actually face trial. What do you think?

I think it would be more relevant where Wendi is the defendant to show her knowledge before the murder. There is so much testimony as to Donna’s animus and her self-insulation from the other train cars, I don’t think JL incriminates Donna as much as Wendi. But it is consistent with the overall conspiracy to get away with murder; and the actions of a principal can be imputed to co-conspirators.