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

[Knitpicker]

I don’t know which is why I said “I don’t think” as in not affirmative… I’m afraid to ask you any questions about your thoughts on that case

I only used the case analogy because the Karen Read case illustrates exactly why we need to hear BOTH sides of ALL arguments and remain objective EVEN with arguments presented by the prosecution or a prosecution witness. Tying it back to this case, there was a clear picture that was painted with Rob’s testimony re Wendi’s text about Jeff. I personally need more details on the Wendi’s text to Rob before I form an opinion.

I watched Rob 5 times because I have never seen a more broken man. You can’t fake that.

 

[Wishbone]

Judging by the number of posts on this thread it is obvious that many posters are just not following this case as we have in the previous many years. I am so disgusted progress on the prosecution of the A's has dragged on so long that I can barely force myself to watch the trial. All I can think about is all the years that evil family has had to poison the minds of DM's children and indoctrinate them to the A's way. At the very least, the remaining two A's should be on trial along with DA right now. I wonder how many Marcel's will be around to see the culmination of this travesty. JMOO

 

[BUF]

I missed HA being removed from the courtroom....anyone have the details on that?

Could that have been when I think it was Agent Sanford (or maybe the bump guy) was called to the stand, Georgia started her first question, stopped in mid sentence, then asked to speak with the judge with a bailiff?

 

[Wishbone]

Could that have been when I think it was Agent Sanford (or maybe the bump guy) was called to the stand, Georgia started her first question, stopped in mid sentence, then asked to speak with the judge with a bailiff?

I don't know I just heard it mentioned on one of the attorney youtube that they wondered if DA had noticed when HA was removed from the courtroom. Wondering if he made faces or actually a verbal outburst. Hope someone on youtube talks about it.....

 

[opt]

Judging by the number of posts on this thread it is obvious that many posters are just not following this case as we have in the previous many years. I am so disgusted progress on the prosecution of the A's has dragged on so long that I can barely force myself to watch the trial. All I can think about is all the years that evil family has had to poison the minds of DM's children and indoctrinate them to the A's way. At the very least, the remaining two A's should be on trial along with DA right now. I wonder how many Marcel's will be around to see the culmination of this travesty. JMOO

Imagine how you would feel if any of them were found Not Guilty. We've already had one hung jury, and that's with top-notch prosecuting attorneys and investigators.

 

[ShadyLady]

Judging by the number of posts on this thread it is obvious that many posters are just not following this case as we have in the previous many years. I am so disgusted progress on the prosecution of the A's has dragged on so long that I can barely force myself to watch the trial. All I can think about is all the years that evil family has had to poison the minds of DM's children and indoctrinate them to the A's way. At the very least, the remaining two A's should be on trial along with DA right now. I wonder how many Marcel's will be around to see the culmination of this travesty. JMOO

Might be because so many YT people are following trials now. But, I would rather comment here.

 

[Zedzded]

Here is the other MAJOR piece. If Jeff were the fall guy, why in the world would Wendi have told Jeff days before the murder Charlie looked into hiring hitman? I’m not buying the fall guy narrative even with the new information on Wendi’s text to Rob.

I don't think JL was the fall guy. WA was simply trying to introduce another potential suspect to muddy the waters. Murder trials are problematic for the person on trial when they are the only potential suspect hence the reason Fulford is pointing the finger at WA. Not because she or her client want WA to go to prison, simply to show the jury that sure Donna might have done it, but so could have Wendi?

Why did WA tell JL about CA hiring a hitman? A question many of us have puzzled over. "Who in their right mind would tell someone about a murder plot they were involved in?"

The emphasis is on "right mind." WA was on a number of prescription drugs at the time, including anti-psychotic medication. These were prescribed by HA who is a dentist not a psychiatrist. Plus she was drinking heavily. JL confirmed their date did not go ahead because she was intoxicated due to alcohol and "other stuff." She was probably under a massive amount of stress, due in court, potential loss of law license as well as close to $300k, another loss to Dan and she had a murder to plan...

So suffice to say this was not a person who had right of mind... maybe she told JL because in her disorded stated she believed he'd transfer from meek-mild mannered professor to gun for hire and go kill Dan for her...

 

[Zedzded]

Judging by the number of posts on this thread it is obvious that many posters are just not following this case as we have in the previous many years. I am so disgusted progress on the prosecution of the A's has dragged on so long that I can barely force myself to watch the trial. All I can think about is all the years that evil family has had to poison the minds of DM's children and indoctrinate them to the A's way. At the very least, the remaining two A's should be on trial along with DA right now. I wonder how many Marcel's will be around to see the culmination of this travesty. JMOO

I understand your frustrations I am frustrated too, but it's a very complex case and largely circumstantial. The prosecution are relying on vague and ambiguous statements such as "it involves the two of us and "this TV is five" to secure a conviction. Evidence is still surfacing to this day e.g RA's testimony. Plus they need WA for DA's trial, if she had been arrested they could not compel her to testify with the dangled carrot of immunity. She would simply plead the 5th and there's nothing the State can do about it.

 

[Zedzded]

I watched Rob 5 times because I have never seen a more broken man. You can’t fake that.

It's heartbreaking isn't it. You get a small snapshot into what his life was like growing up with a pushy, controlling parent like DA. He's lost an entire family, but perhaps in some way it's a relief. He was attached to this toxic family, obligated to spend time with them, communicate with them and deep down he knew he despised who they were, but refused to acknowledge those dark thoughts. So he maintained this superficial, "loving" relationship with his family members. He has lost something he never had, a loving family. But now he has his own family to love and support him.

 

[Seattle1]

I do find it just a little odd, that there are plenty of jail calls between CA and his mother right after the guilty verdict, and a few friend calls......... but NOT one call from Wendy? WHY? Hmmmm.

Wendi testified that the last time she spoke with her mother was Nov 2023. I believe this was when DA coached Wendi how she wanted her to testify for CA at his trial. DA was very vocal about how disappointed she was when WA did not heed her instructions and/or advice, and wouldn't take Donna's calls!

At news of CA's guilty verdict, Wendi finally responded to DA via text (message discovered by Investigator Corbitt during DA's Nov 2023 arrest) and texted her mother it wasn't her fault CA was convicted, that she had no knowledge and nothing to add, and that she didn't feel like she could talk to DA but through their lawyers now.

In other words, Wendi could not trust a phone conversation with DA ever again-- she wasn't willing to risk any recorded communication with DA that could implicate her as a co-conspirator.

 

[opt]

. The prosecution are relying on vague and ambiguous statements such as "it involves the two of us and "this TV is five" to secure a conviction.

"This TV is 5" is not ambiguous to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

 

[New Penny]

Judging by the number of posts on this thread it is obvious that many posters are just not following this case as we have in the previous many years. I am so disgusted progress on the prosecution of the A's has dragged on so long that I can barely force myself to watch the trial. All I can think about is all the years that evil family has had to poison the minds of DM's children and indoctrinate them to the A's way. At the very least, the remaining two A's should be on trial along with DA right now. I wonder how many Marcel's will be around to see the culmination of this travesty. JMOO

Yes, was listening to Court TV this morning (before court went live) and Julie Grant was wondering the same thing. Thinks they should have hauled all of them in, let the talkers talk and the deal makers get theirs leaving the others to “run like rats on a sinking ship.”

Agree!

MOO

 

[Zedzded]

"This TV is 5" is not ambiguous to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

My point being, it's something that could be argued, even if the argument is banal and non-sensical juxtaposed with more robust evidence such as a text stating "hey lets kill Dan Markel."

It's still relevant, but this case is circumstantial and is dependant on 40/50+ pieces of small circumstantial evidence that on their own are almost meaningless. So arresting them all back in 2016 would have resulted in acquittals as the cases were not strong then. They have become stronger in time as more and more "inconsequential" evidence surfaces.

 

[ShadyLady]

My point being, it's something that could be argued, even if the argument is banal and non-sensical juxtaposed with more robust evidence such as a text stating "hey lets kill Dan Markel."

It's still relevant, but this case is circumstantial and is dependant on 40/50+ pieces of small circumstantial evidence that on their own are almost meaningless. So arresting them all back in 2016 would have resulted in acquittals as the cases were not strong then. They have become stronger in time as more and more "inconsequential" evidence surfaces.

Not sure you will ever find: "Hey lets kill Dan!"

I don't think 40/50 pieces of circumstantial evidence is insignificant. Guess I would never make it on a jury. Coincidences don't not strike all together leaning one way. imo

All in all, Georgia is great, and I trust her methods.

 

[Seattle1]

She had on a 3-5K Van Cleef and Arpel necklace. Who bought her the 345K condo for cash around the time of KM’s trial?

I recall that June was a home-owner even before she started dating CA! This year, she testified that she had her own place but stayed at CA's place while they dated.

 

[lucegirl]

It's heartbreaking isn't it. You get a small snapshot into what his life was like growing up with a pushy, controlling parent like DA. He's lost an entire family, but perhaps in some way it's a relief. He was attached to this toxic family, obligated to spend time with them, communicate with them and deep down he knew he despised who they were, but refused to acknowledge those dark thoughts. So he maintained this superficial, "loving" relationship with his family members. He has lost something he never had, a loving family. But now he has his own family to love and support him.

RA is the only Adelson who posthumously refers to DM as a human being. When he testified about his mother’s reaction as “not her concern” RA relived that painful “never forget where you were” moment by saying “this was my brother in law.” Heartbreaking.

 

[LinasK]

"This TV is 5" is not ambiguous to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Not even the biggest, most expensive TV you can currently buy costs $5,000 dollars. Not even back then.

 

[Going Rogue]

My prediction was wrong about the money drop. While they didn’t outright deny stopping at Charlie’s house on the way to Tallahassee, they fought the State and Det. Corbitt’s assertions that they stopped by. I think the only chance they had to get a couple jurors not willing to convict was to agree they stopped by but the reason wasn’t a money drop. IMO, fighting this was the nail in Donna’s coffin. I have a feeling Donna felt going against Charlie’s claim they never stopped by hurts his chances if he wins his appeal.

 

[lucegirl]

This is a complex conspiracy case and the prosecution and defense are focused on getting evidence (and lack thereof) on the record to align with the jury instructions. Small things might seem inconsequential or unconnected in the moment, but are most likely relevant to the elements of each charge which we wont see until the very end.

 

[clearskies1]

My prediction was wrong about the money drop. While they didn’t outright deny stopping at Charlie’s house on the way to Tallahassee, they fought the State and Det. Corbitt’s assertions that they stopped by. I think the only chance they had to get a couple jurors not willing to convict was to agree they stopped by but the reason wasn’t a money drop. IMO, fighting this was the nail in Donna’s coffin. I have a feeling Donna felt going against Charlie’s claim they never stopped by hurts his chances if he wins his appeal.

I understand your point, but isn't she basically conceding the plot, but saying it was Wendi and Charlie who were involved, and not her? So she is going against Charlie. It's hard to keep straight with the many cases and different defenses. JMO.