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

[StarryStarryNight]

For me, the fact that the Adelsons changed those boys’ last names so quickly after the murder, says pretty much all I need to know about the kind of people the Adelsons are.
So cold. Arctic cold hearts. Who in the world would do that? Who in the world would even think of doing that.

 

[Zedzded]

This all hinges on Luis overhearing what Kaite said on the far end of a phone call that he wasn’t on… Did Rivera have this correct? He got MANY things wrong. Maybe Katie said “I know you’d come through”.. who knows? Facts are that Wendi’s timeline makes it impossible to have been at the roadblock to have been the one to report this back to S. FL. Unless you believe in the two trip theory. That theory exists because people want to believe so hard that Wendi reported info back to S. FL.

No it doesn't.

It hinges on KM confirming what LR said AND phone data. If WA phoned CA at 12.15ish, CA phoned Km shortly after then that will be sufficient enough for the State to produce a theory (beyond a reasonable doubt remember. No smoking gun needed) that WA drove to the crime scene then contacted CA.

But why do you think KM has never been asked about this? Why do you think WA has never been asked about this? Why do you think CA has never been asked about this?

 

[Zedzded]

For me, the fact that the Adelsons changed those boys’ last names so quickly after the murder, says pretty much all I need to know about the kind of people the Adelsons are.
So cold. Arctic cold hearts. Who in the world would do that? Who in the world would even think of doing that.

They were calling them Adelson before the murder! 2 weeks before.

 

[Going Rogue]

No it doesn't.

It hinges on KM confirming what LR said AND phone data. If WA phoned CA at 12.15ish, CA phoned Km shortly after then that will be sufficient enough for the State to produce a theory (beyond a reasonable doubt remember. No smoking gun needed) that WA drove to the crime scene then contacted CA.

But why do you think KM has never been asked about this? Why do you think WA has never been asked about this? Why do you think CA has never been asked about this?

You do realize that there is no phone data to support your theory? Of course, if the state has evidence that Wendi messaged Charlie at 12.15ish and Charlie in turn messaged Katie shortly – it's different story. The issue with your theory is you are basing it on evidence that doesn’t exist – there is no call data to support the theory.

 

[opt]

They were calling them Adelson before the murder! 2 weeks before.

And 2 weeks after the initial failed attempt. Not counting the supposed time they hired hit men who took the money and ran.

 

[Fromeaster]

I wonder what Wendi's alibi was when they first tried unsuccessfully to kill Dan. What was she doing and who was she communicating with? There must have been some kind of preparation as well.

 

[Zedzded]

The issue with your theory is you are basing it on evidence that doesn’t exist – there is no call data to support the theory.

It may exist. But yes my theory is based on no evidence that we know about. There is cell phone data that shows WA left her house at 12.30, was on Centreville 12.35 and was at ABC liquor at 12.47. But that does not show anything about a potential first trip.

 

[Knitpicker]

This is hugely important.

All the conspirators were in Miami except SG, LR and WA. When SG spoke to KM, she said "she knew" Dan had been shot. She was in Miami. LR heard her say this, KM may confirm she said this. How did she know? There's only one person (other than the hitmen) who could have told her.

You don't see the significance in this? They weren't discussing a football game, this was a murder.

Katie denied saying it. “I know”. I think one of the 2 proffers. I remember when I heard that,

 

[Knitpicker]

No it doesn't.

It hinges on KM confirming what LR said AND phone data. If WA phoned CA at 12.15ish, CA phoned Km shortly after then that will be sufficient enough for the State to produce a theory (beyond a reasonable doubt remember. No smoking gun needed) that WA drove to the crime scene then contacted CA.

But why do you think KM has never been asked about this? Why do you think WA has never been asked about this? Why do you think CA has never been asked about this?

SG had his phone off from 11-12:30, until he decided to call KM at 12:30.

It makes sense WA would drive by at 12 to see if it happened. It was an hour after the hit, and they all were probably going crazy not hearing from the guys. I wonder what the original plan was. Such as KM saying not to call for awhile—and it if was in the plans for WA to drive by after she called DM (she waited 1.5 hrs after he last called her to call him back)\
.
WA never thought she would be seen by anyone at the scene.
Why would she have made it part of her plan to go to ABC unless she was seen on Trescott?
After being seen she had to have some excuse for being down there.

Just coincidental that the party was that day and she can have an excuse to go there after the fact.

It was really annoying hearing KM deny she said “I know”.
Not sure why GC didn’t bring it up again at DA’s trial.

I think Mentour lawyer had one of the proffers on really late at night. It was torture. I watched both and tried to watch them again recently and just couldnt do it. Maybe someone else remembers her denying she said that and which one it was.

 

[apeXperience]

KM said something very important. When she phoned SG at 12.30pm and he told her Dan had been shot, she said "I know." Why has she never been asked about this very critical statement.

Instead of "criticaL, it could be a rather "banal" statement.

"I know" is a weird spoken usage in the Southern US that is used and abused in varied meanings.

When someone says "I know", they rarely meant to say "I have prior knowledge of it".

Rather, "I know" is meant to say 1) I regard it as true beyond doubt or 2) I have no doubt what you said is true.
"I know" could also mean to say 1) I believe you are accurate or 2) I trust you are not misleading or 3) I perceive (acknowledge) in my mind the important thing that you just said.

When Magbanua told Garcia "I know", it is likely she meant to say "I trusted that you would achieve the objective ..."

Another weird spoken usage in the Southern US is "you know."

When someone sprinkles their explanation with "you know" in the affirmative tone, they mean to say "I trust you understand".
When "you know" is said in the interrogative tone (you know?), it means "do you comprehend?"

Both such usage of "I know" and "you know" are mostly utilized by 1) ethnic minority althought they could be graduate educated or 2) lesser educated person.

 

[Going Rogue]

Katie denied saying it. “I know”. I think one of the 2 proffers. I remember when I heard that,

I don’t recall Katie denying that she said, “I know.” I was actually anticipating that question being asked during one of her proffers, and I’m almost certain it wasn’t. I think the reason it wasn’t asked is that Katie was clearly not cooperating during those proffers and was lying about her involvement. As a result, the investigators (I believe it was Sara Dugan, Sanford, and another guy) never found their rhythm and were completely thrown off their game and not asking that question is a major missed opportunity. Objectively speaking, those proffers were very poorly executed by the team. That was my immediate critique after the proffers were made public. If you recall, the process seemed highly disorganized; the investigators were talking over each other, asking rapid-fire questions, and had an aggressive tone. As a result, Katie seemed overwhelmed and became very defensive and shut down. The proffers had the exact opposite effect of what everyone expected. Remember how everyone thought Katie’s proffers, before they were made public, would be the end of Wendi? Everyone assumed Katie would implicate Wendi, but she did nothing of the sort. To this day, Katie is still lying about the details in an effort to minimize her involvement – that seems very clear.

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t recall Katie denying that she said, “I know.” I was actually anticipating that question being asked during one of her proffers, and I’m almost certain it wasn’t. I think the reason it wasn’t asked is that Katie was clearly not cooperating during those proffers and was lying about her involvement. As a result, the investigators (I believe it was Sara Dugan, Sanford, and another guy) never found their rhythm and were completely thrown off their game and not asking that question is a major missed opportunity. Objectively speaking, those proffers were very poorly executed by the team. That was my immediate critique after the proffers were made public. If you recall, the process seemed highly disorganized; the investigators were talking over each other, asking rapid-fire questions, and had an aggressive tone. As a result, Katie seemed overwhelmed and became very defensive and shut down. The proffers had the exact opposite effect of what everyone expected. Remember how everyone thought Katie’s proffers, before they were made public, would be the end of Wendi? Everyone assumed Katie would implicate Wendi, but she did nothing of the sort. To this day, Katie is still lying about the details in an effort to minimize her involvement – that seems very clear.

Right but I do remember her denying it. I’ll find it.

 

[Zedzded]

When Magbanua told Garcia "I know", it is likely she meant to say "I trusted that you would achieve the objective ..."

Gotcha.

That's a shame. I might be barking up the wrong tree then with two trips and WA texting CA that Dan had been shot. I still don't understand what WA was doing from 11.44am to 12.30pm. She called Dan at 11.44am, no answer, that must have neem her first sign that he had been shot. From what we know of her (obviously speculation), but I don't think she would have had the discipline or control to wait 45 minutes to go and see if he had been shot. If she did have that discipline, she would not have driven up Trescott at all.

 

[Knitpicker]

Gotcha.

That's a shame. I might be barking up the wrong tree then with two trips and WA texting CA that Dan had been shot. I still don't understand what WA was doing from 11.44am to 12.30pm. She called Dan at 11.44am, no answer, that must have neem her first sign that he had been shot. From what we know of her (obviously speculation), but I don't think she would have had the discipline or control to wait 45 minutes to go and see if he had been shot. If she did have that discipline, she would not have driven up Trescott at all.

I’m still looking for where Katie said she didn’t say “I know”. Its not at Charlies trial and I am going to review the proffers.
From 11:43 when she decided to call Jeannine and make lunch plans (a minute after calling Dan), her phone is inactive until 12:31 when she left the house and called Jeff S. (She did not want her phone location to reflect that she was driving by dans.
That would reinforce the idea that she may have left her phone at home when she went to Trescott to drive by the crime scene.
Seems the next time she used her phone would have been heading out the second time to ABC at 12:31-32 (Hypothetically). Where she wanted to document where she was.

The unfortunate thing is that if she left her phone home there would be no pings of her location at that time, other than at her house, so there would be no way to prove she left the house.
Why it is unfortunate that Brannon did not document the time he saw her car. That would have been important in proving the 2 trip theory. If on a report he documents “Red van seen at 11:57” etc, she would be nailed. I do think early on the sighting was said as closer to 12. By Isom and Brannon.

 

[Knitpicker]

OK I found it.
Deep Dive True Crime Katherine Magbanua First Proffer-the Murder of Dan Markel Case -Fl Vs Charlie Adelson.

Before going further, I have to say that although I do not know Jason Newlin, Pat Sanford and Sherrie Bennett personally, professionally, the way they handled these proffers imo they were like rookies.
They constantly interrupted Her, and when she took the bait, rather than letting her go and incriminate herself, they either went on to another topic or coddled her. Many of us , having followed true crime, witnessed Someone like Agent Coder and Tammy Lee with Chris Watts, and see the difference. I just deleted more of what I wanted to say as a spectator of these proffers,(I know people don’t like criticism of any of the agents , LE involved) so I’ll just end at this, but as you can see, Jason N REALLY missed an opportunity here. Thankfully it was her first proffer and I didn’t have to listen to the other one!

@51:40 mark

Jason N- Let’s go to the part about after it’s done and theres a call between you and Garcia-it’s the first phone call-you’ve seen it a thousand times. First phone call. After it’s completed, an hour and a half away from Tallahassee and Rivera says he hears you and Garcia talking. Where were you when that conversation takes place ?

KM- When I was talking to Garcia on the phone?

Jason N- After Dan had already been shot (Notice he only seems to care about her location, not what she said)

KM-…(she pauses),,Well, when he’s saying ..like..”I know” or like I said “I know”- I never said “I know” or…(So even now that SHE is mentioning it, Jason N doesn’t even seem to care —it’s Katie who is bringing it up that she didn’t say it!!)

Jason N -He interrupts her mid sentence (totally ignoring the “I know” comment and that she didn’t say it-the comment SHE brought up)
We’re getting there..I’m getting there…(Yet he drops the subject—why???—why does he not want to go THERE?)
So where were you? Yeah, do you remember where you were when you got that call?

KM No

So KM brought up the “I know”. Jason N didn’t even seem to care and only brought up that call for the location she was.
Very interesting that when he brought up that call, Katie on her own knew about the “I know” and suggested she never said that. Yet it went right over Jason N’s head.

So Jason N cared about her location. Katie cared about the “I know” comment. Missed opportunity,

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t recall Katie denying that she said, “I know.” I was actually anticipating that question being asked during one of her proffers, and I’m almost certain it wasn’t. I think the reason it wasn’t asked is that Katie was clearly not cooperating during those proffers and was lying about her involvement. As a result, the investigators (I believe it was Sara Dugan, Sanford, and another guy) never found their rhythm and were completely thrown off their game and not asking that question is a major missed opportunity. Objectively speaking, those proffers were very poorly executed by the team. That was my immediate critique after the proffers were made public. If you recall, the process seemed highly disorganized; the investigators were talking over each other, asking rapid-fire questions, and had an aggressive tone. As a result, Katie seemed overwhelmed and became very defensive and shut down. The proffers had the exact opposite effect of what everyone expected. Remember how everyone thought Katie’s proffers, before they were made public, would be the end of Wendi? Everyone assumed Katie would implicate Wendi, but she did nothing of the sort. To this day, Katie is still lying about the details in an effort to minimize her involvement – that seems very clear.

I just posted it.
Deep Dive True Crime 1st KM Proffer
Timestamp 51:40

 

[Going Rogue]

I just posted it.
Deep Dive True Crime 1st KM Proffer
Timestamp 51:40

Wow, great find! I previously watched that entire interview and I don’t recall that exchange – I must have been tuned out by then because it was so hard to listen to. I agree, that proffer was very poorly conduced.

Here is my interpretation. She clearly knew about Rivera’s ‘I know’ claim on that specific call. She brought it up without being prompted. All she was asked is where she was when Sigfredo first called her after Dan was shot. My guess is at some point, prior to that proffer (perhaps in preliminary discussion that was not recorded), Katie must have been asked the question ‘who first told you Dan was shot’ AND they must have specifically referenced the ‘I know’ claim Rivera made. When she was asked where she was her response was ~ “you mean when I said I know BUT I never said I know”. This suggests they (Katie & investigators) previously discussed this.

The claim by Rivera that Katie said ‘I know’ is so important to implicating Wendi that its unfathomable to me that they wouldn’t have asked Katie about this. It’s in the top 3 of MOST important questions to ask. Not asking that question would have been gross incompetence and although I thought they did a horrible job in the proffer, I have to give them more credit and I assume, at some point, they addressed this KEY question and as I said, it must have been asked in a preliminary discussion. I also can understand why they weren’t too concerned about getting her denial she said 'I know' as part of the record on the recorded proffer. Had she said that she was first told from Charlie that it was done, you bet your sweet a$$ hey would have made sure it was on that recording.

 

[Knitpicker]

Wow, great find! I previously watched that entire interview and I don’t recall that exchange – I must have been tuned out by then because it was so hard to listen to. I agree, that proffer was very poorly conduced.

Here is my interpretation. She clearly knew about Rivera’s ‘I know’ claim on that specific call. She brought it up without being prompted. All she was asked is where she was when Sigfredo first called her after Dan was shot. My guess is at some point, prior to that proffer (perhaps in preliminary discussion that was not recorded), Katie must have been asked the question ‘who first told you Dan was shot’ AND they must have specifically referenced the ‘I know’ claim Rivera made. When she was asked where she was her response was ~ “you mean when I said I know BUT I never said I know”. This suggests they (Katie & investigators) previously discussed this.

The claim by Rivera that Katie said ‘I know’ is so important to implicating Wendi that its unfathomable to me that they wouldn’t have asked Katie about this. It’s in the top 3 of MOST important questions to ask. Not asking that question would have been gross incompetence and although I thought they did a horrible job in the proffer, I have to give them more credit and I assume, at some point, they addressed this KEY question and as I said, it must have been asked in a preliminary discussion. I also can understand why they weren’t too concerned about getting her denial she said 'I know' as part of the record on the recorded proffer. Had she said that she was first told from Charlie that it was done, you bet your sweet a$$ hey would have made sure it was on that recording.

Yes I agree it would appear that it must have been discussed prior.
So when would it have been discussed prior to this?.
Isn’t every exchange with her recorded?

So if she denied saying “I know”, then we have to assume that Luis was lying and I would think Katie has proved she is a liar more than Luis (I know thats not saying much)
I don’t believe Luis would say that if it weren’t so. What would that matter to him that she said it?
The issue is why Katie would deny saying it.

And that points directly to the 2 trip “theory”.
Katie would be covering for Wendi bc only Wendi could have relayed that info to Charlie being the one in Tallahassee passing the crime scene.They SHOULD have been concerned about that. Unless they are holding that 2 trip information until Wendi’s trial. The way they were schmoozing with her (I think 3 people is just too much especially 3 people that talk so much), they seemed to care about her location more than anything else.


Jason N also says he will get to that later (the “I know”) but never does. So he purposely didn’t want to address that.

EDIT: why would they care WHERE she was when she got the call? They knew she was in Miami. I don’t see why that matters as much as the “I know” —-who let her know. The only one who could have let her know is Charlie through Wendi.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yes I agree it would appear that it must have been discussed prior.
So when would it have been discussed prior to this?.
Isn’t every exchange with her recorded?

So if she denied saying “I know”, then we have to assume that Luis was lying and I would think Katie has proved she is a liar more than Luis (I know thats not saying much)
I don’t believe Luis would say that if it weren’t so. What would that matter to him that she said it?
The issue is why Katie would deny saying it.

And that points directly to the 2 trip “theory”.
Katie would be covering for Wendi bc only Wendi could have relayed that info to Charlie being the one in Tallahassee passing the crime scene.They SHOULD have been concerned about that. Unless they are holding that 2 trip information until Wendi’s trial. The way they were schmoozing with her (I think 3 people is just too much especially 3 people that talk so much), they seemed to care about her location more than anything else.


Jason N also says he will get to that later (the “I know”) but never does. So he purposely didn’t want to address that.

EDIT: why would they care WHERE she was when she got the call? They knew she was in Miami. I don’t see why that matters as much as the “I know” —-who let her know. The only one who could have let her know is Charlie through Wendi.

It’s not uncommon to hold a “pre-proffer interview” before a formal recorded proffer—and I think that’s very likely what occurred here. The way she answered that specific question is a good clue that’s what happened. We can’t really conclude anyone was lying just because the data doesn’t align. Putting it in perspective, Rivera and Katie are testifying based on their memory of things that happened years prior. Luis may have heard ‘I know’, but that could have simply been Katie saying something like ‘I know you’d get it done’ – or similar… there are so many possibilities. Facts are Luis said he heard it and Katie seems to be denying it. Wendi’s cell phone data has always made it impossible for her to have reported this to S. FL in time for Sigfredo’s phone call – unless there was a second trip. I’d be willing to bet anything the prosecution has turned over EVERY stone investigating the ‘I know’ allegation, and must have asked Katie in the pre-proffer conversation and have also verified Wendi’s PC ‘event viewer’ logs. Just based on the data, I don’t believe Katie was alerted it was done prior to Sigfredo’s call.

 

[Zedzded]

Yes I agree it would appear that it must have been discussed prior.
So when would it have been discussed prior to this?.
Isn’t every exchange with her recorded?

So if she denied saying “I know”, then we have to assume that Luis was lying and I would think Katie has proved she is a liar more than Luis (I know thats not saying much)
I don’t believe Luis would say that if it weren’t so. What would that matter to him that she said it?
The issue is why Katie would deny saying it.

And that points directly to the 2 trip “theory”.
Katie would be covering for Wendi bc only Wendi could have relayed that info to Charlie being the one in Tallahassee passing the crime scene.They SHOULD have been concerned about that. Unless they are holding that 2 trip information until Wendi’s trial. The way they were schmoozing with her (I think 3 people is just too much especially 3 people that talk so much), they seemed to care about her location more than anything else.


Jason N also says he will get to that later (the “I know”) but never does. So he purposely didn’t want to address that.

EDIT: why would they care WHERE she was when she got the call? They knew she was in Miami. I don’t see why that matters as much as the “I know” —-who let her know. The only one who could have let her know is Charlie through Wendi.

LR's word, alone, is insufficient. So unless both he and Km can confirm that's what she said I don't think it means much. Unless of course there is phone data to show the train car call history.

Was WA's phone off for a period of time?