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

[Zedzded]

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?

RE - "dismissed with prejudice." In other words the judge had ruled this was the end of the matter, there would be no further hearings regarding relocation. WA was cognisant of this, yet she did not inform her mother of this when the hearing was completed (DA was outside in the waiting room).

In fact she never informed DA or HA of this ever and allowed them to carry on thinking she still potentially could be granted relocation rights at a further hearing. Which was not true. This resulted in DA sending more and more vitriolic emails, regarding relocation as well as her thoughts on Dan, which were becoming increasingly more venomous.

So as a few people have pointed out, perhaps WA was, ultimately, the mastermind. She painted out Dan to be this abusive monster, lied about his behaviour and lied about the relocation. This fostered a deep hatred amongst her family for Dan and perhaps was the catalyst for them to plot the murder which WA all too willingly agreed to.

 

[Seattle1]

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?

The Motions by both Wendi and Dan had become over the top, frustrating the court. While witnesses were waiting outside, the court shockingly interrupted the proceedings and refused to hear the full arguments by the parties and required them to agree to the stipulated order with prejudice-- ending the question of relocation once and for all.

Perhaps shocked and embarrassed by the Court calling the couple out on their behavior, Wendi did not tell Donna about the stipulated Order. She was so invested in the proceedings, I recall Donna continued preparing arguments and bribes for Wendi to use against Dan at the next hearing-- not realizing it was done. The fight was over. MOO

 

[lucegirl]

The new fact from RA I find very curious is DA’s statement “someone walked up to him and said ‘are you DM?’”

I think this is very probative of DA’s guilt. She slipped up because she has a guilty mind. Obviously, as the shooter was unknown to police at the time she made the statement, the police would have no such knowledge to share. And to get that knowledge would require a suspect and a confession. More importantly, the hitman theory had not been formulated less than 24 hours after the murder when she blurted that out. Only a hitman would ask the victim “are you so and so”? If it was a random robbery, which hadn’t been ruled out at the time, the robber would not ask that question. Only a person sent to kill a stranger would ask the question to make sure they have the right target. The guilty mind let a partial truth slip - it was in fact a hit and she imagined a hitman saying that. And her guard was down, and she got sloppy, because she was talking to RA “who knows nothing.” She knows she made a careless slip and tried to deflect it by saying “that is what they are telling us.” I highly doubt the police were sharing hitman theories with the Adelsons - had they even reached DM’s parents? Saying “that is what they are telling us” is as incriminating as “are you so and so.” I hope the State can artfully weave this in during closing, or better yet on cross if DA takes the stand.

 

[Tortoise]

The new fact from RA I find very curious is DA’s statement “someone walked up to him and said ‘are you DM?’”

I think this is very probative of DA’s guilt. She slipped up because she has a guilty mind. Obviously, as the shooter was unknown to police at the time she made the statement, the police would have no such knowledge to share. And to get that knowledge would require a suspect and a confession. More importantly, the hitman theory had not been formulated less than 24 hours after the murder when she blurted that out. Only a hitman would ask the victim “are you so and so”? If it was a random robbery, which hadn’t been ruled out at the time, the robber would not ask that question. Only a person sent to kill a stranger would ask the question to make sure they have the right target. The guilty mind let a partial truth slip - it was in fact a hit and she imagined a hitman saying that. And her guard was down, and she got sloppy, because she was talking to RA “who knows nothing.” She knows she made a careless slip and tried to deflect it by saying “that is what they are telling us.” I highly doubt the police were sharing hitman theories with the Adelsons - had they even reached DM’s parents? Saying “that is what they are telling us” is as incriminating as “are you so and so.” I hope the State can artfully weave this in during closing, or better yet on cross if DA takes the stand.

Yes, nuggets like this are imperative for the State to emphasize for the jury's benefit. From a very credible witness.

I thought they let it pass too quickly. They could have followed up with a question like 'so did you think, according to Donna, they must have found a witness to what was said by a hitman?'

 

[nodamselindistress]

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.

Great post! I felt she was more honest at Charlie's trial. She is in for life, why keep lying?

 

[vislaw]

I'm late to the party today, but I have to say I was disappointed with Katie's testimony.
...

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

Yes, Katie is a mess and lacks credibility. However, I believe she is a substantial help to the prosecution. First of all, it's helpful for the jury to be reminded that people lie under oath all the time and I thought it was especially useful to make Katie admit that she sat through two entire trials swearing she had nothing to do with the plot, only to be convicted. Every juror understands that Katie is guilty as hell and that she is directly tied to Charlie and Donna. She's a little weasel and Donna wrote her check after check as part of the scheme. I agree that the jurors very well may dismiss anything she said, but they most certainly will NOT dismiss what she did and having her up there on the stand in the prison jumpsuit is such an emphatic reminder as to what this case was all about. When the prosecution gets to the evidence of Donna and Harvey dropping off the cash at Charlie's house, they will have a good image in their minds of Katie waiting in the wings to deliver that cash to the hitmen.

 

[Seattle1]

DAILY TRIAL UPDATES​

DAY 4 – 8/27/25​

• LIVESTREAM: FL v. Donna Adelson, Day 4 | Matriarch Mastermind Murder Trial

DAY 3 – 8/26/25​

• LIVESTREAM: FL v. Donna Adelson, Day 3 | Matriarch Mastermind Murder Trial
• Jeffrey Lacasse, who began dating Wendi Adelson after her divorce from Dan Markel, took the stand and said he had only met Markel briefly.
  • Lacasse said he only met Charlie Adelson once, but noted that Wendi once told him in confidence that Charlie had explored “all options possible to take care of the Danny Markel problem,” including hiring a hitman, which would have cost approximately $15,000.
    • At the sole meeting with Charlie, Lacasse said he was fired up and overprotective of Wendi.
  • Five days before the murder, Lacasse said Wendi was frustrated about being denied permission to move her children to South Florida.
  • Lacasse said that the television that was being repaired at the time of Markel’s murder looked like it had shattered after being hit by someone between five and six feet tall.
  • Lacasse suggested that Wendi and the Adelsons wanted to frame him for Markel’s murder, saying that Wendi asked him a number of questions about his plans for July 18, 2014, and that he drove a gray Nissan Sentra, which was very similar in appearance to the gray Nissan Altima rented by the killers.
  • WATCH: Lacasse: Wendi Was A ‘Complete Anxious Wreck’ Around Markel’s Murder
  • MORE: Wendi Adelson’s ex-boyfriend testifies about chilling hitman comment
• June Umchinda, Charlie Adelson’s ex-girlfriend, testified that as police ramped up their investigation into Markel’s murder, Charlie began acting strangely. She said he was up in the middle of the night, kept a gun in his nightstand and kept a packed bag of clothes nearby.
  • Charlie made a joke about his ex-girlfriend, Katherine Magbanua’s, breast augmentation, joking he only paid for “one of them.”
• Charlie Adelson’s friend, Ryan Fitzpatrick, testified that Charlie didn’t like Dan Markel.
  • Fitzpatrick said he noticed a change in Charlie’s demeanor after “the bump” when his mother, Donna, was approached by an undercover agent.
  • He recalled a statement from Charlie where he said, you can get away with anything as long as you keep your mouth shut.
  • Noted that Charlie often kept his money stapled.
• Financial investigator Mary Hull analyzed bank records in the case to see the relationships between the parties.
  • Immediately after the murders, Luis Rivera purchased a motorcycle and a Toyota Camry.
  • Sigfredo Garcia purchased a motorcycle, a 1894 Monte Carlo and a Nissan Maxima.
  • The jury saw conversations between Katherine Magbanua and Charlie discussing money, where he says she needs use his credit card for car repairs. The car had previously belonged to Harvey and was sold for $1700, but there were no transactions for the vehicle.
    • Other things purchased for Magbanua included flights and a breast augmentation surgery on Oct. 18, 2014.
      • • WATCH: Motorcycles, Cars and Surgery: Money Trail After Dan Markel’s Murder
  • Katherine Magbanua was “employed” by the Adelson Institute from Oct. 7, 2014, to May 17, 2016. The management of the Adelson Institute changed from Harvey to Charlie on Oct. 2, 2015.
• Clariza Lebredo, an employee of the Adelson Institute, testified that Charlie worked as a periodontist at the practice and Donna worked up front as a manager. Charlie frequently traveled and did work for other dental offices.
  • Lebredo only knew Magbanua as a patient.
• Katherine Magbanua, a convicted co-conspirator in the case, was called to the stand.
  • Magbanua confessed to her role in the murder-for-hire and described herself as the “middleman” between the gunmen and Charlie, whom she was dating at the time.
    • WATCH: Katherine Magbanua Admits Role as Middleman in Dan Markel Murder Plot
  • Magbanua recalled Charlie getting into her car and asking whetther she knew someone who could hurt someone, and Sigfredo Garcia, the father of her children, came to mind.
  • After the murder, Garcia wanted the money. Charlie told Magbanua there was an accident and wanted to meet for dinner. Magbanua found him pacing back and forth with a gun in his hand. Charlie gave her a Xanax and she fell asleep. When Magbanua woke up, he told her the money was in her trunk.
  • The money, which Charlie said came from his mother, was damp and had started to mold. Charlie told Magbanua that his mother had physically washed the money.
  • All checks that Magbanua received were signed by Donna.
  • All documents were signed by Donna Adelson; none were signed by Charlie Adelson.
  • Magbanua did not always follow Charlie’s instructions.
  • Magbanua met with Charlie after the “bump” in a car; he picked her up from work.
  • Charlie asked where to eat, turned up the radio, said his mom had been approached.
  • Magbanua told Charlie that Luis was incarcerated; did not reveal Sigfredo was involved.
  • Magbanua tried contacting a number on a paper to figure out what was happening.
  • Magbanua was asked if she thought Charlie was trying to set her up.
  • Magbanua knew Luis well; Sigfredo didn’t tell her he took Luis; Charlie didn’t know Sigfredo was involved.
  • Charlie did not say the murder was to benefit his mother or sister.
  • Charlie did say his mother was at his house the day before the murder and washed money.
  • Magbanua spoke in code with Charlie.
  • She stated there would be no reason to speak in code if nothing illegal was happening.
  • On cross, Magbanua admitted to previously lying under oath and minimizing what was going on.
    • WATCH: Magbanua Confesses to Lying About Markel Murder Many Times in the Past
  • Magbanua met Charlie and started dating, but the relationship was not exclusive; he had other women.
  • Charlie asked Magbanua to take care of something, prompting her to contact Sigfredo.
  • Magbanua had a rocky relationship with Sigfredo.
  • Magbanua did not know Luis was going with Sigfredo.
  • Did not specify the amount of money involved in the homicide plan.
  • Garcia (Sigfredo) brought money, put it in Magbanua’s closet; it felt damp, she never counted it but spent and deposited some.
  • Charlie gave her additional benefits after that.
  • Discussions with Charlie were private; another woman was not involved in those talks.
• Sergeant Christopher Corbitt, Tallahassee Police Dept. digital forensics expert pulled cell phone records, reviewed tickets, rental agreements, gym video, and analyzed phone/email data.
  • Utilized CellBrite for data extraction.
  • Tracked Dan Markel’s location on murder day via calls; reviewed which numbers were present at specific sites.
  • No one number matched all Markel’s locations, but a common number was found.
  • That number was linked to Harvey Adelson.
  • July 1, 2014: 37-second call from Sigfredo Garcia’s number to Harvey Adelson, routed to voicemail.
    • WATCH: Cell Phone Expert Implicates Harvey Adelson In Communication With Hitman
  • Frequency reports showed Magbanua’s number frequently dialed Charlie Adelson’s, and Donna Adelson’s number showed up as well.
  • Luis Rivera’s number was a frequent contact for Garcia.
  • Email evidence featured Donna using various name formats and disparaging terms for Dan Markel (“Major ,” “Royal Jackass”).
  • Context of divorce and relocation were critical motives.

FL v. Donna Adelson: Matriarch Mastermind Murder Trial

UPDATE: Donna Adelson, the Florida grandmother accused of orchestrating the 2014 killing of Dan Markel, has been found guilty on all counts.

www.courttv.com

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

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

Hi- I found the info not really looking for it with a simple name search.
I did find it intriguing. Especially since the Adelsons were real estate investors.
So you don’t think it’s hers? It’s in her name. He was already broken up with her when it was purchased. I don’t recall when but right around the time of KM’s trial. I think the 1st but don’t hold me to it.

What was really surprising to me, and ruined JL’s credibility a bit was saying he met the A’s 7-8 times yesterday.
I am almost positive the last trial (or the one before-who can keep track), he said only twice and in passing. They brushed him off kind of thing.
Then yesterday he is having dinner with Donna and Wendi and such.

And Wendi’s saying that she was told in the car DM was shot.
We know that is not the truth.
And KM not knowing how much money she got from the hit, and still tot his day pretending she doesn’t know.

 

[Tapeartree]

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.

Agree. KM is so blinded by greed and money. She had an opportunity to have immunity and her freedom but chose to keep lying. I still think there is so much more she isn't saying. For instance, CA asking her if she knows anyone who can "harm" someone else. I do not for a minute believe the word "harm" was used by CA.

 

[floridafreshsqueez]

So as a few people have pointed out, perhaps WA was, ultimately, the mastermind. She painted out Dan to be this abusive monster, lied about his behaviour and lied about the relocation. This fostered a deep hatred amongst her family for Dan and perhaps was the catalyst for them to plot the murder which WA all too willingly agreed to.

Wow, I think you’re spot on!!

 

[rescuemom]

If the

The state wanted to use Wendi as a witness. If they did not grant her limited immunity (she can't be prosecuted for what she says) she would have invoked her Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify. Bottom line --- the state had to grant to her limited immunity to get her to testify. JMO

I still don't understand the "WHY" and IMO, that same theory could be said of many witnesses in many cases if they would not testify otherwise. Doing so just makes me think she is involved or has something to hide. To me WA was not all that necessary. Really what new info was learned??

 

[Montrealaise]

Yes, Katie is a mess and lacks credibility. However, I believe she is a substantial help to the prosecution. First of all, it's helpful for the jury to be reminded that people lie under oath all the time and I thought it was especially useful to make Katie admit that she sat through two entire trials swearing she had nothing to do with the plot, only to be convicted. Every juror understands that Katie is guilty as hell and that she is directly tied to Charlie and Donna. She's a little weasel and Donna wrote her check after check as part of the scheme. I agree that the jurors very well may dismiss anything she said, but they most certainly will NOT dismiss what she did and having her up there on the stand in the prison jumpsuit is such an emphatic reminder as to what this case was all about. When the prosecution gets to the evidence of Donna and Harvey dropping off the cash at Charlie's house, they will have a good image in their minds of Katie waiting in the wings to deliver that cash to the hitmen.

Donna and Harvey dropped off the cash at Charlie's house? Did Harvey know how much it was? Did he know what it was for?

 

[BUF]

🔴 LIVE UPDATES | Donna Adelson trial testimony day 4

See real-time updates as day #4 of testimony unfolds in Donna Adelson's trial. She is accused of orchestrating the murder of Dan Markel.

www.wctv.tv

@Niner

 

[clearskies1]

I still don't understand the "WHY" and IMO, that same theory could be said of many witnesses in many cases if they would not testify otherwise. Doing so just makes me think she is involved or has something to hide. To me WA was not all that necessary. Really what new info was learned??

Basically it is Wendi (and her kids) who is the motive for the murder. It brings the motive and family dynamics to life for this jury. The state has already given Wendi immunity three other times -- in the three trials she previously testified in, and all of the previous defendants were convicted. Why risk not having her testify if you are trying to convict her mother? I think it would have been a big gamble to not have her testify. JMO.

 

[Niner]

🔴 LIVE UPDATES | Donna Adelson trial testimony day 4

See real-time updates as day #4 of testimony unfolds in Donna Adelson's trial. She is accused of orchestrating the murder of Dan Markel.

www.wctv.tv

@Niner

Thanks (again!) I did find it this morning - so just in case you can't post - I know now how to find it!

 

[Tricia]

At the top of this thread is the Court TV livestream. So you can stay on Websleuths and watch and post at the same time.

 

[Luna20]

When the camera is on Donna she starts blinking. Is it because she is uncomfortable or is she trying to look so stressed by all of this fake information against her?

 

[Going Rogue]

Hi- I found the info not really looking for it with a simple name search.
I did find it intriguing. Especially since the Adelsons were real estate investors.
So you don’t think it’s hers? It’s in her name. He was already broken up with her when it was purchased. I don’t recall when but right around the time of KM’s trial. I think the 1st but don’t hold me to it.

What was really surprising to me, and ruined JL’s credibility a bit was saying he met the A’s 7-8 times yesterday.
I am almost positive the last trial (or the one before-who can keep track), he said only twice and in passing. They brushed him off kind of thing.
Then yesterday he is having dinner with Donna and Wendi and such.

And Wendi’s saying that she was told in the car DM was shot.
We know that is not the truth.
And KM not knowing how much money she got from the hit, and still tot his day pretending she doesn’t know.

Great observations re Jeff’s evolving testimony about his interactions with the Adelsons! Another example of evolving testimony. This has been a theme throughout and (as you know ) I’ve been saying this for years and bringing that up usually isn't received well by many that follow this case – but I can give you MULTIPLE examples. Another thing he said that almost floored me yesterday is saying Wendi was taking down the boys art from he walls on July 13th – why is this new allegation surfacing for the first time over 11 years after Dan’s murder?

Just to be CLEAR, I am not anti Lacasse, but there multiple things he had testified to that are puzzling to me and most of it goes unchecked. I truly believe his intentions are good but I also believe in his efforts to be helpful he is misrepresenting certain details and very possibly at a subconscious level. I'm glad you brought this up – someone that clearly is not on the Adelson payroll

 

[BUF]

Basically it is Wendi (and her kids) who is the motive for the murder. It brings the motive and family dynamics to life for this jury. The state has already given Wendi immunity three other times -- in the three trials she previously testified in, and all of the previous defendants were convicted. Why risk not having her testify if you are trying to convict her mother? I think it would have been a big gamble to not have her testify. JMO.

Yes. There has been so much testimony about Wendi during the trial and if I were on this jury, I would want to hear from her and see her demeanor. Same goes with Katie. The jury can decide whether they were truthful or not.

There has also been so much testimony about Charlie. Although unlikely, it makes me question if they will try to put Charlie on the stand if only to plead the fifth.

jmo

 

[ch_13]

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's at least plausible.

Imagine an alternative scenario: JL leaves on Friday morning as he originally intended and passes by Dan's home around the time of the murder. WA's friends, like Jane, all point to JL as someone who was angry about the breakup and was jealous of Dan. Dan's neighbor doesn't look out his window at just the right time, so never sees the Prius.

So, JL is looking like the prime suspect, and the police put most of their investigative efforts into reviewing his actions. I don't think they'd ever be able to prove anything in the end, but some of that may depend on factors we don't know. Like is he a gun enthusiast? Could he have GSR on his hands? In any case, time spent on him is time not spent looking into alternative theories. Maybe the crime remains unsolved and there's forever a cloud over JL's head.

It's possible that the cops could have eventually found SG and LR. After all the Prius was in the gym parking lot. But it would have been just one of many cars there. How long would it have taken for the police to zero in on that car if they didn't have the neighbor's statement? And by then, would the bus videos and other CCTV still be available to examine, or would they have been overwritten?