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

[geevee]

This is rather shocking....I have always been suspicious of AI generated content. Look what it has today!!! It already is talking in past tense about DA and this trial. What can be done??

AI Overview

Donna Adelson was found guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation in the 2014 murder-for-hire of her former son-in-law, Florida State University law professor Dan Markel
. The case, dubbed the "Matriarch Mastermind Murder Trial" by Court TV, captured national attention.

Maybe a prognostication rather than hallucination?

 

[Going Rogue]

The prosecution is spending a lot of time proving Charlie took very good care of Katie financially AFTER the murder. Since the defense is not arguing the double extortion theory / defense this appears to be testimony that is / was planned based on the prosecutions assumption the defense was aligning themselves with the double extortion defense. IMO the prosecution better start planning an audible and start focusing one how Donna is connected to this murder. The defense is conceding Charlie was involved...

 

[ch_13]

The prosecution is spending a lot of time proving Charlie took very good care of Katie financially AFTER the murder. Since the defense is not arguing the double extortion theory / defense this appears to be testimony that is / was planned based on the prosecutions assumption the defense was aligning themselves with the double extortion defense. IMO the prosecution better start planning an audible and start focusing one how Donna is connected to this murder. The defense is conceding Charlie was involved...

I think they'll get there. But with each succeeding prosecution they have to prove one more link in the chain. First with SG & LR they only needed to prove they were the shooters. Then with KM they needed to prove the shooting and that she was directing the shooters. Then with CA, they had to prove everything previously, plus his motive and that he was the one behind the whole set up.

And now with DA, they need to prove that in the end she was the one pulling the strings. But this jury doesn't know what Charlie did, so they can't show DA was involved without proving everything else first.

 

[nodamselindistress]

WTH Jackie, you have been testifying every time you crossed a witness! She states she can't testify to the forensic accounting witness.

 

[vislaw]

The prosecution is spending a lot of time proving Charlie took very good care of Katie financially AFTER the murder. Since the defense is not arguing the double extortion theory / defense this appears to be testimony that is / was planned based on the prosecutions assumption the defense was aligning themselves with the double extortion defense. IMO the prosecution better start planning an audible and start focusing one how Donna is connected to this murder. The defense is conceding Charlie was involved...

I feel that while this is tedious, establishing Charlie's clear involvement and the details of his involvement does inure to the benefit of prosecuting Donna given there is so much evidence of how tight the relationship is between Donna and Charlie. All of this just really sets up "the bump" as context for what is clearly a conspiracy Donna is part of. I think Robert's testimony established clearly and credibly that Donna knew the murder was an Adelson hit so that all of this constitutes nails in the coffin.

 

[Going Rogue]

I think they'll get there. But with each succeeding prosecution they have to prove one more link in the chain. First with SG & LR they only needed to prove they were the shooters. Then with KM they needed to prove the shooting and that she was directing the shooters. Then with CA, they had to prove everything previously, plus his motive and that he was the one behind the whole set up.

And now with DA, they need to prove that in the end she was the one pulling the strings. But this jury doesn't know what Charlie did, so they can't show DA was involved without proving everything else first.

I guess so, but the hitmen, Charlie and Katie have all been convicted. If Donna’s defense 'was' aligning themselves with the double extortion defense, they'd essentially be saying Charlie was wrongly convicted and all this detail they are currently going over (as I type) is VERY important. I just think they need to start focusing on tying Donna into this conspiracy – I’m an impatient NY'er, I'm sure they'll eventually get there

 

[BUF]

FWIW my dentist also gives a 5% discount for cash (check) on high ticket charges.

I thought KM would be next, but it isn’t.

Harvey’s assistant for 40 yrs.

She said KM was a patient. Charlie worked there once a month?

KM is next

 

[Going Rogue]

I feel that while this is tedious, establishing Charlie's clear involvement and the details of his involvement does inure to the benefit of prosecuting Donna given there is so much evidence of how tight the relationship is between Donna and Charlie. All of this just really sets up "the bump" as context for what is clearly a conspiracy Donna is part of. I think Robert's testimony established clearly and credibly that Donna knew the murder was an Adelson hit so that all of this constitutes nails in the coffin.

I agree that Rob’s testimony was paramount based on Donna’s defense…. I’m sure the jury is very convinced Donna hated Dan is an unlikable person, but not ‘yet’ convinced she conspired with Charlie and the picture is being painted by the defense that Wendi was in cahoots with Charlie. I know there is a long way to go, but I think the prosecution better start focusing on how Donna ties into this. I am predicting the defense is not going to deny the ‘stop’ at Charlie house on the way up to Tallahassee.

 

[clearskies1]

So it seems that Katie is going to spill the beans. JMO.

 

[IQuestion]

The prosecution is spending a lot of time proving Charlie took very good care of Katie financially AFTER the murder. Since the defense is not arguing the double extortion theory / defense this appears to be testimony that is / was planned based on the prosecutions assumption the defense was aligning themselves with the double extortion defense. IMO the prosecution better start planning an audible and start focusing one how Donna is connected to this murder. The defense is conceding Charlie was involved...

I agree that Rob’s testimony was paramount based on Donna’s defense…. I’m sure the jury is very convinced Donna hated Dan is an unlikable person, but not ‘yet’ convinced she conspired with Charlie and the picture is being painted by the defense that Wendi was in cahoots with Charlie. I know there is a long way to go, but I think the prosecution better start focusing on how Donna ties into this. I am predicting the defense is not going to deny the ‘stop’ at Charlie house on the way up to Tallahassee.

1) The "bump." (Didn't call police) 2) "It involves the two of us." (Why only two...aren't there many members of the family?) 3) THIS TV is 5 (Really Donna? How much did the last TV cost?) And lastly, if she is not part of the conspiracy, why doesn't her son CA simply say, "My mother wasn't involved."???? Claiming his mother was not involved and just an unwilling dupe to the same extortion plot doesn't hurt his appeal.

 

[vislaw]

... I am predicting the defense is not going to deny the ‘stop’ at Charlie house on the way up to Tallahassee.

I've been assuming the defense will deny the 'stop' as it seems especially critical given the defense's position. I'm fascinated that you predict they will deny it and hope you are correct. Do you just think the evidence is just too strong for them to deny?

 

[clearskies1]

Again the testimony about literally washing the money. It's always funny to me.

 

[ShadyLady]

Literally washing the money again. It's always funny to me.

No wonder dentists make so much money! Cash racket?

 

[legalmomma]

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

 

[Tapeartree]

So it seems that Katie is going to spill the beans. JMO.

She still seems like she isn't being 100% truthful. I don't really expect much from her.

 

[BUF]

Again the testimony about literally washing the money. It's always funny to me.

Yeah, me too. I have visions of a clotheslines and clothespins with all those bills. Since they still had the Coral Springs house (according to RA) do you think Donna washed it there?

 

[Going Rogue]

I've been assuming the defense will deny the 'stop' as it seems especially critical given the defense's position. I'm fascinated that you predict they will deny it and hope you are correct. Do you just think the evidence is just too strong for them to deny?

Yes, it’s too strong. Donna’s text alone speaks volumes “outside your house” and Charlie’s response “10 minutes”. Couple that with cell phone location data records. It’s insulting to the jury if the defense tries to sell they didn’t stop like Rashbaum and Charlie tried. Currently they have no proof Donna gave Charlie any cash other than Katie speculating based on her saying Charlie always said he never had cash at the house and said his mom and dad dropped by earlier so she ‘assumed’ they dropped off cash. Why run from the visit when it can be reasonably proven. They just need to provide another reason other than a ‘money drop’ - they can justify the stop many ways other that handing over cash. Not saying the jury buys it, but they definitely won’t buy that the stop never occurred in my opinion.

 

[nodamselindistress]

No way am I buying she did not know how much she was getting paid

 

[BUF]

No way am I buying she did not know how much she was getting paid

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

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

 

[nodamselindistress]

She is not fooling me one bit! She pulled over 2 blocks away from Charlie's house and took at least 20k before her "delivery"