FL v. Charlie Adelson — Defense Closing Argument

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: As we discussed in jury selection, Charles Adelson is presumed to be innocent. To overcome that presumption of innocence, the state has the heavy burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Charlie committed the crime that they say he committed. We did not have to present any evidence whatsoever. That's how our system works. We did not need to prove his innocence. As you go through the trial, you were told that you needed to evaluate the evidence through a lens of innocence, a presumption of innocence. Now I think we did prove his innocence in this trial, but that isn't the standard. That's not what you go back there and deliberate. What you see in this trial is a mountain of reasonable doubt that arises from the evidence itself, from the conflict of the evidence, and from the lack of evidence. The state's first question to Mr. Adelson when he was on the stand was something called Occam's Razor. Their first question was referring to their belief that the simple answer is the preferred answer. You might recall them asking that question. The very first question they asked Ms. Charlie. Occam's Razor, that proposition that the simple answer is the preferred answer, is the exact opposite of what our criminal justice system is about. See, Occam's Razor is a guess. We don't guess in this country. We don't assume people to be guilty. We presume them to be innocent. And sometimes the simple answer is the wrong answer. Sometimes things aren't so simple. And that's what we have in this case. I talked to you in opening about puzzle pieces. I talked to you in opening about how puzzle pieces wouldn't fit. And that's exactly what you saw repeatedly in this case. Just one of those puzzle pieces is enough for reasonable doubt. But here we have a mountain of them. And let's talk about them briefly. Government Exhibit 59. This is their conspiracy chart. The first puzzle piece that doesn't fit, the first puzzle piece that doesn't fit is motive. See, Charlie Adelson didn't have a motive to upend his life. Charlie Adelson had a good life. His business was booming. He was supportive of his sister, but he didn't wake up in the morning thinking about Professor Markel. He didn't go to bed at night thinking about the problems his sister was having. He was living his life. Now, was it a bitter divorce? Absolutely. But through all of those crazy emails, are there any examples of any violence? None. Those emails, we spent about 10 minutes hearing about him this morning. Not Charlie's ideas. By the way, those emails weren't even done. You heard from Wendy Adelson, she never offered any of those things to Professor Markel. She never threatened him with any of those things. Crazy ideas? Yes. An upset mother? Yes. Pushing each other's buttons? Yes. But ladies and gentlemen, even the million dollar offer you heard, lawyers were consulted. To make sure it was legal. A far cry from a murder. Their relocation motive. Relocation was denied a year before the murder. And by the way, Wendy Adelson and her two boys moving to South Florida, would have no impact on Charlie Adelson. Would he be happy that they were there? Sure. Would it change his life? No. Now, you may wonder, why did we spend so much time on cross, proving Wendy Adelson's innocence? The reason being is because on their exhibit, take a look who is in their conspiracy. They circled her for you in their opening cross. See, they were guessing about Wendy, just like they're guessing about Charlie. What the evidence showed is that Wendy wanted to leave South Florida. But when it was denied in the summer of 2013, she made a life here in Tallahassee. What the evidence showed, and remember I tried to get an email after email after email, and they fought me on it. Ask yourself why. Ask yourself what they were afraid for you to see. You saw that she made appointments after the time of the murder. She made them before. You saw she made plane tickets from Tallahassee to other places in the fall and winter. You saw that she got a new divorce lawyer. You saw that she was making play dates. And significantly, you saw that the entire family was making plans to come up here and see her celebrated for her book at FSU with incoming students. Why is that significant? Because their theory, their simple theory, is that she was part of a murder. It's a puzzle piece that does not fit. And we're going to talk about her trip down Trescot on the 18th. Because that's a puzzle piece that they keep on trying to pound and doesn't fit, but we'll do that a little later. The next puzzle piece that doesn't fit. Who had the kids? See, one thing that the state and the defense can agree on is that the Adelsons love these two boys. But they would have you believe that they hired hit men. Twice. And both times, who had custody of the kids? They would take a risk that these boys would be injured. Killed. Does that make any sense? The June attempt. Remember, Wendy and Danny shared the kids 50/50. The June attempt, we learned from their witness, Luis Rivera. Danny had custody of the kids. And we learned that he wouldn't do the murder because the kids were there. The July attempt. They show you a text message about Professor Markell being in town. And they show you a text message where Wendy's asking for the boys on the 16th. The murder's done on the 18th. Who has custody of the kids? Professor Markell. It doesn't make sense. There is no chance if these people were behind the murder, they would take any risk that those boys would be in the crosshairs. Use your common sense. It's a puzzle piece that they cannot explain. And you know what else doesn't make sense? Is their alibi argument. So they make a big argument about this Best Buy repairman coming that morning. How it was set up for an alibi. The argument, by the way, makes absolutely no sense. Because then they argue that Wendy purposefully went down the street of where she was supposed to get an alibi from. But let me ask you this question. Again, use your common sense. If the Adelson's and Charlie wanted to set up an alibi for not only Wendy, but themselves. Why not do the murder on July 5th when each and every one of them is at a birthday party for their father in South Florida? Wouldn't that have been a better alibi? They didn't do that because they're not behind the murder. They didn't know it was going to happen. They have nothing to do with it. It's a puzzle piece that doesn't make sense. It's reasonable doubt. Sigfredo threatened Charlie. Now the state has them as co-conspirators. The testimony is clear from their own witnesses that Sigfredo Garcia wanted to kill Charlie Adelson. In fact, you hear that on March 11th, 2014, just eight and a half weeks before the first attempt, you hear that Luis Rivera, from Luis Rivera, that Sigfredo was stalking Charlie. And he wanted to run him over with his car. He wanted to kill him. He's going to do that eight weeks before he does a murder for him? Makes no sense. But it gets worse. You heard testimony in this courtroom from repeated witnesses, both law enforcement and otherwise, than on July 1st, just 17 days before the murder. Sigfredo Garcia tried to run Charlie off the road. Threatened him. Left a threatening voicemail that he was going to kill him. Left it with his dad, but thought he was leaving it for Charlie. It's just 17 days before the state wants you to believe he went and did a hit for him. It doesn't make any sense. It's a puzzle piece that doesn't fit. Now, they'll come up here in rebuttal, and they'll probably say something like, Sigfredo didn't know what he was doing. Katie was siloing him of information. Ask yourselves if that makes any sense. Ask yourself if after the first attempt, he doesn't know exactly who he's killing. It's reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen. It's a puzzle piece that they cannot explain. The hitman joke. We learned in this trial that Charlie repeatedly made this off-color joke. And let me say something aside. You don't have to like Charlie Abelson. There are plenty of reasons not to like him. That doesn't make him a murderer. Now, this hitman joke, we learned that Charlie made it with people he hardly knew. That he made it repeatedly. We learned from their own witness that at a March 11th dinner, this is Jeff Lacoste. When he first met Charlie, Charlie made the joke. Ask yourselves, does it make any sense for a guy who is about to do a hit, about to murder someone to go around town and advertising? Doesn't fit. Reasonable doubt. Ask yourselves, does it make more sense for Katherine Magbanewa, a professional liar and con artist, to hear the joke, to hear the million dollar offer, and start to get ideas? They want to call it coincidences, it's not a coincidence. Criminals do not advertise what they are about to do. That makes no sense. Reasonable doubt. Puzzle pieces that don't fit. Payment evidence. Miss Kappelman mocked in her cross of Charlie that this was a murder by layaway. Meaning, that doesn't make any sense. We agree with her. It doesn't make any sense. Murders for hire are not done by layaway. But you know what is done by layaway? Extortions. See, we learned in this trial that Katherine Magbanewa got paid every month. She denied it. Their own witnesses proved it. We learned that she got paid $3,000 a month. 2k in cash and 1k in checks from the Edelson Institute. By the way, if Charlie's part of a murder, they're telling you how smart he is. Does it make any sense that he would create a paper trail of checks from his business to pay for the murder? It makes no sense. But aside from that, you heard from Special Agent Sanford. He has done around a dozen murder for hires. Never a payment over time. He's seen extortions like that, but never someone getting paid over time. The money drop was the next day. You heard about that. Ask yourself, if this was a murder for hire, why was payment not made before? See, the state gave you examples of days before the first attempt and days before the murder. Where Charlie Edelson was with Katherine Magbanewa. If it's a murder for hire, why didn't he pay her before? You heard on the night of the murder and the night of the extortion, she had to go run around town to find a babysitter for her kids. If it was planned, if Charlie was behind it, why would she not have it planned out that way? Why would he have not paid her before? See, because he had no idea it was going to happen. That's the only thing that makes sense. By the way, why would she need a babysitter at all if it was a murder for hire? If it's a murder for hire, how quickly, how much time does it take to go pick up money? Go to the house, get the bag of money, and leave. See, the thing is, she didn't know how much time it was going to take. And you know why she didn't know how much time it was going to take? Because she didn't know how he was going to react. It wasn't just a pick up of the money on July 18th. It was a setup of an extortion. Now, we're going to get more into the extortion. But it's amazing to me that the state still doesn't understand what happened. And I wonder if they don't understand or they're trying to confuse you. So let me make this crystal clear now, and we'll get back to it later. On the night of the 18th, Charlie Adelson had no idea about anything about the Latin kings. He had no knowledge of the Latin kings. He doesn't find out anything about the Latin kings until he's in the car with Catherine Magbanua moments before he goes into Dolce Vitae. On the night of the 18th, what he's told is that Catherine Magbanua said she spoke too much and that a friend of hers had done this. Nothing about any Latin kings. The payment structure makes no sense. The whole purpose of a murder for hire is to hire someone who you are not associated with. Who you are not tied to. Yet, they would have you believe that Charlie would give them checks, would continue to text message with them, would continue to give them gifts because he was tied to a murder for hire. It shows just the opposite. It shows it's an extortion. Reasonable doubt. Katie's lies. Let me first start by apologizing. If any of you were offended by the tone of my voice during my cross of Catherine Magbanua. See, the thing is, I think you all know me pretty well by now. I'm passionate. And I believe in the system. And the one thing I hate is when someone comes in this courtroom and lies. I hate even more when a murderer comes in this courtroom and lies. What we know is that the state called Catherine Magbanua. Talk about desperation in trying to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They called a woman who lied under oath in her first trial. They called a woman who lied under oath in her second trial. They called a woman who tried to get Sigfredo Garcia to lie for her in her second trial. But worse, they called a woman who just a year ago lied during her proffers. She denied it. And by the way, they didn't question her on it. But you heard from their own witnesses, including Special Agent Sanford, that he walked out of the room. And he walked out of the room, not the first 10 minutes. [00:24:34] Speaker 2: He walked out of the room over three hours after she started speaking. Because as he put it, what she was saying made no sense. [00:24:48] Speaker 1: And they're going to have you base this man's freedom on her words. And why did she lie? Because it's her only way out. But her lying didn't stop there. She lied to you. We caught her in lies. She said she didn't get paid over time. We know she got paid over time. She said she didn't know when the murder happened, when the plan changed to a murder. And that the plan was to murder Professor Markell. You've heard the wires. We see her lying to her co-conspirator, according to them, Charlie Adelson, on the wires themselves. We see her saying repeatedly to him that she has called the number hundreds of times. That it's a non-working number. That the number just rings. That they left a voicemail. All of those are lies. By the way, you know who she doesn't lie to? Secreto Garcia. You know who else she lied to? Luis Rivera. We heard that. She lied to him about the purpose of the trip. She lied to him about the lady being on the street. She told Luis that Wendy was on the street the day before the murder with her kids. Now you may remember the judge read a stipulation in, which both sides agree on, that shows that Wendy could not be on the street with the kids. Luis Rivera didn't lie. She lied to him. She lied to him about the amount of money they got. She told him it was $100,000 when it was $138,000. And she never told him that she was getting paid every month. Remember, Rivera wanted to do a robbery. Ms. Kappelman comes up here in her closing and she says, why did they just do a robbery? Wouldn't that have been easier? Remember, Rivera brought up that very point. And what is he told by Sigfredo Garcia? It can't be a robbery. Katie says we have to do it this way. Ask yourself why. The bottom line is, Charlie Adelson was kind. On the night of the 18th, he was scared. He didn't think she was part of it. He thought she was protecting him. That's why he thought the money didn't go up every month. That's why he thought he wasn't getting visited by any bad guys. And that made him closer to her over time. Reasonable doubt. A puzzle piece doesn't fit. Immunity. She was offered a get-out-of-jail-free card. And she didn't take it. She was offered it before her first trial. Now, she had an explanation for that. I didn't want to turn on my husband. But what about after he was convicted and his appeals were over? Remember, her first trial was in 19. Her second trial was in 2022. See, she couldn't take the immunity offer, because when you take the immunity offer, you have to tell the truth. And if you're caught telling a lie, you not only lose immunity, but you've now confessed. You now have no defense. She knew she extorted Charlie. She knew she tricked him. She knew he wasn't part of the murder. And that's why she never took the immunity deal. Reasonable doubt. Puzzle pieces that, no matter how hard you try to hammer them in, don't fit. And let me ask you a question. Ask yourself, why, when the state called her as a witness, they didn't ask her one question about the wires? Go back and look at your notes. Not one question about what was said and meant at Dolce Vita. Not one question of what they talked about in the car before Dolce Vita. And then, Charlie Adelson takes the stand. And they have an opportunity to rebut him. They have an opportunity to call her back to the stand and say, You're not going to believe this crazy, unreasonable story that Charlie just wove. They don't call her back to the stand. They don't ask her any of those questions. Because they don't trust her. Because they know that she can't answer those questions. Because the truth is, they have doubt. [00:31:39] Speaker 2: You heard it. They have doubt. [00:31:44] Speaker 1: That's why it took them, six years after her arrest, to even charge Charlie Adelson. Ask yourselves, why were they so afraid to ask her any of those questions? Security cameras. Now, let me be clear. In closing, Ms. Kappelman said that no one testified that Charlie's demeanor changed in 2014. No one was asked about that. He doesn't meet June in Chinda until 2015. But what we do know is his behavior did change. What we know from evidence in the record is that he started sleeping with a gun. What we know from evidence in the record is that he invested in camera equipment for his house and for the office. Now, the state comes up here and they say, well, there's this email or text message from months earlier where he's talking about putting in camera equipment. True. Guess what he didn't do months earlier. He didn't put in camera equipment. But guess what he does just weeks after he's extorted. Just weeks after Professor Markell is brutally murdered in broad daylight in his driveway. He puts in camera equipment. If he's a co-conspirator, who's he afraid of? According to them, he's the guy behind it. The camera equipment is to protect himself against himself? Reasonable doubt. The wires support what happened on the night of the 18th. They support that he was extorted. Now, I'll first talk about State's Exhibit 130. You'll remember this when I talk about it. It's 21 months after the murder and the extortion. It's before the bump. It's one of these calls about Dave. And it's very interesting and scary what happened in this trial on this call. State plays 18 minutes of the call. And then they cut it off. They ask the witness how important the call is because it's before the bump. Meaning there's no reason whatsoever that anyone is thinking that they're being listened to. 21 months after the murder. 21 months after the extortion. And at 20 minutes and 40 seconds in the call. Two minutes after they cut it off. You hear what Charlie Edelson thought about Professor Markell. You hear him describe what happened to him as a tragedy. His own words. In real time. You hear him say to his mom that Professor Markell is not replaceable. They didn't want you to hear that. I want to go back briefly to the security cameras. Ms. Kappelman comes in here today and she talks about the times that Charlie went to the police. And she brings up examples of filing a lawsuit. She brings up an example of a dispute with a girlfriend. But those are very different than being told you have 48 hours to pay. Or you and your family are going to get killed. Especially taken in the context that just nine hours earlier. Professor Markell was shot in broad daylight. Executed. Reasonable doubt. A puzzle piece that just doesn't fit. Let's talk more about these wires. States Exhibit 108. That's all the wires together. There's subparts of it. And I want to draw your attention to A, B, and C. These are the first three calls with Donna Edelson after the bump. What you see on these calls is that initially for at least the first call and a half Charlie Edelson has no idea whatsoever what she's talking about. None. Now ask yourself if you did a murder with someone wouldn't that be the first thing on your mind? He has no clue what she is saying. He's talking about Yelp. He's talking about the IRS. He's talking about being sued. He has no clue. She says it's about the two of us. We've already done this. We beat a horse to death on this. It's about the two of us. You were extorted and now I'm being extorted. It doesn't even make sense under their theory of murder. By the way on those first calls she wants to meet with them when Wendy and Harvey are not around. I'm confused. I thought they're co-conspirators according to the state. A puzzle piece that makes no sense. By the way he starts to figure out what it is when she brings up blackmail. And when she brings up and you can listen to it you'll see the hesitation in his voice that he needs to bring cash when they meet the next day for lunch. He starts to figure it out. And what does he immediately shift his attention to? Don't take my word for it. You can listen to the wires. Was the guy white or Hispanic? Was the guy wearing a disguise? Was the guy threatening? Did he give you 48 hours? He's trying to figure out if it's the same people. If it's the same people. Now they talk about why would he call Katie? His mom doesn't say anything about Katie and he has other ex-girlfriends. Well he has only one ex-girlfriend that on July 18th came to him and said you have to pay money. I'm not part of this because if you don't pay money they're going to kill you. And see they ignore D 1392 part of the same exhibit. He slips. Three minutes and 34 seconds into this recording Charlie slips. See he's got to be careful on these calls when he's talking to Katie because he doesn't want her to think that he's setting her up and setting up her friend whoever that might be. He doesn't know at this point. He doesn't guess but he doesn't know. And the reason why he has to do that is because he needs her help. She's the one who is most equipped to help him figure out is this a bad guy? Because if it's a bad guy he's worried they're going to get killed. She says his first instinct isn't to pay. We're going to get to that. His absolute first instinct in Dolce Vita is to pay. You can listen to it. So he has to be careful in how he talks to her but three minutes and thirty-four seconds into D-1392 he says the following. I mean you didn't do anything with my mom. And she responds what would I do with your mom? And he says just checking. What could that possibly mean if he's not referring to the extortion? how could that possibly be talking about a murder for hire? It cannot be. Three minutes and thirty-four seconds in. Give or take. D-1392. Don't take my word for it. Listen to it. On the wires. Charlie Adelson's way of calming down his mom and what he is hoping for is that it is the police. How does that make any sense if he did a murder? He did a murder but he's hoping that the police are onto him? It makes no sense. See he's hoping it's the police because he didn't do a murder and if it's the police no one's going to get killed. They went through dolce vitae with you and I'll probably go through it a little bit more with you later but let me say this. Listen to it for yourselves. Think about the parts that they left out in their closing. How about the nine times that he says something to the effect of we have nothing to hide. We didn't do anything. How about the 36 times he says that on the wires? How about when he says in dolce vitae these people only know part of the story or they think they know part of the story. What could he possibly be talking about if he did a murder for hire? What he's saying is they think we did a murder for hire. They don't understand I was extorted. they think they know the whole story but they only know part of the story. And that's why I hope it's the police. In Matsuri he says twice the funny thing is listen to it in the context. What's funny is they don't realize that the sting they put together is close to the truth. PP 2325 seven minutes in they opened on it but they didn't want to play it for you. They skipped over it. It's in evidence. You can hear it. there's talk about it being someone not from the first layer but probably the second layer. Talking about extortion. The first layer is when he was extorted on the evening of July 18th and his payments for the 21 months. The second layer [00:46:04] Speaker 2: is the [00:46:07] Speaker 1: bump. He's trying to figure out is it the police is it a copycat or is it the same guys? On the wires who are the only people that call and speak with the undercover? They call from their cell phones. They don't make a big deal about Star 67. They call from their cell phones. They don't get burner phones. The only two people that speak with the undercover, Charlie Adelson, Donna Adelson. Ask yourself why. Reasonable doubt. A puzzle piece doesn't fail. Look at the text messages. Now, I fought to getting these text messages. Ask yourself why I had to fight so hard. Look at the text messages that are in evidence. Nothing out of the ordinary. Everything explained. He didn't hide or flee. Not like Catherine McBanua. Another lie she told you all. She said she didn't know it was the police outside. She didn't hide. You heard she hid. You heard she got a burner phone. I. I. 1393. One minute and 47 seconds in. A call between Catherine McBanua and Sigfredo Garcia. One minute and 47 seconds in. Katie tells Sigfredo that she's worried in essence that Charlie's parents Donna and Harvey are going to go to the police. If they're co-conspirators in a murder for hire why would she be worried that they're going to go to the police? It doesn't make any sense. simply put these puzzle pieces and others do not fit the state's theory. Why? Because while they want to make this a simple explanation while they use words in closing 13 times could 6 times maybe 2 times maybe not 3 times suspicious 6 times coincidence that is not beyond a reasonable doubt that is not what we do in this courtroom we presume innocence we don't guess we don't ignore things that don't fit into the theory now I want to turn to the testimony of trauma and I will try not to be repetitive the first group of witnesses we asked very few questions we don't disagree that the murder of Professor Markell was horrific they showed you those pictures today I can't look at these people that killed him were animals we agree that the police work was phenomenal that's why they caught the three people who did this you also remember check your notes that none of those original witnesses said a word about Charlie Adelson now the first witness of substance was Agent Sandsberg he came twice so we're going to deal with him each time the first time he came on the stand let me say this he's an honest and truthful guy he's exactly what you want from a witness compare him to Catherine McBanna compare him to Ryan Fitzpatrick we'll [00:51:03] Speaker 2: get to that [00:51:03] Speaker 1: they put in emails through him and they showed that there was distress in the family that there was anger over the relocation issue and divorce they also showed that the relocation issue was denied in 2013 the summer of 2013 a year before the murder we saw that there were very few emails from Charlie Adelson although he was aware of some of the crazy emails and he would say things like good idea we learned about the million dollar offer and how Charlie was going to pay a third of the million dollars with the hopes of getting paid back and we learned through Agent Samford that there were emails that showed that this million dollar offer the Edelson's consulted a lawyer on to make sure they were doing things legal we learned that in his experience murders for hire aren't paid this way we've already talked about that and we learned that there is ongoing discussions about where the kids were going to go to school in the fall of 2014 ask yourselves why do you need those discussions if you know you're about to kill him and relocate and then we heard from Wendy Edelson and again we spent a lot of time crossing Wendy Edelson because we wanted to show you that their theory on her was absolutely wrong and one of the things I didn't mention earlier in addition to the plane tickets and the I own divorce lawyer and the scheduled meetings and the custody arrangements in August you see in defense exhibit six that she's trying to buy a house now they talk about a house on Halloween that Halloween of 2013 that Charlie convinced her not to get what about when she's looking for a house just a month or so before the murder no evidence that anyone's trying to stop her then she testified that she was not worried about disbarment by the way we called her lawyer to the stand to buttress her testimony because the same motion was made against her and she testified she wasn't worried about disbarment either she testified that she never made the million dollar offer or the Christianity email threats we showed through emails and they're on the wires to support her testimony that after the murder she was scared and sick you don't have to take Charlie's word for it and you don't have to take my word for it it's on the wires on the wires themselves it talks about how Wendy is finally getting over this we showed through stipulation that there's no way she and the kids could have been on the road the day of the 17th and we showed that through her that professor Markell posted in a lot of places about his travel now we have no idea how Catherine McBannerwald and Sigfredo Garcia knew where Danny lived and knew when he was going to be out of town we don't know because it had nothing to do with us but we showed you possibilities of where the information could have been found that ladies and gentlemen is the definition of reasonable doubt as opposed to some crazy explanation and we'll get to it that just three weeks after dating he put some letter in her bag that she doesn't know what the letter is about and what it says but it must have been that [00:55:53] Speaker 2: does that make any sense [00:55:56] Speaker 1: and we showed that on the day of the murder Wendy Adelson voluntarily was interviewed for hours without a lawyer she gave her phone she let them search her car she let them search her computer and she named everyone who could have done this everyone that came to mind the first person she named was herself and yes she mentioned the hitman joke and then she said but he wouldn't do it by the way talk about a puzzle piece that doesn't fit his co-conspirator goes to an interview with law enforcement on the day of the murder and tells law enforcement about the hitman joke does that make any sense it does if they're not co-conspirators it does if they had nothing to do with the murder reasonable doubt she talked about her problems in the relationship with Jeff Lacoste how he was stalking her and jealous she was adamant that Charlie never actually looked into hiring a hitman that that was a lie and was adamant that the dinner they had weeks later no one called it a celebration dinner her testimony a state witness did just the opposite of proving their case it gave more reasonable doubt and I would submit true denizens the next witness was officer Brandon his testimony was short but indicative of the state's case he testified that when he drove down Trescott again she explained why but more importantly the state tried repeatedly to pound this evidence in to show that Catherine McBanawa made a phone call got a phone call at 1230 and said I know it's already been done remember that testimony and the state was desperate to say that that phone call somehow came from Wendy Adelson but look at their own exhibit the phone call is at 1230 they showed it to you today look where Wendy Adelson is at 1230 she's nowhere near the residence according to the state's theory she must have mind reading ability but yet they continue to try to pound that puzzle piece into place they double down on it ask yourself why Jeffrey Lacoste the jury instructions will tell you to evaluate bias and witnesses determining their truthfulness it is not up for dispute that Mr. Lacoste was a jilted lover who was stalking Wendy Adelson you heard that from Hale Officer Hale the later witness more importantly though Jeffrey Lacoste thought that the Adelson's and Wendy had tried to frame him he was upset about that they thought he tried to frame him for this murder and so his testimony was shaped by that anger the truth is he had a nice time at dinner with Charlie on March 11th yard birds there is a text message in real time unsolicited confirming that Charlie didn't send him a text he sent Charlie a text the truth is when he talks about Charlie having associations with the Cuban element whatever he testified to by the way no one in this case is Cuban tell you a secret Sigfredo Garcia is not Cuban Luis Rivera is not Cuban made up he admitted that even though he supposedly thought Wendy was part of a murder he would have gotten back together with her that make any sense he says that Wendy told him that Charlie really looked into hiring a hitman [01:01:39] Speaker 2: he says she told him this when they were breaking up does that make any sense he [01:01:57] Speaker 1: says that after they broke off [01:01:59] Speaker 2: she [01:02:00] Speaker 1: told him it was a celebration dinner meaning she's telling him I did a murder with Charlie does that make any sense and then you hear about these notes you hear it from Officer Hale and others how there's a bunch of notes he took a bunch of notes I never saw the notes you know why he destroyed them ask yourself why his testimony makes no sense is biased and should be discounted as nonsense as someone who is angry because he thinks they tried to frame him Stephen Webster honest nice this was Professor Markell's divorce lawyer but notice something he wasn't a divorce lawyer he's a criminal lawyer [01:03:07] Speaker 2: never litigated anything in the case [01:03:13] Speaker 1: but yet they call him to try to bolster some sort of motive that Wendy Adelson was so fearful and the family was so fearful that she was going to be disbarred that these motions were going to be successful when I asked him did you know that the judge was frustrated with Professor Markell he had no idea because he wasn't the lawyer at the time Junum Chinda she testified that Charlie sleeps with a gun why would he sleep with a gun if he was part of the murder she testified that during the bump she wasn't actually clear but I'll give him this during the bump and after that he was upset he was acting weird of course he was he didn't know whether his family was about to get killed he didn't know who was extorting them the second time she also testified how Charlie flew out of the country and always returned Ryan Fitzpatrick to me this witness sums up the state's case and it's scary he had no first hand knowledge of anything and you learn only through cross examination that years after the murder when he was about to be sued by Charlie he threatened him to go to the FBI and say things bad about him you learn that just days before coming in this courtroom he's on a blog taking bets about whether he can cause him to serve the rest of his life in prison disgusting Louis Rivera the state still doesn't get it I'm not going to discredit his testimony just the opposite to me Louis Rivera's testimony was in some ways the most significant he's an animal but he was truthful he said what he knew it it proved first hand why you must find Charlie Adelson not guilty of all three counts it proved first hand reasonable doubt it was an aha moment let me remind you of [01:06:13] Speaker ?: it [01:06:14] Speaker 1: he admitted that Katie was the mastermind of the killing he said that everything had to be cleared through Katie he said that everything he and Sigfredo knew came through Katie he said he wanted to do a robbery but Katie said he couldn't do a robbery that it had to be done this way we went through all the lies that Katie told him through Sigfredo the lady being on Trescott the purpose of the trips the amount of money he now understood why he got 37,000 instead of 35,000 we went through the fact that he knew nothing about the payments over time or the gifts to Katie and here was the punchline when asked could this have been an extortion and not a murder for hire could they have lied about that to you too his answer was yes one of the two shooters admitted to you that knowing what he knows now this could have been an extortion that ladies and gentlemen is the definition of reasonable doubt am I going to discredit him no I had never talked to him before the first time I met him was in this courtroom their witness says it could have been an extortion Catherine McBanow now we've talked a lot about her already and I don't want to talk about her much more but ask yourself about all her lies this Halloween nonsense go take a look at defense exhibit 34 Charlie Adelson knew nothing about secreto Garcia on Halloween you see it in text message on November 27 don't try to spin the text message read it for yourselves defense exhibit 34 her testimony alone should give you a mountain of reasonable doubt Clarissa libido and Erica Johnston the state called them to prove something we already admitted in opening Katie didn't work at the Adelson Institute Mary Hall truthful witness she confirmed that Katie got paid over time she couldn't give you exact numbers but when you look at the numbers you see it corresponds to around $3,000 a month she confirmed that the Adelson checks created a paper trail something that Charlie had no issue with because he was not part of a murder she confirmed the gifts the payments for the car repairs by the way she confirmed that he put many of those on his credit card creating a paper trail as well now let's talk about those gifts because I want to make sure everyone understands over time Charlie became more and more convinced that Katie was not part of the extortion but he needed her help see because as long as she was helping him he knew he wasn't going to be paid a visit as long as she was helping him he knew the money wouldn't go up and so he tried to keep her happy now they want you to believe he tried to keep her happy because he was worried that she would go to the police and report a murder that they both did together does that make any sense no he tried to keep her happy because he wanted her to know he was appreciative that she was helping him investigator Corbett a thorough witness straightforward guy honest this is the phone analyst investigator he looks at patterns he doesn't know what's said on the phone it's guesswork he sees the frequency in the amount of calls and he looks for patterns now when asked could these calls be because it's a boyfriend and a girlfriend a mother and a son husband and a wife he says of course he also confirmed that there's an absence in records that by the time they arrest Charlie Edelson in 2022 we can no longer get phone records before when they got him originally we can no longer get sun pass records sun pass records would show that Donna Edelson and Charlie Edelson Donna Edelson and Harvey Edelson never were at Charlie Edelson's house that night he confirms that and he also confirmed that there were a lot of calls that are consistent between Charlie is driving to work and coming home from work now I want to talk about this landline issue because it is crazy it may be the craziest thing in this case and it's done to incite you when you think about it you're going to see it means absolutely nothing so they have a chart she showed it in closing of a frequency in using the landline calling the landline and you see that Charlie hardly ever calls his parents landline okay and they want to show you that on a particular day or days he calls the landline so that must mean something [01:13:39] Speaker 2: what does it mean he's using his cell phone he's calling his parents number that has been the same number since the year he was born [01:13:52] Speaker 1: grasping at straws that's what that is then they confuse a wired call with those calls what they're confusing is there's a call after Charlie you'll see it in go look at it there's a call after Charlie learns about the text message that they sent to his mom at like two in the morning you'll recall that he and his parents meet at the pool at their apartment and you'll recall that Charlie then goes and he goes to a friend's office and he gets a call or calls Katie and then he says I'll call you from a landline [01:14:45] Speaker 2: and [01:14:47] Speaker 1: that's because he doesn't get good service in that office it has nothing to do with his parents apartment this [01:14:59] Speaker 2: landline it doesn't mean anything [01:15:03] Speaker 1: it's like magic it's like they're putting on a magic show use your common sense Corbett also confirmed that Charlie's house was a stone's throw away from the turnpike and that the most direct route to Tallahassee for Donna and Harvey was to take the turnpike which passes right outside his house and he confirmed that Charlie didn't leave his house for more than 24 hours after the night he was extorted they show you that gym test Corbett their own witness confirms he didn't leave the house we're almost there special agent Jimenez no real substance he pretends to he does the bump of Donna Edelson it's going to be critical that you hear that and understand that he pretends to be a brother of Tato and he testified up here that the reason why he did that is because he wanted the Adelson's to know that it was gang related up until this point in time we're now in 2016 April 19 there's nothing about Latin Kings no matter how many times Miss Kappelman wants to ask Charlie about Latin Kings in 2014 or talk to you about Latin Kings in 2014 they're nowhere near this case in Charlie's mind until 2016 and more precisely until April 20th of 2016 and we'll get there in a moment but Jimenez testifies that he inserts this into the bone then we heard from Agent Bronstein and Keith McElbee and we learned from them that only part of Dolce Vita is recorded you saw it's difficult to hear you can't hear almost anything Catherine McBanna would say and we learned that there's numerous recordings by the way you have two of the recordings I submit to you that the recordings are the exact same you can listen to them for yourselves but it's interesting where they started the recording that they played for you and we know what he meant when he said that because he never fled you heard from special agent Sanford he went to places far away extradition is tough and he always came back investigator Kendall Matsuri probably my favorite question in the case that you didn't understand until later when I asked him whether he didn't like sushi that's how they knew he was police but he testified that when he arrested Charlie in 2022 there was barbed wire and cameras all over his house ask yourself why he confirmed that that arrest was six years after the arrest of Sigfredo and Kate ask yourself why now they put on evidence through special agent Sanford a second time and they called him to put in all the wires but he couldn't really talk about what the wires meant because he wasn't part of those conversations only [01:19:28] Speaker ?: only [01:19:28] Speaker 1: two people could really talk about what they were meant and frankly I thought maybe we'd have a he said she said case in this case they didn't call Catherine McBannell you only have one version the truth of what was said on those wires and we'll get to that Sanford the second time confirmed that Katie was hiding when the police came knocking on her door she lied to you about that he confirmed that Katie lied during her proffers that he had to walk out she lied to you about that he confirmed that there was no evidence of any calls between Katie and Charlie after Siegfriedo's arrest in the spring of 2016 he testified to the numerous lies that Katie told on the wires to Charlie and how she didn't lie to her co-conspirator Siegfriedo that was their case in chief we had no obligation to put on a case when you're evaluating the presumption of innocence and whether they met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt stop right there they didn't come close but we put on case we talked a little bit about lawyer Adamson we can move on from her I think you get the point of what her purpose was but Charlie Edelson testified and when he testified you saw him explain on direct what happened on the 18th how he was extorted how he was fearful for himself and his family you heard why he didn't go to the police listen some of us might go to the police some of us might not you heard why he didn't go to the police reasonable he had just seen what had happened to Professor Markell he knew the danger of these people she wants you to think that he would negotiate with Katie that night he was stunned what was there to negotiate and again there's no counter narrative because they didn't call Katie McBanawa and ask her about it [01:22:40] Speaker 2: you [01:22:53] Speaker 1: heard why he thought Katie wasn't part of it and was protecting him and you may remember Miss Kappelman trying to trick him and he was clear in 2014 he had no idea she was behind it no matter how many ways she tried to ask the question you saw him explain all the wires I'm not going to do it here I won't do that to you all you saw him explain every word on Dolce Vita you saw him explain what Dolce Vita was about see what you learn is that he met with his mom and at first he thought this might be the same original extorter because he knew that Catherine and Sigfredo were having issues and that made him nervous but he also saw how different this was and I apologize I went over so many wires where it's the same thing over and over and over as to him trying to compare the two events I did it for a reason it wasn't to bore you it was to show you in real time what was on his mind and when he met with his mom because of the differences he was pretty certain it was the police and he had no clue who Tato was but then he meets with Catherine McBanoa in that car and he freaked out and you know why he freaked out because he learns that there is a Tato he learns that he is not only in the Latin Kings but is the head of the Latin Kings he learns that he has brothers remember the book my brother is incarcerated and he learns that Tato is incarcerated and he thinks to himself oh my god and by the way he also learns which we now know is a lie because again Katie was trying to protect Sigfredo he learns that Tato was the killer he wasn't the killer Sigfredo was the killer Tuto but in the car he learns about the Latin kings he learns about Tato and he learns that that is the guy that she told him killed Professor Markell and you wonder why he's talking the way he's talking at Dolce Vita he is freaking out he thinks his mom if they don't pay is going to get killed and if she doesn't get killed someone else is and so when they walk into Dolce Vita that's what the debate is about so you have to understand the context of the conversation when they're talking about rental cars it's because he's just learned about the rental car when they're talking about dead gang members it's because he's just learned about a gang member Tato and the debate is he wants her to pay and she's telling them it's not them it's not him and the reason why she's telling them it's not him is because she knows who Tato is you saw Tato he'd be a little bit more threatening than the guy we saw in the video and his associates would be a little bit more threatening than Mr. Jimenez and through Dolce Vita what you see is a couple things and you can listen to it don't take my word for it you see him trying to act tough but then you see him quickly say but I don't know anything I'll keep my mouth shut so he's acting tough I'm carrying a gun I'll shoot the gang member in my driveway but I don't know anything I'm keeping my end of the bargain from July 18th I'm not going to say a word this discussion about information and details it's clear on Dolce Vita and on the liars what they're talking about the details aren't details about a murder the details are details about the payments by the way that's what they talked about when Jimenez came and did the bump we know you've been helping the payments they leave out the fact that repeatedly he says I don't care if it's the police because I've got nothing to hide it's said in Dolce Vita discussions about the importance of the characteristics of the guy who approached them he's not using he's using a real phone number he's not wearing a disguise he's not giving 48 hours he's not being threatening again we talked about it they only know part of the story discussions about who he hopes it is hopes it's the police and you see that contrary to what Miss Kappelman said in closing his absolute first instinct is to pay he wants her to pay she doesn't want to pay see she knows it's not top down she knows it's not secret and she's trying to convince him it's the police and you'll see in the video she goes to the bathroom and by the way he's been talking like this he doesn't stop she goes to the bathroom and he finally listens and when she comes back you see his conversation changes again okay I see what you say here's the number call the number but he starts talking about how it's different and then he calls his mom and he talks to his mom about how it's the police and Matsuri is the same thing now why they're talking in code listen I think this is semantics there is no code but we can agree on this they are talking carefully and the reason he is talking carefully depends on who he is speaking to when he's speaking to Catherine McBanoa he is speaking carefully because he needs her help and he does not want to spook her when when his mom and him are speaking carefully is because he does not want anyone to know including the police about the first extortion because if they know about the first extortion they're going to come talk to him and he believes that he and his family will be in danger and by the way he doesn't go to the police because it's clear the police wouldn't believe him [01:31:21] Speaker 2: just like they don't believe him right now now [01:31:36] Speaker 1: during Miss Kappelman's cross of Charlie Edelson you saw it I'm not going to go into it in detail but one thing is clear is that he knew the wires cold he knew dates he knew what he said on particular wires and you might ask yourself why his life is dependent on those wires for the last year and a half he's been in prison jail he's reviewed those wires because he knows they show what really happened the wires show his innocence and they certainly don't show proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt you know like the landline I want you to think about the bullet bourbon agent agent Maltese was told to take a picture of that bullet bourbon done to incite thank god Wendy Edelson kept the invitation to the party not the simplest explanation but the truth the state's case is like that the case against Charlie Edelson is a case of guesses and of assumptions it was not brought until just weeks before Catherine McVanna was second trial eight years after the murder six years after the arrest of Sigfredo and later Catherine McVanna the evidence wasn't there then and it isn't there today to meet their high burden the puzzle pieces do not fit he did not participate in the murder of Professor Markell he didn't do it he didn't conspire to do it he didn't solicit by the way speculation can be reasonable doubt you can go back there and speculate you can use your common sense and figure out [01:34:38] Speaker 2: your honor in a statement of the law approach [01:34:46] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [01:35:46] Speaker 1: Thank you. [01:36:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:36:22] Speaker 1: You don't have to check that in the door out there. The presumption of innocence means that we presume the best about people. We presume them to be blameless. That means when you're listening to these wires, if there are two possible explanations, you go with the one that is favorable to Charlie Edelson. That's what is consistent with the presumption of innocence. The state wants you to assume guilt. They want you to listen to these wires and they want you to hear them in a certain way through dirty lenses. They want you to look at them through the lens of everything being wrong and sinister. That is not what the law says you should do. If you presume this man innocent, which the law says you must do, which is what each and every one of you gave your word you would do during jury selection, then you look at these wires and you listen to them assuming the best about Charlie Edelson. And when you have two explanations, both of them reasonable, you go with the one that presumes his innocence. That's how our system works. Reasonable doubt, the judge has instructed you on. And he's told you that reasonable doubt is if you vacillate, if you go back and forth, that either explanation could be right. If you waver at all, that is living, breathing proof of reasonable doubt. And when you find yourself doing that, you must find Charlie Edelson not guilty. Because that is reasonable doubt and shows that the state did not meet its burden. Each and every one of you promised us during jury selection that you would have the courage, the fortitude, that the prosecution didn't meet its burden, something they have not come close to doing in this case. That you would have the courage to say the words, not guilty. And that's what we're asking you to do, because simply put, the evidence isn't there. The evidence is actually consistent with innocence. Now, because of the state's high burden of proof, they get another closing. And I don't get to speak again. So I need each and every one of you, when they're speaking, to think in your minds, what would Rashbom say? What would the evidence say? Remember, in our system, they don't get the last word. You do. I know you will take your jobs as jurors seriously. I know you will follow the law, the presumption of innocence, and the high burden of proof. If you do that, there is only one just verdict in this case. Count one, not guilty. Count two, not guilty. Count three, not guilty. End this nightmare. Send him home. Thank you, Your Honor.