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

[loreet]

Agent Sanford returned to the stand.

Donna had DMs make, model and license plate number in her planner! This was found with a search warrant after she was arrested at Miami airport.

This is huge…..

I did not catch this! Thank you.

 

[BUF]

Agent Sanford returned to the stand.

Donna had DMs make, model and license plate number in her planner! This was found with a search warrant after she was arrested at Miami airport.

This is huge…..

After the break, Georgia re-clarified with Agent Sanford that this planner with DM’s car info was the planner that Rashburn had given them. This was the planner from 2014….it was in notes in the back of the planner.

 

[vislaw]

Does anyone think that the State will not indict WA now? I would say after DA's trial, it seems inevitable she will be charged, there's so much damning evidence, albeit circumstantial, but damning nonetheless. And we haven't heard from SY yet. That will be the nail in WA's coffin.

I wonder also how WA will explain her having no contact with RA as well as the odd text messages she sent him. There are just too many coincidences and too many difficult questions that she has no answer for. Plus she has no credibility so calling witnesses testimony into question carries no weight.

I still think its a 50/50 shot that the state indicts WA. I hope they do, but there's no question it would be a much more difficult case and Wendi is a MUCH smarter criminal and skilled defendant.

 

[CLGM]

A couple of comments:

I want them to show the video -- it sounds like it would counter any attempt by the defense to portray DA as a feeble elderly lady if she's sparring with LE to keep a hold of her phone.

IMO MOO At base, this case is about a woman who had the head of her son-in-law blown off -- a perverse, violent and evil act that 99% of people would never even think about, especially if the SIL was not criminally abusive, violent (IMO, but no evidence that DM was any of those things). Yet, it seems more like she's acting as if maybe she's being caught for embezzlement or a white collar crime. Even now, she is making faces that seem to indicate she thinks she shouldn't be prosecuted. Is there any way to highlight this -- maybe in the closing?

For attorneys, can she build a case for ineffective counsel? IMO MOO her attorneys are ridiculously incompetent (granted the majority of the facts are against them). Her original attorneys had to resign; and these folks have only had the case for a year or so; and then whatever the reasons were that JF had to step down as a judge

 

[BUF]

Reflecting on this, it's the first time in this whole conspiracy case, across all the trials, we've heard Donna Adelson address traveling / fleeing to Vietnam.

Back in the media room, there's a ton of buzz. Colleagues in the courtroom report that almost every juror took notes.

LIVE UPDATES | Day 6 of testimony in Donna Adelson murder trial

 

[AmandaSkis]

Patrick Sanford is doing very well on the stand. Plus he’s very easy on the eyes. If he were questioning me, I might get a bit distracted by that smile.

Did he testify in Charlie’s trial?

 

[BUF]

Oh pleez…..now Jackie is trying to suggest that Donna and Harvey were planning on coming back from Vietnam for their grandchild’s bar mitzfah.

Just listen to that extended non hang up call….if you were a juror, would you believe that?

 

[ShadyLady]

Patrick Sanford is doing very well on the stand. Plus he’s very easy on the eyes. If he were questioning me, I might get a bit distracted by that smile.

Did he testify in Charlie’s trial?

Glad I am not the only one making observations on lead detective, haha.

Also there was another officer....oh, my.

Boston/Canton cops not so much.

 

[ch_13]

I don't get this defense attorney. Her questioning just seems all over the place. I can't quite figure out what sort of argument the defense is trying to make.

At one point she was asking the agent about Katie's shifting testimony across all the trials and the various proffers. She was getting up a head of steam and really starting to make some good points about KM's unreliability. But then she asked the agent if he was very familiar with KM's testimony in Charlie's trial. He said no, and that was it. The whole line of questioning fizzled out.

Then she moved on to the day Donna was arrested at the airport, and had the agent recite everything he did that day, as if that mattered. And after all that there was a long pause and she said "I lost my train of thought!"


Edit - Over a half-hour dedicated to the day of Donna's arrest. Including a long segment where Jackie pretends like she's never been in an airport and the agent needs to explain where the gates are, what a jetway is, and so on.

 

[BUF]

I don't get this defense attorney. Her questioning just seems all over the place. I can't quite figure out what sort of argument the defense is trying to make.

At one point she was asking the agent about Katie's shifting testimony across all the trials and the various proffers. She was getting up a head of steam and really starting to make some good points about KM's unreliability. But then she asked the agent if he was very familiar with KM's testimony in Charlie's trial. He said no, and that was it. The whole line of questioning fizzled out.

Then she moved on to the day Donna was arrested at the airport, and had the agent recite everything he did that day, as if that mattered. And after all that there was a long pause and she said "I lost my train of thought!"

I agree, JF seems like a scattered mess to me…..with her constant I think I got that wrong, to her nonstop I forgots, not knowing the terminology, etc…..and she was a judge?

 

[Tapeartree]

I really am having a hard time understanding where the defense is going. I have tried following it as best I can, but I am wondering if it is to just confuse the jury. Maybe they are hoping the jury will forget what was said on direct?? Is that a strategy that actually works?

 

[ShadyLady]

I really am having a hard time understanding where the defense is going. I have tried following it as best I can, but I am wondering if it is to just confuse the jury. Maybe they are hoping the jury will forget what was said on direct?? Is that a strategy that actually works?

I also am not sure who she is defending. Wendi? Not sure yet.

Or, giving DA a case for insignificant counsel?

 

[Knitpicker]

Oh pleez…..now Jackie is trying to suggest that Donna and Harvey were planning on coming back from Vietnam for their grandchild’s bar mitzfah.

Just listen to that extended non hang up call….if you were a juror, would you believe that?

Let’s find out when that dress was purchased!!!

 

[nodamselindistress]

I don't get this defense attorney. Her questioning just seems all over the place. I can't quite figure out what sort of argument the defense is trying to make.

At one point she was asking the agent about Katie's shifting testimony across all the trials and the various proffers. She was getting up a head of steam and really starting to make some good points about KM's unreliability. But then she asked the agent if he was very familiar with KM's testimony in Charlie's trial. He said no, and that was it. The whole line of questioning fizzled out.

Then she moved on to the day Donna was arrested at the airport, and had the agent recite everything he did that day, as if that mattered. And after all that there was a long pause and she said "I lost my train of thought!"


Edit - Over a half-hour dedicated to the day of Donna's arrest. Including a long segment where Jackie pretends like she's never been in an airport and the agent needs to explain where the gates are, what a jetway is, and so on.

She is so frustrating to listen to! I thought she was doing a pretty good job but then, as you said above, she always seems to go off the rails without making any point at all. Donna wanted a friend who would sympathize with her plight, she has no idea what a good lawyer is!

 

[ch_13]

She is so frustrating to listen to! I thought she was doing a pretty good job but then, as you said above, she always seems to go off the rails without making any point at all. Donna wanted a friend who would sympathize with her plight, she has no idea what a good lawyer is!

Honestly, she should have focused on KM's unreliability and really honed in on the detail of all her changed testimony. "Katie said X the first time you talked to her, then she said Y the second time, then Z the third time. How can you believe anything that comes out of her mouth? Isn't it obvious she's just telling you what you want to hear?" That would be a much more productive line of questioning instead of all this stuff about what happened at the airport.

I get the sense that Jackie's asking the questions that Donna wants her to ask. Like Donna is incensed by getting arrested on the jet bridge, so she thinks the jury will be equally outraged.

 

[ch_13]

Something weird just happened. Out of the presence of the jury, Judge Everett just made Donna Adelson swear-in and then asked her if she discussed with her lawyers and consented to the cross-examination strategy that the defense will pursue with the witnesses that are set to testify this afternoon.

I've never seen that before. Very odd.

Edit - The prosecution intends to finish calling all their witnesses today before resting. I guess that means that Charlie is the witness that the judge was referring to when he talked about the defense's cross-examination strategy. Or maybe it's one of the jailhouse informants?

 

[Tapeartree]

Something weird just happened. Out of the presence of the jury, Judge Everett just made Donna Adelson swear-in and then asked her if she discussed with her lawyers and consented to the cross-examination strategy that the defense will pursue with the witnesses that are set to testify this afternoon.

I've never seen that before. Very odd.

I thought she was being sworn in to testify in her own defense. Didn't really catch what was going on.

 

[Tortoise]

Something weird just happened. Out of the presence of the jury, Judge Everett just made Donna Adelson swear-in and then asked her if she discussed with her lawyers and consented to the cross-examination strategy that the defense will pursue with the witnesses that are set to testify this afternoon.

I've never seen that before. Very odd.

Are these the jail witnesses with Donna's script? I think the judge referred to them as the solicited state witnesses.

 

[arielilane]

It was difficult to catch, but I think Donna was sworn in to say she agrees with her lawyer's strategy when it comes to cross examining the jailhouse snitches.

However, I also thought the judge granted the motion to suppress the jailhouse snitches, at least in part.Folks here in the media room are confused, too.

@ByMattHoffmann

 

[arielilane]

"And you have consented to this particular strategy?" Judge Everett asked her."Yes," Donna Adelson said.

Cappleman told Everett the state plans to call the last of its witnesses today. "That's the plan, judge," she said. "We'll see what we can do.""Best laid plans," Everett said.

@JeffBurlew