FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *5 Guilty* #28

[Amy0077]

What about Harvey? Anyone think that he’ll be next?

I do not

 

[Zedzded]

Like WA the case against HA is now stronger post DA trial. There has been a lot of speculation and confusion regarding the circumstantial evidence that has predominated this case i.e will it be accepted by the jury, and for the most part it has been accepted.

There is not a lot of evidence against HA, but it is sufficient (IMO) for him to be indicted. He drove DA to CA's house for the money drop. He had contact with the hitmen. Matsuri tapes. Unaliving himself with DA discussion and flee attempt to Vietnam. He has also alienated his older son Robert with no valid reason plus a whole bunch of other anecdotal evidence e.g acting strangely at Dans funeral, refusing to talk to the police etc

 

[Weki]

I’ve been saying the same thing for a very LONG time regarding the case against her and how certain YouTubers have created this confidence and belief in social media that the case against Wendi is so incredibly strong. I agree that many ‘creators’ with YouTube channels are bordering irresponsible and ‘most’ of the coverage is so biased its frustrating to watch IF you are seeking objective coverage. At this stage I’m hoping Wendi is arrested soon and faces a speedy trial so we can see how this plays out. I think many will be surprised at how certain KEY witnesses that testified in the previous trials might not hit the mark in a Wendi trial. Just a prediction.

Yes, these YouTubers have rewritten the state’s theory/narrative of the case to make Wendi the snakehead. That has not been the evidence at trial. And yet this Wendi narrative persists. The LE testimonies like Corbitt and Sanford would be really short at a hypothetical Wendi trial for sure. No bump. And no one is gonna hear Wendi’s voice for hours on any wiretaps.

 

[Zedzded]

“That would be hugely insensitive and almost unprofessional of her to allow people to think that arrests were a likelihood.”

That is not my interpretation of what she meant, I don’t think she was trying to hint that arrests were a likelihood. Yes, I agree that’s how many are interpreting it. I believe she was trying to carefully control and steer the conversation away from the inevitable “when are you arresting Wendi” type questions. In my opinion, she was pressed to give some type of response after deflecting a few questions on Wendi that she clearly didn’t want to answer. Sometimes when you are thinking and responding on the fly in that type of situation, and you are avoiding a certain topic, it easy to attempt to be ambiguous and give a little too much. Just enough that people can read into it in away that fits their beliefs. Maybe you are correct it’s confirmation bias

It's still insensitive and unprofessional.

"Stay tuned" in CA's trial clearly inferred there would be more arrests. Indeed 1 week later there were. Any comment post DA's trial aligning with this previous comment would naturally draw the same inference hence the reason it was asked with great vigour (by another lawyer).

This wasn't some casual question, GC had time to absorb it, understood its significance and could have answered it any number of ways i.e easily dismissing it. She didn't.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's still insensitive and unprofessional.

"Stay tuned" in CA's trial clearly inferred there would be more arrests. Indeed 1 week later there were. Any comment post DA's trial aligning with this previous comment would naturally draw the same inference hence the reason it was asked with great vigour (by another lawyer).

This wasn't some casual question, GC had time to absorb it, understood its significance and could have answered it any number of ways i.e easily dismissing it. She didn't.

Holding press conferences and controlling a narrative is a very unique skill. IMO, I don’t think she said anything unprofessional or insensitive. I just think she was deflecting Wendi questions and her catch phrase “stay tuned” comment from Charlie’s post conviction press conference was playfully tossed back at her in a tension reliving way after she was being pressed. If she was consciously going into that presser with the objective of not addressing the million dollar question, how should she have responded? ~ “Don’t stay tuned”? I think what she said was harmless and people are reading too much into it – but hey, it is great for YouTube clicks

 

[Best of What's Around]

I never believed the state had enough to go after Wendi.

I do feel that many of these podcasters have warped people’s perspectives on Wendi’s culpability and potential criminal liability. Dave Aronberg came out on STS after the verdict and said Wendi would be indicted within 60 days. These podcasters and their guests have been reckless as we’ve seen lately. The desperation for clicks is real.

“I guess you can stay tuned” is basically “leave me the heck alone” lol

JMO

Agreed that there is too much click bait in general in media and social media...but I have gone from not enough (your camp) to there is enough over the course of this trial. More has come out and Wendi has continued to lie her way around the facts including the day of the shooting. Certainly from what we have seen it is not the slam dunk that Donna and Charlie's cases were, but (1) I think there is more to be revealed, (2) I think her behavior and decision making in the years since her family started getting arrested has been telling. And I don't believe that a jury will buy the line that her attorney told her not to discuss the case with her family as reason for why she has always shut out the Markels and walked a tight rope with her family that reeks IMO of consciousness of guilt. She supports the murderers as much as possible except where it crosses any line into possibly getting herself in trouble. The only boundaries she has are self preservation. She loves her mother so much but cuts her out of taped communications...still willing to help at trial as long as it does not implicate herself. None of it adds up unless she was complicit and coldly self preserving.

I try to imagine how someone actually innocent would have been acting and what they would be saying. Or in her case, not saying. To me, her police "interrogation" as she likes to put it (and no one else would who has seen it) did not ring true. I found her emotional reactions staged. She served up anyone but kept repeatedly being focused on herself as a suspect. She zoomed past denial and bargaining in grief - no questions about what could be done for her ex. Just over the top crying and covering her face. Which is it - are you that horrified and care so much? The words don't back up the show of emotion.

But also she has been so coldly and strictly strategic in how she has handled relations with her family. It is clear her mother and brother are guilty - but other than refusing to discuss the case with them or get caught on taped conversations, she still aligns with them. She does not align with her brother who found the lack of concern from the family shocking and disturbing, as anyone innocent would.

My goodness, she has only reached out to the Markels after years of coldly denying them all contact in order to help her family's defense (which would include her own, don't doubt it) - not because she feels at all badly ( as any INNOCENT person would) that it has become clear her family was behind this. I don't see that she is horrified for what has been done to them.

She erased that man from her life to the point of changing her son's middle name! Yet there is zero evidence of abuse. No real reason for the level of animosity following the murder. The hatred should have dissipated. Instead, she writes in her creative writing class about what a burden her ex's murder has been on her ability to thrive with commencement speech opportunities and such in the immediate years following, and she ends her piece noting she can't complain about it because she is the one still alive. I found the lack of empathy throughout both writings shockingly tone deaf.

It is a million little things - but they all line up with guilt and not innocence to me. Right down to overreacting for years and years to Markel's email regarding foster care. She continues to purposely misconstrue the clear and understandable true intentions behind that email to fit her desire to cut them out of her sons' lives. That alone spoke volumes to me.

It is all more complex to prove, but given Donna's trial was a slam dunk, I have faith in the prosecution that they have enough for this one. Not one jury lately has seemed to think poor Wendi was the innocent. As I said before, I think Donna and Charlie were busy playing a loud game of checkers while Wendi allowed her family to think she was helpless and hapless so they would do all the dirty work. Her game was silent and a master game of chess. But she can't nail the right emotional reactions because she lacks empathy and actual innocence - so she can lose this game just as they did.

She has other things in common with the convicted murderers in her family. She feels the need to never concede one point...right down to the name Jibbers - which clearly was neither silly nor something she needed not to feel "scared" of her ex. It was mean and she won't cop to it. She lacks credibility and is tone deaf because she can't fake it. I hope she opts to testify in her own defense. She will have the best people - so that remains to be seen.

Wendi, as Katie's attorney pointed out during one of her trials, has never cared nor wanted to help find the killer. Never felt an ounce of empathy for her ex inlaws who truly did nothing to deserve her ire. Not one week later when she refused any additional interviews with LE nor years later when it became clear her own family was involved. Rob is the only good and decent human being in the bunch. His innocence is unequivocal for a reason. And it is easy to believe.

You may claim all of this only makes Wendi out to be a selfish person but not a murderer...but I think when combined with evidence - such as driving up to the crime scene tape and later repeatedly lying about that (though that testimony likely cannot be used against her), the calls with her mother and brother the morning of, the unnerving interest in her ex boyfriend's travel plans, and on and on - it adds up to just one thing. At some point she has known and could have stopped it. At the very least, she helped cover it up. But I think she knew from the beginning and set Donna in motion purposefully. Isn't it amazing that Wendi ended up set for life with assets she didn't earn, got her parents to raise her sons while she worked and traveled until she no longer needed them, loves the family that murdered her sons' father, but yet has somehow conveniently made sure to never be recorded discussing anything with any of them? In court, we saw the pain testifying caused Rob. Notice how we don't see the pain for Wendi. Wendi just keeps head tilting and parting her lips in an O to play the role she was born to play and win.

 

[opt]

In my opinion Wendi was the instigator. I believe she agitated her family until they acted to fulfill her wish. Exactly like "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" resulted in the assassination of Thomas Becket.

Also, there is evidence indicating that she provided information and knew of the plan. If I understood the legal definitions correctly, these components make it first degree murder.

 

[Tortoise]

I think her planning and plotting predates that text you referenced…. I believe Wendi became a contortionist as a young teen because she was planning on using those skills to twist and bend herself out of this mess

Oh I agree it was well planned in advance! I should have been clearer and said to make it seem to police that it wasn't a planned hit. So that they wouldn't look into who was behind the plan.

 

[Knitpicker]

No, it was Judge Wheeler. The enhanced tape was presented after the first trial. Judge Hankinson only presided over the first trial.

Yes I know that but he was the first trial. (Hankinson).Thats why I thought he didnt allow the transcripts and Wheeler did hence the conviction at the second KM trial.

 

[Knitpicker]

Agreed that there is too much click bait in general in media and social media...but I have gone from not enough (your camp) to there is enough over the course of this trial. More has come out and Wendi has continued to lie her way around the facts including the day of the shooting. Certainly from what we have seen it is not the slam dunk that Donna and Charlie's cases were, but (1) I think there is more to be revealed, (2) I think her behavior and decision making in the years since her family started getting arrested has been telling. And I don't believe that a jury will buy the line that her attorney told her not to discuss the case with her family as reason for why she has always shut out the Markels and walked a tight rope with her family that reeks IMO of consciousness of guilt. She supports the murderers as much as possible except where it crosses any line into possibly getting herself in trouble. The only boundaries she has are self preservation. She loves her mother so much but cuts her out of taped communications...still willing to help at trial as long as it does not implicate herself. None of it adds up unless she was complicit and coldly self preserving.

I try to imagine how someone actually innocent would have been acting and what they would be saying. Or in her case, not saying. To me, her police "interrogation" as she likes to put it (and no one else would who has seen it) did not ring true. I found her emotional reactions staged. She served up anyone but kept repeatedly being focused on herself as a suspect. She zoomed past denial and bargaining in grief - no questions about what could be done for her ex. Just over the top crying and covering her face. Which is it - are you that horrified and care so much? The words don't back up the show of emotion.

But also she has been so coldly and strictly strategic in how she has handled relations with her family. It is clear her mother and brother are guilty - but other than refusing to discuss the case with them or get caught on taped conversations, she still aligns with them. She does not align with her brother who found the lack of concern from the family shocking and disturbing, as anyone innocent would.

My goodness, she has only reached out to the Markels after years of coldly denying them all contact in order to help her family's defense (which would include her own, don't doubt it) - not because she feels at all badly ( as any INNOCENT person would) that it has become clear her family was behind this. I don't see that she is horrified for what has been done to them.

She erased that man from her life to the point of changing her son's middle name! Yet there is zero evidence of abuse. No real reason for the level of animosity following the murder. The hatred should have dissipated. Instead, she writes in her creative writing class about what a burden her ex's murder has been on her ability to thrive with commencement speech opportunities and such in the immediate years following, and she ends her piece noting she can't complain about it because she is the one still alive. I found the lack of empathy throughout both writings shockingly tone deaf.

It is a million little things - but they all line up with guilt and not innocence to me. Right down to overreacting for years and years to Markel's email regarding foster care. She continues to purposely misconstrue the clear and understandable true intentions behind that email to fit her desire to cut them out of her sons' lives. That alone spoke volumes to me.

It is all more complex to prove, but given Donna's trial was a slam dunk, I have faith in the prosecution that they have enough for this one. Not one jury lately has seemed to think poor Wendi was the innocent. As I said before, I think Donna and Charlie were busy playing a loud game of checkers while Wendi allowed her family to think she was helpless and hapless so they would do all the dirty work. Her game was silent and a master game of chess. But she can't nail the right emotional reactions because she lacks empathy and actual innocence - so she can lose this game just as they did.

She has other things in common with the convicted murderers in her family. She feels the need to never concede one point...right down to the name Jibbers - which clearly was neither silly nor something she needed not to feel "scared" of her ex. It was mean and she won't cop to it. She lacks credibility and is tone deaf because she can't fake it. I hope she opts to testify in her own defense. She will have the best people - so that remains to be seen.

Wendi, as Katie's attorney pointed out during one of her trials, has never cared nor wanted to help find the killer. Never felt an ounce of empathy for her ex inlaws who truly did nothing to deserve her ire. Not one week later when she refused any additional interviews with LE nor years later when it became clear her own family was involved. Rob is the only good and decent human being in the bunch. His innocence is unequivocal for a reason. And it is easy to believe.

You may claim all of this only makes Wendi out to be a selfish person but not a murderer...but I think when combined with evidence - such as driving up to the crime scene tape and later repeatedly lying about that (though that testimony likely cannot be used against her), the calls with her mother and brother the morning of, the unnerving interest in her ex boyfriend's travel plans, and on and on - it adds up to just one thing. At some point she has known and could have stopped it. At the very least, she helped cover it up. But I think she knew from the beginning and set Donna in motion purposefully. Isn't it amazing that Wendi ended up set for life with assets she didn't earn, got her parents to raise her sons while she worked and traveled until she no longer needed them, loves the family that murdered her sons' father, but yet has somehow conveniently made sure to never be recorded discussing anything with any of them? In court, we saw the pain testifying caused Rob. Notice how we don't see the pain for Wendi. Wendi just keeps head tilting and parting her lips in an O to play the role she was born to play and win.

Great comment. Anyone who read Ruths book would not imagine it possible-what she went through that weekend.(she doesn’t really speak for Shelly or Phil so I’ll keep the focus on Ruth)

Rushing down to Florida because her son was murdered (and Wendi sat for 6 hours with no real concern getting in touch with them while she spoke to Isom). She mentioned it but didnt seem in any rush to get Isom the contact info).

A memorial a day after his death (Sunday) where the Adelsons collectively ignored them purposefully both at the memorial and the get together back at the house.

Ruth asking to see the boys Monday-(at first she says “the boys are busy”..and tried to avoid it….busy? After their fathers murder? Wendi then agreeing -only for Ruth to call Wendi Monday morning and Wendi saying they are already driving down to Miami.

What human being, or family, not guilty in the murder, would treat a mother, in complete shock that way ? Who 24 hours prior, arrived in the US to her son’s death? And continue to withhold her grandsons from her and Phil for 6 years- Never taking them to Canada to see their father’s grave…Totally Erasing him from the boys lives? Only guilty , heartless , soulless evil people.

Wendi using as an excuse to keep the Markel’s out of the boys lives bc of an email she found out about (JAFCO)-the foster care. (When the 2016 arrests happened.)Ruth deeply regrets this(as she has stated) bc it gave Wendi ammunition she would never have had to treat the Markels as she did and deny them the boys.

Using the name “Adelson “ for the boys on Harveys Bday invite. Their name was not Adelson. They just couldn’t wait…

Theres so much more evidence that we aren't privy to.

 

[Wishbone]

Great comment. Anyone who read Ruths book would not imagine it possible-what she went through that weekend.(she doesn’t really speak for Shelly or Phil so I’ll keep the focus on Ruth)

Rushing down to Florida because her son was murdered (and Wendi sat for 6 hours with no real concern getting in touch with them while she spoke to Isom). She mentioned it but didnt seem in any rush to get Isom the contact info).

A memorial a day after his death (Sunday) where the Adelsons collectively ignored them purposefully both at the memorial and the get together back at the house.

Ruth asking to see the boys Monday-(at first she says “the boys are busy”..and tried to avoid it….busy? After their fathers murder? Wendi then agreeing -only for Ruth to call Wendi Monday morning and Wendi saying they are already driving down to Miami.

What human being, or family, not guilty in the murder, would treat a mother, in complete shock that way ? Who 24 hours prior, arrived in the US to her son’s death? And continue to withhold her grandsons from her and Phil for 6 years! Never taking them to Canada to see their father’s grave…Totally Erasing him from the boys lives? Only guilty , heartless , soulless evil people.
Wendi using as an excuse to keep the Markel’s out of the boys lives bc of an email she found out about (JAFCO)-the foster care. Ruth deeply regrets this(as she has stated) bc it gave Wendi ammunition she woudl never have had to treat the Markels as she did and deny them the boys.

Using the name “Adelson “ for the boys on Harveys Bday invite. Their name was not Adelson.
Theres so much more.

Theres so much more that we arent privy to. And will be soon,

Yes, there is so much more. Filthy family, especially WA.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, there is so much more. Filthy family, especially WA.

Cruel. Heartless. Guilty.
I found a quote from a news article I had found a few yrs back when I was finding everything I could online about the case.
I am of the opinion that the state wasn’t pressured by the family bc of something I read from Ruth: (about 2 years ago)


“Do they know anything? It’s hard to tell. I don’t think they’ve been naturally given any information,” she said, when asked what the kids know about their father’s murder. “We want the children to have as much of a normal life as they can have.”


Imo that means allowing the boys to grow up with their mother.
Now before anyone gets angry at my interpretation of Ruths comment, how would they have otherwise had a “normal life”?

PS on my last one you replied to, the police had to track down Phil Markel through Facebook. Wendi did not have a phone number for either Phil nor Ruth?
Ruth was having dinner (when she was contacted) with her 97 yr old uncle. The one who helped raise her and came to live with her, her mother and brother when Ruths dad died when she was 9.
The uncle immediately knew who killed Dan.
He died I believe a few months later.

 

[Wishbone]

Cruel. Heartless. Guilty.
I found a quote from a news article I had found a few yrs back when I was finding everything I could online about the case.
I am of the opinion that the state wasn’t pressured by the family bc of something I read from Ruth: (about 3 years ago)


“Do they know anything? It’s hard to tell. I don’t think they’ve been naturally given any information,” she said, when asked what the kids know about their father’s murder. “We want the children to have as much of a normal life as they can have.”


Imo that means allowing the boys to grow up with their mother.
Now before anyone gets angry at my interpretation of Ruths comment, how would they have otherwise had a “normal life”?

PS on my last one you replied to, the police had to track down Phil Markel through Facebook. Wendi did not have a phone number for either Phil nor Ruth?
Ruth was having dinner (when she was contacted) with her 97 yr old uncle. The one who helped raise her and came to live with her, her mother and brother when Ruths dad died when she was 9.
The uncle immediately knew who killed Dan.
He died I believe a few months later.

The things WA and her family have done and continue to do are so hateful. The murderess shouldn't be allowed to raise those children and turn them into vile adelsons.......

 

[StewieGee01]

Wendi Adelson: Looking Beyond the Headlines on Legal Issues

I’m in the UK working in criminology, but I’ve been following this case since 2019. Honestly, I’m with the folks on here who think Wendi looks more worried about covering herself than proving she’s innocent. The way she handled that police interview, pulling away from the Markels but sticking close to Donna and Charlie, plus how she talks about Dan’s murder like it’s mainly a burden on her… it just doesn’t sit right. That said, having a nasty attitude or badmouthing Dan in podcasts and casual comments doesn’t equal murder. That gets mixed up a lot online.

And speaking of online, the clickbait is out of control. YT channels, Court TV, you name it, everyone’s shouting “arrest her now.” But when you strip it back, what can the State Attorney actually charge her with? As far as I can tell, there’s no smoking gun in the public record linking her directly to what Donna and Charlie did. Plus, her testimony is covered by immunity, so it cannot just be flipped around and used against her.

For example, the ABC liquor store stop near the crime scene is weird. No doubt about that. But unless her GPS or cameras put her in the wrong place at the wrong time, it is just eyebrow raising, not proof. If her story does not line up with the data, then maybe you are looking at accessory or concealment, but nothing bigger.

IMHO, at this point, with Donna and Charlie already convicted, first degree murder feels like a long shot for Wendi. Unless of course the sealed evidence, like those WhatsApp messages the State Attorney has hinted about, shows she was actively encouraging or planning. That could change the whole picture.

The more realistic charges, at least as things stand:

• Perjury (lying under oath)
• Obstruction / false statements (misleading investigators)

Other stuff is possible but less likely without fresh evidence, like:

• Solicitation (basically encouraging someone else without joining the full conspiracy)
• Accessory after the fact (helping to cover it up)

Sentencing in Florida is really up to the judge. No record or cooperation could lighten things, but if they find she knew more than she let on, it could swing the other way.

From a UK perspective, under joint enterprise or aiding and abetting, you would need actual evidence she encouraged or helped with the crime. Just being unpleasant or distancing herself is not enough. Misprision of felony is probably the closest equivalent to obstruction or perjury. It is about not reporting or hiding a serious crime rather than doing the deed yourself.

So I think perjury or obstruction is the path of least resistance. Murder charges seem pretty unlikely right now. Unless those sealed WhatsApp messages really blow things open, she is more of a secondary player in all this. Just my two cents.

 

[Knitpicker]

The things WA and her family have done and continue to do are so hateful. The murderess shouldn't be allowed to raise those children and turn them into vile adelsons.......

I agree but at this age they are teens and probably could handle it a lot better than when they were 4 and 5. (Or 6 and 7-the age they were with the first arrests)
And until Wendi was tried and convicted, she had and still has total control over where the boys would go and they were never going to go to the Markels as long as Wendi could make that decision. So imo, (and once again don’t attack me for this- not you but whoever is reading this!), I really do believe that it was probably better that the entire family was not put away in 2016. The boys were shielded from the truth up until Charlie was arrested and convicted.

Should they live with a murderer of their father (alleged)? No, but I do believe Ruth was looking into the protection of the boys in spite of what their mother did.
It takes a REALLY strong woman to think of the boys first.
Of course I am drawing conclusions and not speaking for her.

 

[Zedzded]

I really do believe that it was probably better that the entire family was not put away in 2016.

So what you're saying is allow people who commited first degree murder to remain free and remain a threat to the public. Imprisoning someone is about punishment but also protecting the public. Imagine if the State delayed arresting CA and he committed another murder for hire! Note he mentioned to KM killing the bump man.

 

[opt]

Charlie is a windbag. He wouldn't have killed the bump man. He wouldn't even *call* him!

 

[Knitpicker]

So what you're saying is allow people who commited first degree murder to remain free and remain a threat to the public. Imprisoning someone is about punishment but also protecting the public. Imagine if the State delayed arresting CA and he committed another murder for hire! Note he mentioned to KM killing the bump man.

“So what you are saying”. I don’t think I said that.

Did you see how many times I said to not come against me bc I knew I would be attacked.
Did you read Ruths quote?

I knew what was coming. Perhaps because you are not a mother?
Of course they all deserved to be arrested. I think by now you know my position.

Charlies arrest was when the oldest boy was 13.
How would the boys have had a “normal life” if the whole family was arrested when they were 5 and 7?

Did you read Ruths book?

 

[Weki]

Many of us have known or been ourselves in the middle of a nasty breakup or divorce and complained bitterly to those closest to us. I’m not sure why Wendi doing such a thing would be extraordinary such that it instigated Donna and Charlie to got out and hire hitmen. People love to build Wendi up into some “mastermind” working behind the scenes to manipulate everyone. Jeff Lacasse interview completely dispels such projections.

Going through a contentious divorce and complaining about your ex endlessly is the most normal thing about Wendi.

What is not normal is for Donna to encourage Wendi obsessively in escalating tensions and then to involve Charlie to murder Dan.

That is what the evidence shows. Wendi knew but Donna is the puppeteer behind the scenes.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

“So what you are saying”. I don’t think I said that.

Did you see how many times I said to not come against me bc I knew I would be attacked.
Did you read Ruths quote?

I knew what was coming. Perhaps because you are not a mother?
Of course they all deserved to be arrested. I think by now you know my position.

Charlies arrest was when the oldest boy was 13.
How would the boys have had a “normal life” if the whole family was arrested when they were 5 and 7?

Did you read Ruths book?

I'm not attacking you, not sure of what your point is though and haven't read Ruth's book. A few people have said it would be best for the boys to stay with their Mum and for her to be arrested when they reach 18 so they can grow up with a Mum.

This is all based on having a mother who is not a complete psychopath. I think people could make a pretty good argument that the boys would have been far better off living without WA. It seems to escape people's memories that she killed their father.

Rob managed to flee the family home at 18 and ended up pretty stable. WA and CA were/are still under the control of equally dysfunctional parents as adults and look how they turned out. The less interaction the boys have with the Adelsons (including their mother) the better.


Note I'm not a mother, but I'm a father.