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

[ShadyLady]

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"

Oh, good point! Playing dumb here?

 

[nodamselindistress]

Oh, good point! Playing dumb here?

She most likely lied to Sigfredo about how much they got for the job so she can't admit to it now on national TV

ETA: Luis said he got 35k and Sigfredo got 40k so Katie got the rest

 

[clearskies1]

I assume Sigfredo knew how much he was going to be paid -- presumably that was in the initial written instructions. JMO.

 

[clearskies1]

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.

I think Donna would need to testify to give the reason. That would be interesting. JMO.

 

[BUF]

These texts between Donna and Charlie shows her distain for DM and how Donna manipulates Charlie. Very damning…..


One message read “I can call you when I can have a moment of privacy. I’ll have very limited alone time today. Erase this after you read it.”

🔴 LIVE UPDATES | Day 3 of testimony in Donna Adelson’s murder and conspiracy trial

See real-time updates as day #3 of testimony unfolds in Donna Adelson's trial. She is accused of orchestrating the murder of Dan Markel.

www.wctv.tv

 

[Knitpicker]

June’s condo has come up in the past and IMO its not connected to the Adelsons. Prior to Katie’s trial June was already deposed. What possible testimony of June’s could they have suppressed with a ‘345k’ bribe or incentive – or stated differently, what information did she have that that wasn’t already known to the prosecution that would have motivated any of the Adelson’s to buy her a 345k condo?

I’m not saying its not possible, but I'd say its HIGHLY unlikely. I’d put it in the less than 1% probability. The Adelsons were rich but VERY frugal. I do not see them purchasing a 345k condo for June based on what she knew which was very little in the grand scheme of things and also based on the fact that she had already given her deposition at the time you reference..

So who would have bought it for her?

 

[Knitpicker]

Isn't she a realtor in Boca?? Realtors that I know make big bucks and drive fancy cars, so not impossible she bought it herself? Or do you have evidence Charlie or the A's bought it for her?

She only became a realtor bc of Charlies influence. She was living with a roomate at the time and I don’t think she would have been making the kind of money where she would have 345K in CASH.

I believe she had just become a realtor at that time. Or maybe a year or two.

 

[ch_13]

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

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.

 

[JerseyPride]

So who would have bought it for her?

Is that a serious question? Come on.

 

[Knitpicker]

No wonder dentists make so much money! Cash racket?

When you think about it, a dentist can pull out an infected tooth, clean the socket and leave it like that.
Anything more is considered cosmetic. And not covered.
I guess insurance companies know you can live on protein shakes.

 

[Knitpicker]

Is that a serious question? Come on.

Yes it is. A young woman doesnt usually have 345K in cash sitting in the bank having just started a new career.
She admitted she didn’t have a boyfriend after Charlie.
No mortgage.

 

[JerseyPride]

Yes it is. A young woman doesnt usually have 345K in cash sitting in the bank having just started a new career.
She admitted she didn’t have a boyfriend after Charlie.

So that means the Adelsons must have bought it for her. Be serious.

 

[Knitpicker]

So that means the Adelsons must have bought it for her. Be serious.

I don’t answer to snark. Or disrespect. Theres a nice way of asking someone a question.
Georgia herself asked June if someone bought her a condo-hinting the Adelsons. Did you see Charlies trial?
Would you say that to her?

 

[JerseyPride]

Yes it is. A young woman doesnt usually have 345K in cash sitting in the bank having just started a new career.
She admitted she didn’t have a boyfriend after Charlie.
No mortgage.

Also, it’s quite insulting to stereotype “young women” like that.

 

[Knitpicker]

Also, it’s quite insulting to stereotype “young women” like that.

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.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

Yup it's what I've maintained. It would be utterly foolish to deny they stopped at CA's house, the evidence is irrefutable.

It does strengthen the circumstantial narrative that DA and HA did deliver the money however. KM insinuated that and CA lied about the visit (why?). Probably not enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt however, but it plants the seed and adds one more puzzle to the jigsaw.

So I don't think the "stop" now bears much relevance if they admit to it. I wonder if the State word a question to DA in a way that shows CA lied about the stop however? Take what CA said as fact and ask Donna "So you drove straight from your home in Coral Springs to Orlando?"

DA will then have to say her son was wrong/lied.

 

[Luna20]

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"

Did she testify to that last time? Why did she deny that today?

 

[Luna20]

Cardi-B is testifying in her own case right now. Comic relief.

 

[Zedzded]

I’m not saying its not possible, but I'd say its HIGHLY unlikely. I’d put it in the less than 1% probability. The Adelsons were rich but VERY frugal. I do not see them purchasing a 345k condo for June based on what she knew which was very little in the grand scheme of things and also based on the fact that she had already given her deposition at the time you reference..

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..

They had no reason to bribe JI and certainly not for the amount of a condo.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

Yeah it's a fair point. So she paid out her $345k mortgage years ago when she was in her late 20s and working in average paid jobs?

I don't think she was bribed by the Adelsons as I can't think of what she knew. But we're not drawing a long bow to suggest the $$ did come from them.