Charlie Adelson Prosecutor Delivers Intense Closing Argument in Hitman Conspiracy Murder Trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Is the state prepared to give its closing? Yes, Your Honor. You may proceed. May it please support. In jury selection, we talked about the burden of proof and how it was my burden to prove this case to you beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence. And generally speaking, the defense's job is to poke holes in the evidence and argue that it falls short of meeting that high burden. And we also learned at jury selection that the defense does not have to prove anything. But sometimes if the law enforcement investigation is so thorough and so compelling that there's really no way to poke holes in the evidence, he has to basically admit his own words, his own text messages. That stuff is undeniable, right? And those things prove that he was in cahoots with Catherine McBanawatt in 2013 through the murder in 2014 and all the way up until her arrest in October of 2016. He knows he can't deny that he paid the killers because of this bizarre practice he had of stapling his money. So sometimes when a defendant can't attack the facts or the law, they instead try to explain it away by saying, you can't trust what you're seeing. It's not what it appears to be. It's actually something else entirely. Often as in this case, the individual explanation, so when you zoom in on one piece of evidence with its attached explanation, can be like, hmm, maybe. But when you zoom out and you add all these things together, this explanation and this explanation and this explanation, this coincidence and this coincidence and this coincidence, it starts making less and less sense. It starts being less and less reasonable. And when you zoom out from the defense's theory, it's really unreasonable, right? Because to find it reasonable, you have to buy a lot of things that he's selling. The most obvious of which is that because Sigfredo Garcia hated him, he and Rivera traveled to Tallahassee twice to kill someone he hated in hopes that he would give them money for it on the back end. Please think about that. To hit this defendant where it hurts, these two dudes with no connection at all to Dan Markell and without two nickels to rub together, rented a car and paid for gas to come to Tallahassee and stay in a hotel twice in order to kill someone that this defendant hated. To harm him. And for what? To maybe get money? Maybe he just turns him in for murder. Why not just kill and rob him if what you're after is money and there's no hired hit? Why not just kill and rob him if your motive is we hate him? Then the bad guys don't even have any contact with him, according to his own story. They didn't threaten him. They did not beat him into submission. Instead, they sent his own girlfriend to extort him on their behalf. And without any actual contact from the bad guys, the defendant just opened up his safe and handed over his beloved money that he had saved his entire life since he was a child. He just handed it over. Take it all. And when that amount wasn't sufficient, these stone-cold, murdering gangsters let the defendant go on a payment plan to give him the rest of the money. They let Catherine McVanila skim off the top each month. And never, over the next two years that he was being extorted monthly, these gangsters, and remember that money doesn't go to the principal, about $3,000 a month. They never show up to demand the remaining $195,000 that this defendant has agreed to pay them. Then, you also need to find reasonable that over the two years of this supposed extortion layaway plan, that the defendant continued to do what? Send these kissy faces and love texts to Catherine McVanila. He's sending these messages to a woman who got him into this mess, and he says he didn't suspect she was involved. What? What do we know about this man? He didn't suspect she was involved. She's taking the money. He's never even heard from the bad guys. He didn't see it that way, that she got him into this mess. They grew closer after she began extorting him for $3,000 a month. Meanwhile, the defendant and Catherine McVanila break up. She continues to maintain her direct and indirect contact with Siegfriedo Garcia, the man who's extorting him, the man who murdered his former brother-in-law in cold blood. But he sees her as a friend. The kissy faces and the I love yous continue. Even after Catherine McVanila got back together with the man who executed Dan Markell, the father of his young nephews and who, a guy who's actively extorting him. This defendant continued to reach out to her over and over again to offer her favors and gifts, including a birthday gift for Garcia. And to tell her he loves her and how lucky he is to have her in his life. Lucky? Next, to find a reasonable doubt here, you have to find it reasonable that the defendant never texted or talked about this first layer of extortion. Why? According to him, because Catherine McVanila said, let's never talk about this. So they did. Then you have to believe you never reported or revealed this information to law enforcement out of fear of the gangsters. And finally, you have to believe that this living in fear of death by gang members over two years didn't cause a change in his general demeanor that his friends noticed. But later, the bump from law enforcement did. He says that's because, well, I became worried that I might be falsely arrested. So I wasn't a hot mess when I was being extorted by gang members and threatened to be killed and my whole family killed. But I became a hot mess when I started to get worried that the cops might be getting closer. And I have no real way of knowing if all this stuff sounds ridiculous to you, if it sounds reasonable to you, or if y'all just heard so much stuff that you're totally confused and can't even remember what the evidence in the case showed. But they only need to get one of you confused enough to derail this whole thing, right? So I've got to go through each thing with you. Your verdict has to be unanimous. So I want to go through the testimony. I want to review the evidence. And I want to spend a little bit more time talking about this multitude of explanations the defense has offered in an effort to really turn each piece of evidence on its head. This is Dan Markell. He is the victim in this case. A brilliant lawyer, a funny guy, a son, a colleague, a brother, a mentor, and a friend. But most of all, a father. A dedicated and loving father whose downfall was brought about by the fact that his number one priority was maximizing his access to those two little boys in the wake of a bitter divorce from their mother. And despite the defense's efforts to characterize their client as the real victim here, Dan Markell remains the only victim in this case. The only thing he was guilty of is fighting like hell for those kids. And he lost. He didn't lose in court, but he lost. This is what he looked like before this defendant hired a hitman to kill him. And this is what he looked like afterwards. The evidence has shown that on July 18, 2014, this brilliant man was gunned down in broad daylight in the driveway of his own home. His horrific death ultimately set police down two separate paths following the two most promising leads they had. The first was to chase down that Prius that Mr. Geiger saw fleeing the crime scene. And we'll examine those efforts in detail. The second path was to ask, as we would in any murder investigation, who might want to have done this? Who would want Dan Markell dead? And within one hour of the shooting, before Professor Markell was even pronounced dead, this path was already pointing to the defendant. When his sister revealed to law enforcement that her family hated Dan Markell and that her brother, Charlie, had joked about hiring a hitman to kill him. And this trash talk, of course, would be meaningless had he not been killed by a hitman. So who did it appear had a motive to want Dan Markell dead? His own family. And what offense have Mr. Markell committed against these people? Refusing to let his children be taken away from him? Objecting to them disparaging him to his kids? The evidence has shown that the Adelson family was all about psychological warfare. And when all else failed, they were willing to go even further, to win. I want to examine this motive in more detail and look at exactly how it's attributable to this defendant. Despite the defense efforts to minimize this, it's really clear that the divorce between Wendy and Danny was a particularly nasty one. They fought over everything, all the way from the children down to the bicycle and the tennis racket. In January of 2013, Wendy Adelson filed a motion to allow her to relocate to South Florida with the kids. There were two and three at that time. As one basis for this request, Wendy cites, the wife's parents reside in Coral Springs and the wife's brother resides 20 minutes away. The children are very close to the wife's parents. Wendy Adelson also alleges in this filing that the husband has also created a hostile work environment for the wife at FSU School of Law. Wendy Adelson viewed herself as stuck in Tallahassee, a characterization which she now denies, but one which was used to describe her situation by Jeffrey LaCasse on the witness stand and also in her own pleadings in these divorce filings. In Markel's answer on page 80, he seeks continued equal timesharing in Tallahassee. He seeks sole parental responsibility on issues related to the education, religion, and medical upbringing of the kids. Then we go to this May email from Donna Adelson to Wendy. These emails are offered as examples of how invested Donna Adelson was in this litigation and in Wendy's life in general. They reveal that relocation was a huge priority for Donna and that it was also a high priority for Wendy, Harvey, and the defendant as well. Wendy testified that her mom really wasn't that involved in her divorce proceedings. Again, these emails proved the opposite was true. On May 3rd, 2013, this email references Dan's divorce filing as, quote, his 23-page rant. She then crystallizes the importance of relocation, stating, The most important part of your divorce is relocation, in bold. I sincerely hope that your attorney understands this is your, all caps, non-negotiable. She needs to hear from you how serious you are about this and how it will benefit the children with a close-knit family support system as well as your significantly better-paying job. But on June 21st, 2013, Wendy's motion to relocate was denied by the court with the court finding that the wife has not met her burden of proof that a relocation is in the best interest of the minor children. Like the heroine in her book, Wendy and the boys were officially stuck in the small stop on the way to what we had previously known as civilization. Wendy worked hard to try to convince you that none of this was a very big deal to her, her mother, or her brother. And she said she was expecting to win everything in the divorce. She was expecting Danny to lose everything in the divorce. She was partly right. Danny did end up losing everything, but not in court. She had already lost relocation. And her attorney had to get off the case as a result of whatever Danny was filing in court. And he was poised to really take her through the ringer with this grandma motion, the fraud allegation, and the contempt motion that was all pending. Even if he wasn't going to be successful, folks, it was going to be a very unpleasant ride for Wendy Adelson. But as we have learned, gibbers hadn't beaten the Adelson family yet. On the stand, Wendy Adelson suggested that relocation was not a big issue for her. It was just suggested by a friend. But the other evidence in the case suggests the opposite. Jeffrey Lacoste said she was a complete mess over the litigation, especially the relocation. She wrote a book about a human rights attorney who was stuck in a small town in the Florida Panhandle because of her hapless Canadian professor husband's job at NFSU. And maybe most importantly, Wendy filed this motion for relocation. Her lawyer didn't file it without her knowing. Was the motion doomed from the start? Wendy clearly hoped not. But there were other ways to skin the cat. Here's a June email from Donna to Wendy. In response to the court order denying relocation, Donna emails Wendy, quote, It's time for action. It's time to take control of your life and not let gibbers think he's won anything by having you remain in Tallahassee, eight hours away from the only family you have. Let's show this F, blank, blank, blank, blank, blank, what will make him absolutely miserable. And later, the rest of your life, and consequently, dad's, mine, and yes, even Charlie's, will be affected by how well you can perform slash act before July 31st. Then on June 25th, this is continued, that same email, we get a plan of action. Take a photo of the boys dressed nicely standing at the front door by the sign of a Tallahassee church. They're Jewish, remember? Then change your Facebook status to this one so everyone will see this. Perhaps a line under the photo with new beginnings in Tallahassee might be nice. Hmm? How happy do you think he will be? Make arrangements to get the boys caught up with a private tutor at the teenage Catholic church who will come to the house to teach the young men about Jesus. If you don't have time to arrange this, I'll be happy to do it for you. Let Jibbers know that your children will be baptized in the Catholic church, and you'll certainly invite him to the event. I've already checked this out, and the baptism can be arranged within two weeks. We can send out invites to Jibbers, his parents, sister, and anyone else you want to invite. Four, I'm looking into summer camp programs for the boys. We will pay for it, even if the boys end up only going for the few days that they're in Tallahassee with you. Five, register them for toddler classes at the church. I've looked into this, too. Even if they don't actually go, we can show Jibbers that they are enrolled for the fall semester. And you cannot tell anyone this is an act. Take control from him. Get to him psychologically. He's going to want you to stop this. You have one final opportunity to make him angry. We want him ticked off so he realizes that he could lose control over his kids. We plan to make a financial offer to him to allow this relocation. You need to work this plan, and we'll help you through it so that it may affect how much we offer him. Maybe he's willing to let you relocate if he knew his children could attend this private Hebrew academy. Or perhaps he'd like them to invite him to a Christmas party at their other Sunday school. Let's get this going now. I know you would never want to think that you didn't do absolutely everything you could to come down to your family. Dad and I have changed our lives this year to support you and assist you and the boys in every possible way. Charlie has accepted the loss in office business income for us to do this because he loves you and wants only the best possible future for you. It's time for you to show us that you can put on the performance of your life for the next few weeks. And then, on June 27th, she follows up with another email along the same lines, criticizing the judge and Wendy's attorney and adding, Obviously, the court isn't out to help you. It's clear since Judge Hobbs' last ruling that she could care less about anything you have to say on your behalf. You need to help yourself. You know, Wendy, most of the wars that have been fought for the last couple of thousand years have been fought over religion. These emails are such telling glimpses into the family dynamics behind this murder. This email is just an example of how relentless Donna Adelson was. And it's clear from these emails that she's conferring with the defendant on these plans that she's proposing. Charlie brought up a good point when he said that Americans were dropped behind enemy lines during World War II to wear a Nazi uniforms to get what they wanted. They had a job to get done, and they did what they needed to accomplish it. You have a job to get done in a very short time frame to accomplish it. If you dressed the kids up in Hitler youth uniforms and brought them down here, I'd have to care less if it was an act of defiance that would show gibbers that he's not in control. Why not stand up to this fucker? Why not fight? That's all this is, Wendy. An act. An act of defiance that will put a scare into this jackass. It will infuriate him. You need to see the big picture. You need to look into the future of what a life without your only family nearby teaching in Tallahassee with Danny always in the picture will give you. It's not a pretty picture. Not everything one has to do in life is comfortable or easy. The extremism that gibbers is already teaching the boys is nothing more than brainwashing. Religion is brainwashing. Control of the masses. I don't think you realize the type of offer we're considering. We're planning on you, Charlie, Dad, and I going as high as equal parts in a $1 million offer. That's $333,000 from each of us. We're a team. We can't do this without your help. You've already lost relocation according to the legal system. Well, it is about winning and losing. We're trying to get a win. You deserve it. You deserve so much more than a life without family teaching in Tallahassee. Even though the divorce was final on July 31, 2013, the anger and bitterness associated with this split was still festering. Litigation continued and even increased as both parties filed motions over the next several months alleging that the other was violating the marital settlement agreement and both parties seeking to have the other side held in contempt at court. In October of 2013, Wendy filed a motion to enforce the marital settlement agreement and have Dan held in contempt. Dan was hearing, and the defendant was hearing about all of this as it went on from his mother, as indicated in the emails and in the text messages shown here as well. Here she's telling him how terrible things are for Wendy and how it's negatively affecting his dad's health. Then later that month, when Wendy was about to make the second dumbest mistake of her life after marrying Dan Markell by buying a house in Tallahassee, Charlie says Wendy probably hasn't mentioned it to him because it's stupid. And then after he gets Wendy to pull the plug on the house, he's praised as the miracle worker that solved this problem. This text was sent on Halloween of 2013, the very day that Catherine Magdalena testified, this defendant broached the subject to her of, hey, do you know anybody that could rough somebody up? The defendant was hearing about Wendy's situation regularly from Donna. Here we see Donna telling the defendant how angry at Wendy's attorney and stressed out Wendy is. That's on February 15th of 2014. And here's another text from Donna Adelson to Charlie Adelson, four days later discussing the details of Danny's actions and expressing how much she hates him. Here on March 4th, 2014, we have Donna planning to speak in private with the defendant while she's at the rest stop in Gainesville. She asks him to delete this message after he reads it. Although he's not with Harvey, and Harvey nor his birthday are mentioned in this text message. All that's mentioned in this text message is I'm going to pull over at a rest stop and talk to you in private. This is the grandma motion. On March 26th, 2014, less than four months prior to this murder, less than four months prior to this murder, the defendant files his grandma motion. The counter motion for enforcement of marital settlement agreement on parenting issues and motion for contempt and sanctions. Again, alleging that Wendy is not facilitating communication between he and the kids and getting after Donna personally. In this filing, Dan Markell alleges that on three separate occasions in November of 2013, the children informed him of their maternal grandmother, Donna Adelson, disparaging him. The boys indicate that quote, grandma says you're stupid. She says you are trying to take her sunshines away from her. And quote, grandma says she hates you. Dan Markell requests the court quote, enjoying the former wife from allowing the maternal grandmother to have unsupervised time with the children and to impose appropriate limitations to safeguard the children from being subjected to disparaging comments about their father. Contrary to what Wendy Adelson told us, we learned this issue was taken seriously by both sides and that Dan Markell was particularly hot at the time of his death because of some recent issues that were going on. So to the extent that there was any banana bread peace offering made, it apparently fell short of diffusing the issues within this family. This situation was a pressure cooker and it was about to blow. As we learned, this grandma motion was never decided by the court because Dan Markell was murdered before it could be heard. Whether or not that is a coincidence in timing is up to you all to decide. Wendy told you that she and Dan were getting along pretty well at the weeks leading up to his murder, but this assertion does not fit with the rest of the evidence in this case. In fact, her own court filings are completely contrary to that assertion. In addition, her boyfriend at the time, Jeffrey Lacasse, told you all that she took all of this very seriously, that she became upset every time there was a filing, and that her behavior became increasingly emotional and erratic as the time led closer and closer up to what ultimately was the murder day. According to Lacasse, she was especially concerned about the relocation issue. And Stephen Webster, he was Professor Markell's attorney that testified, told us that Markell was irate at the time of his death over two issues. And the second one being him overhearing Donna Adelson refer to him as stupid on a recent Skype visit that he had with the boys. So this was far from a peaceful situation that Wendy was trying to sell you. Why was she trying to sell you that? Was she trying to protect her brother? She even told law enforcement at her interview on the day of the murder that she wanted everyone held accountable for this to the fullest extent of the law. Unless it was her family. Unless it was her family. The defense seems to be telling you the litigation between Danny and Wendy was not a very big deal. Because minimizing the litigation minimizes the motive for the Adelson family to want Dan Markell dead. They even called Wendy's attorney to tell you that relocation was a lost cause. But what she actually said was, Yes, I lose most of these motions. But in this case, I actually thought there was a chance because of some of the surrounding circumstances. Then I thought, well, maybe they called her to say the divorce was routine. But what she actually said was this case was odd. That was her word. Mainly because Dan Markell came after her personally, forcing her to withdraw from the case, which had never happened before. So what her testimony proved was that this was not a routine, run-of-the-mill divorce proceeding. It was one of her more difficult cases. And she didn't even have Donna in her ear like the defendant did. So the motive was clearly there. The question then becomes, was the defendant successful in distancing himself from that motive in your eyes as jurors? He says that the litigation had no impact on his life. The emails suggest otherwise. He's included on these texts. He's all over the wiretap meddling in Wendy's life with Donna. Could the defendant have cared enough about his sister's marital problems to commit murder? Maybe, maybe not. But if he didn't, his mom certainly cared enough with both of them. And she was in his ear all the time. In defendant's own words, you can't have a miserable mom. To illustrate this point, I refer you back to the emails and to that phone call that I played that happened before the bump, where Donna and the defendant are discussing this boyfriend of Wendy's at that time, Dave. This call, along with the call about Wendy taking a particular job, which is also on that same exhibit. I think it states 1.30. It was offered as examples to show you how the dynamics work in this family. Wendy appears to be the weakling of the pack. She needs to be protected. She needs to be helped. She needs to be coddled. She needs to be saved by Donna and the defendant. Donna is the overbearing matriarch who nags everyone to death about whatever it is that's currently on her. I call it the wheel. The wheel is turning all the time, right? And Wendy getting away from Dan Markell and moving to South Florida was number one on the wheel. It was the top priority in 2013 and in 2014. And this defendant fancied himself the savior of this family. Equal parts black sheep and mama's boy. He would often try to help Wendy at Donna's bidding. When a problem was perceived regarding Wendy's love life, a.k.a. this breaking up with Dave situation, shouldn't break up with Dave, Dave's a great guy, Donna enlist the defendant to go in and fix it to solve the problem. When Wendy didn't know what was best for her regarding a job opportunity, Donna sent the defendant to fix it. And the evidence had shown that Dan Markell was a major problem for Wendy. And that meant he was a major problem for Donna, who in turn made Dan Markell a major problem for this defendant. Enter Catherine Magbanewa, who had connections to a criminal element. And she presented an opportunity to the defendant to do what he does and solve this problem. On Halloween 2013, the defendant began the process of soliciting Catherine Magbanewa to commit murder. Magbanewa solicited Garcia. Garcia brought in Rivera. So if the seed of this conspiracy was planted in the spring of 2013, when Donna was looking into converting the kids to Christianity or making this million-dollar offer to Dan Markell, it took root that summer when the relocation was denied. And the defendant began, quote, looking into all options to solve the problem of Danny Markell, including hiring a hitman. And the conspiracy grew further still when Dan Markell filed that motion to preclude Donna from having unsupervised contact with the grandkids, the grandma motion. And as Wendy Aileson relayed to Jeffrey Lacoste just five days before the murder, she was never going to be able to move to South Florida. Unless something happened to Danny. This conspiracy spread when the defendant met someone who could actually get this thing done. Someone who was in a position of trust in his life. A person who had connections to the kind of people who, for a price, were willing to point a gun at a complete stranger and pull the trigger. And guess what wasn't a problem once Dan Markell was dead? Relocation. Within a couple days, Wendy and the kids moved to South Florida. She changed the names of Professor Markell's children from Markell to Adelson. And just like that, their father was erased. No more squabbles over kosher diets or visitation status as a felon and a gang member are definitely things you should consider when you're weighing his testimony in this case. But please consider that his resume as a bad guy was precisely why he was selected to do this gruesome job. Rivera's gang status made him a more attractive candidate to do this murder with Garcia. In the hot tub in March of 2014, the defendant mentioned his connection to a Cuban criminal element. Jeffrey Lacoste reported this within a couple days of the murder when he couldn't have known the ethnicity of the killer. The evidence has shown that the connection defendant had was through Catherine Agbanawa and the criminal element was, of course, Garcia and Rivera. And we know that at the time defendant made that statement in the hot tub, the plan to kill Dan Markell was already well in the works. That statement was made just three months before the killer's first trip to Tallahassee in June of 2014. The statement reveals that the defendant wasn't scared of Catherine Agbanawa and her associates. To the contrary, he was boastful. He was bragging about it. He was the big man who was going to solve his little sister's problem, make his mom proud, and get away with it because he was thinking of everything. And he later would say and call J.J. that nothing was done improper and suggests that no evidence could be available to tie the killers to him or his family. And he was confident enough of this to brag about it in that hot tub setting, which he thought could never come back to him. He was untouchable. Because if push ever really came to shove, who are you going to believe? An oral surgeon or a gang member? He's banking on that. In regards to Rivera's plea deal, the actual only condition of his plea deal is to tell the truth. And what did he tell us? Catherine Agbanawa hired Garcia, and Garcia hired him to do a murder. Why? To help the lady, who he understood to be the dentist's sister, to get her kids. Aside from fitting with the other evidence in the case, there were a few things that independently corroborated Rivera's testimony. One is that accidental discharge that he told us to place in the rented Prius. This was a fact we didn't know before and were able to confirm upon re-inspection of the vehicle. He also told us about the location and timing of the money drop on the morning after the murder at his and Jessica's residence, which was able to be confirmed or corroborated initially by phone records and now also by Catherine Agbanawa's testimony. And, of course, the phone records confirm Rivera did come to Tallahassee, not just on the July trip, which we knew about, but also on that June, first June scouting trip or attempted murder trip. The communication records tell us a few other things, too. That's the June trip. July, June. This slide shows all the calls between our parties on the night before the shooters made that June trip to Tallahassee. You can see a 25-minute call from Catherine Agbanawa to the defendant at 9.17 p.m. on June 2, 2014. This call was placed while Catherine Agbanawa was consistent with traveling on her way back from Comfort Rental Car, where the first rental car was rented, to her residence. As soon as the defendant hangs up with Katie, he calls his parents' landline and has a 25-minute conversation. On the stand, the defendant was asked about the use of landlines and whether he believed them to be more secure. He testified that on the call he was being asked about at that time that he was talking about switching over to a landline If there's bad reception in South Florida at a dental office, what about all the other mentions of using a landline that we hear on the wire? Surely he wasn't in a place with bad reception for all those calls. And why call the parents on the landline? Surely they have reception in their South Beach high-rise. In the two years of phone records that were examined in this case, the defendant talks to his parents on the landline 28 times. Or .07% of the times that he talks to them. So mostly on the cell phone by a large majority. Three of these 28 times were on the days that the cars were rented to do these trips to Tallahassee. Whether or not that is a coincidence is entirely up to you. After the killer has returned from Tallahassee on that first trip, we have a couple text messages of interest. On June 8, 2014, the defendant indicates he's still working on dad's birthday present. And Donna indicates, I know you'll come through. Then on July 6, we've got Wendy Adelson with a location at or near her parents' place. When she texts Dan Markell and confirms he's going to be in town for his own murder. This slide depicts the night before the second trip. We know Katherine McBanawha and the defendant are together that evening at her place. He departs between 12.42 and 1 a.m. And then at... So after the defendant departs, Katherine McBanawha's residence, we've got Katherine McBanawha calling Segredo Garcia. So within minutes of the defendant leaving, she calls Garcia. She talks to Garcia several more times into the wee hours of that night. The last one being at 1.56 a.m. And then at 9 a.m. the next morning, Garcia calls the rental car place. Once the Prius is rented, the second trip begins. The Prius is rented at 6.15 p.m. on July 15, 2014. There are several calls between our parties on the day that the Prius is rented. So we just talked about the night before the Prius was rented. On the day the Prius was rented, we've got these two calls, several calls, including these two calls, from the defendant to his parents' landline. Garcia and Rivera then depart for Tallahassee July 16, about 2 p.m., and arrive in Tallahassee around 1 a.m. Although this trip was only about 36 hours from the time they left Miami to the time they returned, there were 12 phone events between the defendant and Catherine Nagbaniwa during that time, and there were four phone events between the defendant and Donna Adelson during that time frame, including late into the night on the night before the murder. On July 17, Nagbaniwa relayed to the shooters that this murder had to be done that day because the victim was scheduled to leave town the next day. And we confirmed that Dan Markell was, in fact, scheduled to leave for New York City the next morning on July 19. It's hard to imagine how Louis Rivera could have obtained this information, if not in that pattern that we consistently observe in this case. Defendant to Nagbaniwa, to Garcia, to Rivera, and back the other way. Certainly you're not really to believe that the killers defined this information from the professor's law. That's not reasonable. Wendy offered that Danny sometimes put his travel information on Facebook, but you learn from Agent Sanford that there was no information about this particular trip on Danny's Facebook, so they didn't get it from there. This is because, as Rivera and Nagbaniwa both told you, this information came in the form of that letter from defendant through Catherine Nagbaniwa. How would these two hitmen even know where to go or who to kill if they hadn't been given any kind of instruction? Catherine Nagbaniwa said she knew the plan was to kill Wendy's ex, but she never knew his full name until after he was killed. She did, however, deliver that envelope that the defendant put in her diaper bag to Segredo Garcia. The paper she knew contained the instructions for the murder. Defendant advised Catherine Nagbaniwa that she should not touch the envelope or open it, as he had taken precaution to ensure that his prints and DNA would not be on it, that it would be untraceable to him, and she should do the same. She was to deliver the envelope to Garcia, and that's what she did. This is corroborated by Rivera, who says Garcia had a paper with him on the first trip, and it contained a picture of Dan Markell and a printed address. On the day of the murder, we have communications between our parties as listed here, with the red line representing the time of the murder. This flurry of calls between our persons of interest demonstrates the usual call pattern that we're seeing. Donna to the defendant, to Catherine Nagbaniwa, to Garcia, and back. We have Wendy getting a text message on the day of the murder about her TV repair appointment from her mother, Donna Adelson. It indicates that Best Buy is on their way over to help you with the TV sets in your living room. Maybe she didn't remember which TV was broken. At 8.20, on the day of the murder, Wendy texts the defendant, This is so sweet. That text was deleted. What does it mean? At 9.19 a.m., there's a phone call between Wendy Adelson and this defendant that lasts about, what, 30 minutes? No. 18 minutes. So, this is about 30 minutes before the murder, when they hang up. They say they were discussing this TV that was not repairable. The TV that he gave her is a divorce present because it's cheaper than hiring a hitman. Only you guys can assess if you think that might just be a coincidence, and nothing more. The Prius is at premiere at 9.16 a.m. The last phone communication between Garcia and Rivera is at 9.16. Afterwards, the phones turn off, consistent with what Rivera told you. We turned our phones off because we knew we were about to commit the murder. And they don't pop back up until, I think, about 12.30. The bus video catches them turning on Tibetan Road to do the murder at 10.51 a.m., whereby they pull up right behind Professor Markell in his driveway. The driver's window, the driver's window, pointed his gun, and fired. Dan Markell raised his arm to protect himself, but it was no use. Professor Markell was executed at close range, whereby Garcia got back in the Prius and Rivera drove them away. Markell was left there to suffer and die. If not for James Geiger, there's no telling how many hours he might have suffered there alone and unaided. He fought for his life for 14 long hours before he finally succumbed to his injuries. The autopsy confirmed that he was shot twice at close range with a .38 caliber revolver, consistent with what Rivera said they brought as the murder weapon. Next, he was stripped, x-rayed, photographed, and dissected, because he had become a piece of evidence. When Garcia and Rivera get back on the road, they're on a second bus video, leaving town at 10.55. That narrows the time of the shooting down to a four-minute window, between 10.51 when they're seen turning on Tibetan and 10.55 when they're caught fleeing the scene. And then we've got the 911 call from Mr. Geiger at 11.01 a.m. The first phone call that either Garcia or Rivera make after turning their phones, turning off their phones to do the murder. So, the first call after that is at 12.30, and it's Garcia to Catherine Magbanawa. Magbanawa assures them that they'll get their money the next day. This is the same time frame, roughly, that Wendy Abelson was visiting the crime scene. Wendy indicated that she went to turn on a Trescot from Centerville Road, observed a roadblock, and then turned around. But we learned that what she said happened could not have happened. Instead, the roadblock was all the way down here by the blue dot, the blue, oh, we've got two blue dots. The one at the top, top left of the page there, is where the roadblock was, that yellow line, three to five houses down from the scene. Prescott and Centerville is all the way down where the other yellow bar is. Visible from the roadblock that she approached, and was observed doing so by Officer Brannan, were multiple law enforcement vehicles. Marked vehicles. There was crime scene tape up. There was a marked vehicle with an officer stationed at the perimeter. It was visible from that position that there was something going on at her kid's house. The house where they lived with their father. And what did Wendy Adelson do upon encountering this roadblock and observing that the police were present on the street where her kids lived? She turned around and proceeded to the liquor store to pick up her bullet bourbon. And the defendant says, well, this is another coincidence, because she was asked to bring it to a party. Well, maybe. But the timing of the purchase and the fact that she went out of her way to go by the crime scene on her way to get the bullet bourbon should raise an eyebrow. But it's what she didn't do that's even more suspicious. She didn't ask Officer Brannan, hey, what's going on? She didn't call Danny. She didn't call the police to make any inquiries. Or even the daycare to make sure her kids made it there that morning. Remember, Danny had her kids. She didn't even call the daycare. Meanwhile, our shooters are headed back to Miami. They pop up on an ATM camera at 6.45 p.m. in Pembroke, Clines, Florida. And then both of their phones are consistent with being at Rivera's residence as of about 7 p.m. that night. At 8.23 p.m., Catherine Ibanawa and the defendant make plans to meet up at his house. At 9 p.m., Donna texts the defendant, outside your house, to which he responds, ten men. He told you from the witness stand that this text meant that Donna was just passing by his house on her way to Tallahassee and that they weren't meeting up. But Catherine Ibanawa testified that when she arrived at the defendant's house, the defendant advised her that his parents had just been there and that he thought his mom had physically washed the money, which was damp when Catherine Ibanawa received it. Ibanawa finds the defendant to be carrying his gun around in a frantic state. About the time that these two are meeting up at the defendant's house to do the money exchange, Dan Ibanawa is pronounced dead at TMH. So he says he's going to be about ten minutes out. Here he is, hitting at home at 9.40 p.m. At 9.46, we see Catherine Ibanawa consistent with being at Rivera's residence and then consistent with heading toward the defendant's residence. She turns her phone off and it stays off for 11 hours. When Ibanawa's phone pops back up, it's 9.44 a.m. on Saturday morning and she's headed back from the defendant's house or the direction of his house toward Rivera's residence. That's the money drop location. These phones are consistent with a meeting at 10.30 at Rivera's, which is the time, date, and place that he advised us he received his money from Ibanawa. At 12.13 p.m., the defendant reaches out to Ibanawa. Defendant, headed to the gym. Are you taking the kids to the beach? It's so nice. Ibanawa, it's beautiful. Probably the pool. Defendant, nice, have fun. Ethan must be happy. This is why he's texting Ibanawa within hours of her leaving with all the money in his safe. All of the money that he's stared at and loved on since he was a child. And he wants to know if she's going to the pool. This might be a good time to remind you that the jury room is not a place to check your common sense. We want you to bring it in there. You have heard two wildly different versions of how this thing went down. And they can't both be right. I mean, somebody's trying to sell you a bill of goods. You were selected with the belief that you would be able to cut through the garbage and make sense of the evidence in this case and render a verdict that speaks the truth. A major problem for the defense theory is the idea that the defendant and McBanahaw broke up after the murder but then grew closer together over the next two years as she was collecting his monthly extortion payments. This is one of the more unreasonable parts of the defendant's testimony. Or, well, it's definitely in the top four, along with Latin King extortion payment plans. Hit men that hire themselves to kill someone that their intended future extortion victim hates. And most unreasonable of all is probably that Charlie Adelson, the guy that talks so tough in the hot tub about his unsavory connections, an arrogant man of extraordinary resources, a prizefighter of verbosity would just lay down and take this in silence. Let's review some of these love texts. Then we've got July 22nd. They're talking about the weather. They're talking about prescription shampoo. On October 6th, the defendant says, I love you. It makes me feel good that you care about me. I'm very lucky to have you as a part of my life. What? Lucky? Lucky. He says, I love you again on 224.15. According to him, he's now been making payments for seven months. He's had her on the payroll for six months. No Latin kings have contacted him in any way about collecting his outstanding debt of $195,000. Yet he continues to pay and love on Catherine McBanelow without reservation and without the slightest suspicion that she might be in on this and without the slightest concern for helping solve the murder of who killed his brother-in-law. Defendant says he believed Catherine McBanelow wasn't taking any of the money even after he put her on the payroll. Checks are going to her because she seemed broke. Defendant's explanation for all the love texts with Catherine McBanelow is that he felt sorry for her. He felt she was in the same position that he was in, being manipulated in the same way that he was. But the fact remains, folks, that she's taking his money. She's connected to the guy that's extorting him. She's connected to the guy that killed his brother-in-law. It defies logic that he would then proceed to grow closer with her. But he has to say that because there's no other way around these texts. It also defies reason based on what we know of this man that he would take her for her word and just empty his safe into her purse and then keep paying, presumably forever, without asking any questions, talking about it all, or reporting anything to the police. McBanelow began getting checks from Adelson Institute two months after Markell's murder. And she continued receiving checks from that time frame up until the bump. The checks stopped happening at the time of the bump. And you should be asking yourself what that means. Why did the checks stop happening? Well, you would reasonably figure they stopped happening because the parties got spooked because law enforcement, they suspected the bump could be law enforcement. Law enforcement might be getting closer, take her off the payroll. If defendant was being extorted, as he told you on the witness stand, why would the payment stop? Why would the extortionist care if other extortionists had jumped on the bandwagon? Why would the bump impact the defendant's existing obligations to the original Latin kings? Defendant said he put her on the payroll at Adelson Institute at her request to help her get insurance for her kids with the understanding that the money was being funneled through her to someone else and she wasn't actually getting any of the proceeds. She was just going to use that paycheck to assist her with getting subsidized housing or insurance, I think it was, for her kids. But you can see from this slide, which is dated June 24, 2014, that she's texting him about getting on the payroll prior to this alleged first extortion effort. He says no problem at that time. This is between the first and second trips. She's asking to be on the payroll. So the explanation from defendant about why she's on the payroll does not fit with the other evidence in this case. So we've got all this evidence that points to the defendant. The motive points to him. When we follow the money it leads to him, the Prius eventually leads back to him through these conspirators. And each time we have a big event in this case, we see these call flurries where all the parties are calling each other in that structure that I talked about. It goes from this one to this one to this one. But as the defense points out, these folks had independent relationships with each other that could explain those communication patterns. So without knowing the content, how could we know if they're really talking about the murder or if these call flurries around these key events are just a coincidence? A conspiracy can be shaped like a cluster with everybody talking to everybody. It can be shaped like a wheel with one central hub talking to all the different spokes. Or it can be shaped like a train car, which is what we have here, where one person talks to only the person, the car in front of them and the car behind them. Law enforcement was asking these same questions. How is this conspiracy shaped? How does it work? How does information flow through it? What are different parties' relative roles within a conspiracy? And the wiretap and bump were designed to answer those questions. Did you notice that Donna Adelson, see how the paper is folded in half? She didn't even look at the paper before she put it in her purse. She didn't think this was a process surfer. She knew exactly what it was, the moment this man approached. And then she just goes about her business. Does she give law enforcement this valuable information that could be used to solve the brutal murder of her son-in-law? I mean, this guy that approached her obviously knows something about who killed Dan Markell, right? So surely she went straight to the cops. Nope. Instead, she goes straight to this defendant who goes straight to Catherine de Bama, who goes straight to Sigfrido Garcia. In that first call after the bump, Donna says she doesn't want to talk on the phone, but defendant can't leave it alone. He asks, does it involve me or other people? Her answer, well, probably the both of us. Probably both of us. He says, what's that? Probably the two of us. So you probably have a general idea what I'm talking about. He doesn't say, no, I have no general idea of what you're talking about. He says, all right. He absolutely does have a general idea of what she's talking about. And if they were innocent, as the defendant has claimed, and this was, in fact, a second extortion attempt, there is not a reason in the world why they wouldn't just say that. I got approached by another one. One came and paid me a visit today. It's happening again. In call B, the defendant asked Donna to take a picture of the bump letter and send it to him, and she refuses. Why? Are the Latin kings going to see the text? Do you think someone is trying to blackmail you? Maybe. Uh-huh. Could be. I don't know. No. That's crazy. That's his response. And I'm not adding the emphasis on that syllable. He says it like that. That's crazy. How is it crazy? You're already being extorted by the Latin king number. Remember, doctor? It's because he hasn't come up with that part yet. In call C, defendant calls back again to tell Donna not to talk about things in the apartment or any place. Why? Why? The Latin kings aren't in there. And she doesn't ask why because it's obvious. She says, oh, obviously. Why? Because they might be under surveillance? Well, who cares if they have nothing to hide? Here we see the first use of code on the wire. People don't talk in code if they've done nothing wrong. People do not talk in code if they haven't done anything wrong. Defendant knows. I mean, he knows that fact. And that's why he told you we didn't talk in code on the wire. We spoke carefully. What does that mean? Careful of what? Defendant also told you under oath that he regrets that his mom randomly used the word TV in this call as part of her careful talk. The defendant got Wendy Adelson a TV as a divorce present as a cheaper alternative to hiring a hitman. Dan Markell was killed by a hitman. Then the same TV is Wendy's alibi for the murder, a service appointment that her mother set up for her from South Florida. And then on the wire, Donna says, quote, this TV is going to cost about five. Does the defendant say, what TV? What are you talking about since you've inserted a random object into this careful talk conversation? No, he doesn't need to ask what TV because he knows exactly what she's talking about and he harrits it back. They asked you for $5,000? The defendant has advised you that this TV stuff is a coincidence. Is it a coincidence or is it obvious they're referring to their conspiracy and this murder? Only you can decide which explanation is credible. The players in this case are smart. They've given a lot of thought to their preparations before this and to their explanations after. We know this seed was planted in early 2013 and it took over one year to come to fruition. And they've really thought of almost everything. A clever TV-related alibi for Wendy, a frame job for Lacoste, and they insulated themselves by hiring Catherine McBanawha as a middleman, walling themselves off like those train cars, only communicating with the one in front and the one behind and having no connection to the one further down the line. It's also important to note that in these first few calls, A, B, and C, that Donna Adelson describes the bump to the defendant and she says the person that approached her mentioned an ex-girlfriend. But she does not say the name Katie or Catherine. Then, with only this very limited information, defendant calls only one of his many ex-girlfriends, Catherine McBanawha. In call D, defendant tells McBanawha that he thinks that this undercover, the would-be extortionist, said her name. We know this is true. The undercover did say Katie. But Donna had not yet told the defendant that. It only communicated in calls A, B, and C. And the only communication on those calls was that the person mentioned ex-girlfriend. On the wire, the defendant says he just called Katie, Catherine McBanawha, because she was his most recent ex-girlfriend. Well, we know that's not true because there's at least one woman that the defendant will admit meets that definition between McBanawha and the thump, and that's Whitney Kick. On the stand, he told you all that the, all the you might, you might not be the right Katie conversation. There were several mentions of that. Yo, I'm not sure you're the right Katie. I apologize. I'll feel stupid if you're not the right Katie. That was designed to reassure her that he was not setting her up. Once defendant meets with his mother and gets the details and the paper with the undercover's phone number, he meets up with Catherine McBanawha at Dolce Vita. If they had any evidence, we'd have already gone to the airport. Does that sound like an innocent man? Even if they bug your phone, you're still not talking about any of this. Talking about what? The cops would only bug your phone to get information about the murder. And if you don't have any, then there's nothing to not talk about. The cops aren't going to be doing a wiretap to investigate [01:11:28] Speaker ?: to investigate [01:11:28] Speaker 1: him getting extorted, which he hasn't even reported to law enforcement. So, let's not talk about what. Defendant discusses how he's going to start arming himself and is prepared to shoot. He told you under oath from the stand that he was being threatened and extorted by gang members for two years at the time that this recording was made. And now he's just starting to think about hearing a gun? Does this sound like a man that's been living in fear for two years? Does this sound like a guy who lays down and takes his lumps without question when threatened? Someone comes up to me asking for money in my house? He says that. Lines 23 and 24 on the top there. He says this as if it's a preposterous proposition that somebody would just walk into his house and demand money. But isn't that what happened to you? How is that preposterous? But wait, what changed? On the next page he says, yeah, and when the, guess what? When the fucking police show up and there's a doctor, there's an oral surgeon standing there with a dead gang member in his fucking driveway, they're not going to come down too hard on me. This is the same man who took the witness stand and swore under oath that he was a victim in this case and that he had been too paralyzed by fear of gang members to come forward and report his victimization. Dr. Adelson on this recording is the real Dr. Adelson. On the stand he was so controlled, so knowledgeable about his case, so practiced, but there is no way to explain away his statements on this recording. When the bump happens, you get to observe this defendant in action in his role as fixer or problem solver. He's working those phones trying to get Katie to investigate the bump and find out if it's legitimate or not and also trying to reassure Donna that it's just the cops fishing and it's nothing to worry about. The bump is an actual recorded example of how this defendant acts when he is threatened by a purported extortionist. And how he acts is the complete opposite of how he's telling y'all he acted in the first extortion. Number one, he does not stay quiet about the bump. He talks about it a lot. There are multiple calls with Donna and Katie discussing the bump and what the next step should be. Two, he takes action. There are multiple in-person meetings with his mom and with Katie and eventually with his dad too about the bump and what to do about it. Three, he investigates the bump. He asks questions. He enlists Magbanoa to find out who this is. He talks a lot about his concerns that this will not be just a one-time payment but could turn into some ongoing problem. And four, he doesn't take it lying down. He threatens Nazi shit if these people think they can threaten his family and get away with it. He suggests that the problem might require an additional murder. Quote, if he can't do it, I'll find someone else that can. Number five, he's suspicious. He does not blindly accept the representations of this purported black mailer that approached his mother. It's clear from the Dolce meeting that he doesn't fully trust Katie. He certainly doesn't trust this purported black mailer that bumped into his mom. the person that approached his mom represented himself as a Latin King gang member, right? I'm a brother of this guy that I met in Broward or whatever. And he's demanding money from her. Yet, the defendant does not take his word for it, that he's a gang member. He's not so in fear for his mother's life that he opens the safe and gets five grand more out and gives it to Katie. A pittance compared to the amount he's telling you he handed out to the first layer of extortion. Number six, he doesn't pay. He doesn't bring the five grand to Dolce and give it to Katie and say, go pay it. Because that's what I do when I'm threatened, I pay. He doesn't pay, he doesn't ever pay. And it's only five grand. Instead, he analyzes and thinks through and talks about every possible scenario. Defendant says it's one of two things or one of two scenarios. One being the cops, two being someone actually trying to blackmail his family about this murder. According to him now, he's been blackmail for two years. And he's talking to Catherine Magbano, he's talking to the person that's been collecting his money all those months. But at no point does he acknowledge the first extortion in the Dolce and the meeting. Why not? Oh, because she asked me not to talk about it. Well, times have changed. There's a second extortion effort now and they're approaching my mother. You think I'm not going to mention the first extortion? your people have been running their mouths and now they've tracked down my mother. You need to go get this under control. Nothing like that. next in the Dolce recording, the defendant begins to explain how to prove a crime. The police have to put the person at the scene, not just in the car. He's reassuring her that even if we, law enforcement, can tie her or the shooters to the Prius, that we'll never be able to charge them. because they didn't come to Tallahassee, they didn't shoot anyone, they didn't do anything wrong, and therefore they can't be held accountable. But that is not the law as the judge has instructed you. Everyone who wanted this done and did some act toward accomplishing it is guilty as the one that pulled the trigger. He's also telling her that even if Rivera has run his mouth to this would-be extortionist, his word alone, that, hey, if he goes to the cops and starts singing, and says, hey, Rivera told me he did this murder, that's not going to be enough. Basically, he didn't use the word hearsay, but that's not going to be enough to proceed on an arrest in this case. This person knows information, so Katie, they'll be back. Whoever it is, knows information. Information about what? You have nothing to do with it. Remember that, doctor? You've been extorted and that hasn't been reported. What information do they have? You mean information that could be used to solve the murder of your former brother-in-law? If so, why wouldn't you want those people to go to the cops? Why wouldn't you want them to come forward with that information? Then the guilty parties will be held accountable. Your extortionist will be jailed without you having to do or risk anything. Next, defendant talks about what will happen if the would-be extortionist, the undercover, is picked up by law enforcement. Next thing you know, this person is singing. Other people start singing. As soon as they have him, he starts calling your name out, and then there's going to be police at your door and at my door. If you're innocent of this murder, why are you worried about the extortions telling law enforcement whatever it is he knows about the murder of Dan Markell? Defendant says he wants to pay the money. I got ahead of myself. He wants to pay the money, but he's explaining to her the problem with paying is that people might keep coming back or tell their friends who will jump on board as well. He's explaining to her the problems with paying a potential extortionist. What he doesn't say, which is what you would expect if he'd been getting extorted for two years is, Garcia, or whoever you've been giving my money to, has obviously been running their mouths and now they are messing with my mother. Next, he gives instructions. Say, my friends, have no idea what you're talking about. And frankly, I don't know what you're talking about, but the name sounds familiar of who's incarcerated, so I'm going to give you something as charity to help the less fortunate, but do not contact these people again or they're going to the police. The whole time you're talking, just say, I don't know what's going on. Only use the words help and charity. This isn't the guy described in this first extortion who just rolled over when threatened. He's in control. He's giving the orders. He's giving instructions. Why would you have to give instructions to a blackmailer about how to handle a blackmailer? Next, the defendant says, now he's fucking with his wife and he's fucking with him and you fuck with the king himself, you better kill him because he's going to be a big problem and he knows who you are. If he can't do it, I'll have someone else do it. Defendant testified that this means the only way to stop Garcia is to kill him. He's not talking about killing him. He's just saying he's a really bad dude and that's the only way to kill him. The evidence shows that he's saying if Garcia can't handle the undercover, he'll get somebody else to do it. Then he says, and so help me God, they fuck with my family, it's going to be fucking Nazi shit because this will be done. I mean, Katie, I don't care what I spend, okay? I swear to God. Defendant and I went back and forth on the stand about what Nazi shit might include, and I think we ultimately agreed that that would be killing. Then he says, I don't care what I have to spend. If you're struggling to figure out who this man is, that's a good clue right there. He's going to buy a solution to this problem exactly how he paid for a solution to the problem of Danny Markell. Here he wants to know if Garcia has any bad feelings toward him, meaning, is Garcia willing to look into this and handle this for me? Or does he still hate me because I used to date you? If the defendant had really been getting extorted all along, surely he'd say something like, I've been paying all this money, I've been compliant with everything, can you get him to look into this and figure this out? Katie, I'll go to the moon and back for you. Why? Because she did something big for him and he's going to be indebted to her for the rest of his life. Not because he feels sorry for her, not because she's his protector. He's the protector. He'll go to the moon and back for her because their neck deep in this conspiracy together. Somebody messes with her, they mess with him. Somebody messes with him, they're messing with her. It's the same thing. Here he's demonstrating an understanding of, a rational understanding of how blackmail works. This example is that you could blackmail someone that's cheating on their wife, meaning you blackmail someone that you have dirt on. You'll go kill somebody and then go up to an innocent person and say, I killed your brother-in-law, give me money. At the end of the conversation, the defendant says, you know who this is coming from? Inside. And then I don't have a side to this, but he goes on to talk about what he will do for her. I don't have to sit here and tell you what I would do. I show you what I could do. You know what I'm saying? You know how I am. I look for things to do. You don't ask me for shit. Didn't she ask you for $138,000 and a payment plan and then another $195,000? You don't ask me for shit. I look for things to do for you. Is that a statement that would be made to his blackmailer or at least the woman that's taking the money to the blackmailers? These are just a selection of the incriminating quotes on this Dolce Vita recording and I know it's a struggle to listen to it. You will have the recording, not the transcripts, but you'll have all the audios. The transcripts are just demonstratives. They don't go back. But you can kind of hunker down and listen as much as you can to get what you can out of that Dolce recording because it is full of gems and you can probably think of ten more arguments than the ones I've just tortured you with today. In the initial recordings, the defendant and Mag Banawa seem to be kind of dancing around the issue, right? Nobody ever speaks directly. He can't know for sure at this point that she's not involved in the extortion effort or possibly wearing a wire and she can't know for sure that he's not wearing a wire. So they're both just feeling each other out in the first several interactions after the bump. But those are the best stuff before they start to figure out okay we really think this is law enforcement. After the meeting with Mag Banawa, defendant calls Donna and tells her he had coffee with a friend and gave her some good relationship advice. Now remember he's not talking in code. He assures Donna repeatedly that it's being handled and there's nothing to worry about. Then we hear in call H the call where Mag Banawa calls Garcia and he's really angry and she needs him to call that number to figure out who this is and to deal with it. Ultimately Garcia says he will take care of the problem. The less she knows the better and then he tells her to stop talking about it on the phone and hangs up. Then we go to this and that's that. Then we've got the real struggle over the phone number. The point of this is that this number was handed to Donna. The number goes from Donna to Charlie to Katie and now to Garcia. here in call J we hear the reference to investment as code for the $5,000 extortion payment. A good investment would be someone who really does know something, not somebody that's just fishing, and will agree that $5,000 is going to handle it. You're going to go away, you're going to be silent about whatever you know, $5,000 is going to do it. A bad investment would be someone who has just read the papers and decided, hey, I'm going to try this, a law enforcement officer, or somebody that's going to take $5,000 and just keep coming back for more and more and more and more and it would be a continuous problem. This is a composite site of all the places in the recordings that are in evidence where the parties express concerns about the details, the details that the undercover had. It's getting too detailed. He's coming up with a lot of fucking details. It's obvious they're analyzing the legitimacy of the undercover and assessing how much of a threat he is based on the quantity and quality of the details that he has about the killing of Dan Markell. Then you've got more property, enlisting, code talk, more concern that the blackmailer might try to increase the amount. Here's a composite slide illustrating all the different calls where the defendant expresses concern that if he pays, that might not be the end of it. And the reason why I think this is so important is because you've been paying for two years. Why are you analyzing how blackmail goes or might go so much? You're supposedly an expert in it. Here, defendant gets stern with Catherine McBanelon telling her to find out who the F it is and stop playing their games. Again, for a guy that's, you know, living in mortal fear of Latin King gang members, he's pretty confident. He's pretty in control. Recall that in this one call, she basically says, I can't, you know, she's really furious in this call. She's like, I can't do all this code anymore. I can't talk in code. Remember, defendant told you he didn't talk in code on the wire. So she breaks character here in this call BB. The defendant later says to her, the quote I already gave you about how they're in this together. They're one and the same. And I couldn't agree more with that statement. This slide is a composite of all the places where a defendant says if he had information about the murder, he would collect the reward money. First of all, whichever side of this case, whichever theory you're finding credible, both sides agree that the defendant knew the whole time who killed Dan Markell, or close to the whole time. So definitely could have gone and gotten the reward money, although it's hard to imagine he would collect reward money for information about the debt of his own loved one. defendant claims he doesn't go to the police, period. And he offers an example of, I had a jet ski stolen and I didn't go to the police. Well, maybe the insurance was worth more than the trouble of the cops. I don't know. But he has gone to the police before. There was evidence of that. And the evidence shows that when somebody messes with him, he comes at them with everything he has. On the lawsuit with Ryan Fitzpatrick, the incident with his child's mother, incident with an old roommate, incident with a former female employee, some of those included reports to law enforcement. Some of them included use of other resources. In the last case with a female employee, he sent a letter that that said, you know, he accused her of trying to shake him down. So she's trying to extort him. And it states that he would never pay her a dime. In fact, I'm going to get attorney's fees. He's a guy with considerable resources and he's not assuring him by it. He is not afraid to use those resources to his advantage. If some street thug was trying to push him around, do you think he'd lay down and take that without doing one thing about it? This slide is a composite of some of the occasions defendant mentions the option of going to the police. And these quotes are specifically in reference to him saying, if you're threatened, you go to the police. If you're threatened, you go to the police. And he has done that before, but he did not go to the police in this case. He didn't go to the police in 2014, not out of fear, as he would have you believe, but because he did this crime. He believed he had gotten away with this crime. He didn't go in 2015 because he was busy that year having the best year of his life. Financially, got in a serious relationship with a new girl, June Umchinda, cruised the intercoastal in his boat. This dude had solved the problem. Everyone was happy. Wendy and the boys were back in South Florida where they belonged. Mom was happy. He was making money hand over fist. June described the beginning of their relationship. June Umchinda described the beginning of her relationship with this defendant in October of 15 as a fairy tale. He is not sweating anything, folks. And that continued until the time of the bump in this case, in April of 2016, whereby the defendant became agitated, angry, and anxious. This was before the report concerning him was leaked. At the time of the bump, his behavior changed noticeably. June noticed it, and Ryan Fitzpatrick noticed it as well. He was erratic. Now, why on earth would he be more stressed out after his extortionists were arrested? He seemed perfectly fine to these witnesses when he would have you believe he was in fear for his life, and then he further told you that he was more nervous after the arrest because he feared he'd be falsely arrested. Why? You didn't do anything wrong, you're not going to get arrested. Now, yeah, after the report gets leaked, okay, but why are you so nervous before that? Or were you a hot mess because you knew that we were getting closer? Here's Catherine McBanelaw and the defendant discussing if the undercover could be someone who's trying to be an informant. An informant for what, if not the death of Dan Markell? He's not going to be an informant on the defendant getting extorted a crime he has not reported. Here, they're talking about whether the undercover is getting his information from the inside or the outside. The inside means someone within the murder conspiracy, someone on that board or the outside, somebody that one of those people told. McBanelaw says it can only be one of two apparently if somebody's that desperate, not from the inside because there's too much from the inside that the person knows from the outside so they won't risk it. That's why I know for a fact it's not from the inside. And then Adelson says it's somebody not from the first layer but probably the second layer. Yeah, and they just made a big mistake, she says. As the wire goes on and the defendant proceeds to continue to analyze the additional bump efforts that law enforcement makes, that text message, the letter, the call to the Adelson Institute, he becomes increasingly confident that this would-be extortionist is an undercover agent. And then after listening to Donna's call to the undercover, he is completely sure of that. And you have never seen anybody so elated to be under investigation by the FBI for first-degree murder. Consider this in light of defendant's assertions that he was acting strangely after the bump because he was worried about being falsely arrested. To the contrary, he doesn't seem worried at all. He seems thrilled. I think he says it's fantastic in one of these calls. I want to turn briefly to your jury instructions. The defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit murder, solicitation to commit murder, and first-degree murder. Why all three? Because the defendant didn't just ask Catherine Magdalene to do this and promise her money. He didn't just set a plan of action and place toward doing it. it got done. It got done. And that's what makes it a murder. That's the difference between just conspiring. You didn't just conspire. It got done. This is the difference between just soliciting or just conspiring and being a principal to first-degree murder. To prove the crime of first-degree murder, I must prove to you that this was premeditated. Premeditation is defined as killing, after consciously intending to do so. This murder consciously deciding to do so. All right, so this murder was in the works for over a year. It began with the failed relocation efforts when defendant first looked into hiring a hitman. It took root when he enlisted Captain Magdalene Magbanua, and [01:37:51] Speaker ?: Magbanua, and [01:37:51] Speaker 1: she thereby brought in Garcia and Rivera to do the killing. The planning that went into the killing was extensive, spanning over a year, and it included the solicitation of Magbanua to find someone to do the murder, the preparation of that letter and that envelope that were placed in Captain Magbanua's diaper bag, free of DNA or prints containing the directions for a murder that was delivered to the hired gun, Secretario Garcia. Three, the payments, payments that were made in advance for renting the vehicles in the hotel room, the expenses associated with those trips, that was part of the planning. Four, the scouting and stalking of Professor Markell that we learned went on in that both trips. And five, the pressure that defendant applied to Catherine Magbanua after that first attempt failed. Get it done, get it done, get it done. Six, of course, is the payment itself. He paid for it. All the planning, all the meetings, all the precautions were coming to fruition when that fired gun fired those two shots that devastated so many lives on July 18, 2014. When you think about how this case was proven, we started at a single point, the crime scene, and we went in two totally different directions. We chased the Prius and we chased the motive, the bad blood of the in-laws, and the investigation could have stalled if any of these, if either of these leads had resulted in a dead end. But all the little breadcrumbs led to the same place. The Prius led to Garcia and Rivera, which led to Magbanua. The bad blood and the divorce led to the Adelson family. The wire confirmed the defendant's specific involvement, not just some Adelson, that Adelson. Then Rivera, and eventually Magbanua confirmed his involvement as well. I want to spend a moment talking about the principal instruction. We talked about this in jury selection. The defendant didn't pull the trigger, but that doesn't mean he isn't just as responsible as the person who did. Without every player in this conspiracy, the murder doesn't get done. In your jury instructions, it says there are two ways to prove defendant's guilt under the law principles. If he intended that the murder be done, and he did some act, preparing the paper, procuring Magbanua, or said some word, get it done, get it done, get it done, that caused or helped another to commit the crime, then he is guilty of first free murder. Or, two ways you can find it, or if he intended the murder to be done, and he made or promised payment in exchange for the murder, and the crime was committed by another person, he's guilty of first free murder. My burden today is to prove to you this case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury instructions tell you that a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary, or forced doubt. So when you're stuck back there deliberating, ask yourself, what is reasonable? When you're weighing a piece of evidence and deciding, like, is this a doubt or not? Is it reasonable? Does it fit with the other evidence in the case? If you find yourself saying, what if, or a fellow juror is saying, what if, without evidence to support whatever it is that comes after the what if, that's speculation. Remind your fellow jurors to get back on track. And that cannot be a reasonable doubt if it's speculation. My burden is to prove the elements of the listed offenses. Nothing more. If you have a question that I have failed to prove the answer to, but it's not one of these elements of the crime that the judge has given you, that is not a reasonable doubt. I'm concerned that you'll get back there and think, well, they didn't pull the trigger so let's just do conspiracy and solicitation. You guys have worked too hard, too hard to render a compromise verdict at this point. I trust that each of you will follow the law and your oath to render a wise and legal verdict in this case. This defendant is guilty of first degree murder under the principle theory, if ever anyone has been. So the efforts to distract you from this case and what it's really about, including these clear links in this conspiracy and all the evidence that establishes them, the text, the calls, the records, the testimony, the Rivera, the testimony of Magbamal, all those things together. The wiretap, the phone calls, the iCloud messages, and the absence of any other reasonable explanation should all lead you to one conclusion. This is the puzzle. This is the puzzle. The image is clear. When I confronted Rivera with the defense theory that he and Garcia acted alone to kill Markell and then extorted money out of the dentist through Magbamal, he found it laughable. I wrote down his quote. Ha! That's a good one. It came out in this trial that in Garcia's trial, Rivera was portrayed as the sole killer, the bad guy. He conspired directly with Charlie Adelson, according to Garcia, to commit the murder through WhatsApp or some whatever, some kind of way. Garcia's lawyers said this was all done without the knowledge and participation of Garcia. Then we learned in Magbanoa's trial, Garcia supposedly conspired directly. Yes, Your Honor. [01:44:04] Speaker ?: Broke. [01:44:04] Speaker 1: Now, here we are in the trial of Charlie Adelson, and the truth has been revealed. Once again, the state got this almost right. That's what you heard in the opening from Mr. Rashbaum. We understandably thought Garcia, I mean, sorry, we understandably thought that his client, Mr. Adelson, was the hirer of this murder, but there's a twist. Nothing is as it appears to be. The defendant is really the second victim in all of this. Per his theory, the killers drove to Miami twice to kill someone they'd never met and had no motive to kill in hopes that Charlie Adelson would, one, not report them for murder, and two, would instead agree to give them large amounts of cash at that time and on a payment plan over the next, I don't know, years. Other than failing the smell test, there are a few specific problems with the defense theory. One, how would the killers have known where to go to kill Markell? How would they know who to kill? How could the killers have known that Dan Markell was scheduled to leave? The murder. How could the murder? Three, possibly the biggest problem, the theory itself makes no sense. Were they just hoping that this would work? We're going to go all the way out there and kill somebody and maybe he'll give us some money. They were going to confess to doing the murder to Charlie Adelson in order to try to get money. Why not just put a gun to his head and take his money? why not just rob and or extort him with the threat of death by Latin King? That would save you the trip and the murder rap. Their jigsaw puzzle theory is just a pile of pieces that don't fit together. Each explanation is carefully designed to explain one piece of evidence. But how many different explanations can you string together before it's no longer reasonable? How many coincidences can there be before it's no longer a coincidence? This defendant is not a victim. He's a criminal. He's wealthy. He's smart. And he's successful. But he's a wealthy, smart, successful murderer. My work is almost done here and yours is just beginning. I trust that each of you will do your best to render a wise and legal verdict in this case. A verdict that speaks the truth. A just verdict. And that is a verdict of guilty as charged. Thank you.