FL v. Donna Adelson — Prosecution Closing Rebuttal

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Well, y'all tired of hearing lawyers talk yet? Down for another hour or two? I think I've got seven minutes. He hasn't started the timer yet. Okay. It does not matter what Ms. Fulford thinks, if she's right, if she's wrong, if I'm right, if I'm wrong, what the lawyers say is not evidence. You have the evidence before you. They say it means one thing. I say it means something else. Only you guys decide, right? I think outside your house means outside your house. But apparently outside your house means something else. I think a very contentious divorce means a very contentious divorce. They think it means an amicable divorce. You guys decide, right? Look at the evidence and you guys decide. Is everything not what it seems and actually something else? You guys decide. A TV repair appointment is not an alibi because she could have changed it to earlier. But she didn't change it to earlier. That's where she was when he was getting killed. That's an alibi. This TV. That doesn't mean, that's not code. That's a hint. A hint for what? This code. What does it involve? The two of us. Oh, well, that actually means it doesn't involve the two of us because we're being extorted. We're victims. It doesn't involve us. So what does it involve? The two of us actually means it does not involve the two of us. That's what we've heard. A one-way non-extradition ticket to Vietnam? It's not fleeing. It's a setup. How did I set her up? I didn't make her do that. I didn't get her a fast-track visa. I didn't get her a one-way ticket. She did that. She made those choices. Wendy didn't bother to tell her mom she was ready to give up on the relocation. Yes, she did. Look in the emails. She was giving up, and Donna wasn't having it. That's when she gets the totally unhinged email from her mother suggesting you're not going to give up. You want to move on with a sense of peace? Hell no. We're going to fight this guy. We're going to dress your kids up as Nazis. That's what happened when Wendy suggested giving up. Never, never, never give up, right? This murder charge is not based on the fact that she said some bad words. I mean, I'd be facing murder just in this courtroom. Obviously, people. That is not what this case is about. You've got to look at all the evidence. I mean, it is death by a thousand cuts. It is powdered sugar. You've got to look at the whole thing and make a decision. And I'm sorry that there's not a smoking gun, but she was too smart for that. She thought about it. She planned it. She made sure we could never get her, right? She took precautions, but she did make mistakes, and that's what all those exhibits are. Mistakes. My spin and the spin I'm putting on all the evidence, that's not... It doesn't matter what my spin is. It's your spin. You look at the evidence. You decide. I tell you what I think it shows. They tell you what they think it shows. Can I see the other side? And what do they think it shows? They don't have to prove anything. I have to prove the case. Yes. But what are they saying? Circles? Wendy? Wendy? Oh, no. Charlie? Definitely. Wendy? Maybe. Not Donna. But also, not Charlie, we were getting extorted. Not Charlie. I mean, you can't have it both ways, right? It's hard to get your head around it, but we can't be getting extorted by the killers who killed Dan Markell on their own. And also, Charlie's pretty guilty, and Wendy looks a little guilty, too. It's got it, like, there's no lane that's been picked. And they don't have to prove anything, but they're throwing all that out, right? And it's like, you were getting extorted? Or Charlie and Wendy did it behind your back, and they don't tell Mom what they're doing. Can't charge Donna, because Charlie already went down for this. No, that's not true. Everyone that's responsible for this murder should be held accountable for their role. Not just Charlie. Not just the two killers that came here and shot him. Everyone that played a part in it should be held accountable. They said some things in their closing that doesn't comport with my recollection of the evidence. For example, Corbett said that the defendant did not send the Evite. My recollection is the complete opposite. You guys took notes. You have remembrances. You guys rely on your own memory. I don't want to go through every single thing, but there are a few of those. The only complaint from a three- and four-year-old was, Grandma says you're stupid. Oh, that's dumb. Well, now, I remember that the kid also said, Grandma hates you. Rob has an axe to grind. Mary Hall said that the Adelson Institute was Charlie's until 2022. Not my recollection, but hopefully you remember that it changed hands in 2015. No SunPass records. Do you need SunPass records to know that Donna Adelson was outside Charlie's house on the night of the murder? We didn't know that. Catherine Magbanewa told us when I got to Charlie's, he told me his parents had just come, right, and brought the money. But when we looked in the records, there's a text outside your house corroborating what she said. That's important. She was outside his house. Oh, well, she had the garage code. Why didn't she go in? I don't know if she went in. Maybe she did. She told him, I'm outside your house. He said 10 minutes. He's going to be there in 10 minutes. Maybe she did go in. I don't know. But she was there. That I do know. I don't know why she's denying that. Grandma motion. We disagree with what the words say. I mean, I just don't know what to tell you. I say the words say, I don't want the kids around Grandma because she's disparaging me. Somebody needs to be there to monitor. They say, no, that's not what it means. It means something else. Charlie's extortion story. She wrote the checks because she had to to save her son's life. Well, right. So if that's the case, we're picking lane two here down below. And that's where all that evidence comes up about that pushes back on that. Like, that couldn't happen. They're not going to be spitballing the drug dealer defense years after they've been extorted. Like, that didn't happen. That was a lie, right, that Charlie came up with in his testimony and that she then kind of got stuck with after saying all the truth is out, truth is out, truth is out. Plus, she's got to come up with something for writing those checks. She paid for the murder. She paid for the murder. Could you just give me five more? Sanford said he never made a mistake, not my recollection. What's the pushback on extortion? Her behavior on the wire. She doesn't say, oh, my gosh, it's happening again. She doesn't say anything about the prior extortion. If the prior extortion had occurred, she would immediately tell him it's happening again or some reference to the fact that this is something that's been ongoing. She doesn't do that. Instead, she talks in code. It's a TV. What the heck? Why were you talking in code? Her Googling extortion versus blackmail seven days before Charlie's trial. That wouldn't happen if the extortion was real. She wasn't extorted. Charlie didn't tell her there was an extortion because there never was an extortion. She was paying for a murder. She knew it was going to be a murder. She's the one that wanted it done. Her discussion of Charlie's lawyers meeting with Garcia's lawyers. What? If she was being extorted by Garcia and Charlie was being extorted and his life being threatened by Garcia, their lawyers aren't going to be meeting up. Look at those text messages. She said, bring cash. They say, oh, that's not code. She said, bring cash. She literally said, bring cash for dinner on that call. It's not a hint. It's a code word. They say the bump failed. I say the bump succeeded. She said it involved the two of us. That was before we got made, before that Matsuri operation where they literally see the camera in the bag and know the cameras in the bag. Yeah, she called and put on a great show when she called the undercover, but what did she say in the first call, the second call and the third call before we got made, before she knew it was law enforcement? She said it involves the two of us, both of us. To these, okay, I want to hit one more thing. Don't call time on me. Two years after the murder, we've got two emails, 64T and 64I. The defense told you in opening that this defendant cares about others more than she cares about herself. The problem is that she decides what other people need, what's necessary for other people in their lives, and she is willing to justify whatever ends she thinks are needed, right? Any means to get to those ends are justified in her mind. The problem is she doesn't care about the collateral damage to get to her ends. Evidence has shown that this defendant, I think, did believe that Wendy and those boys were better off in South Florida. She thought that's what they needed. They would be better off with her, and she was angry that that couldn't happen. Dan Markell is the thing standing in the way. What was the cost of that to not only Dan Markell, but to those little boys? Those little boys lost their father. Look what she says in 64T. Children are two and three. Children do not even have a memory of life before age five or six. Look what she says in 64II when Wendy is concerned. This is two years after the murder. Her child is having trouble at school, crying because he misses his father. And this woman, this nice grandmother, innocent woman, says, quote, "I still do not believe that Ben is sad about his father." Quotations on the sad. 64II. I still do not believe that Ben is sad about his father. I spend a minimum of 25 hours a week with him, and oftentimes more than that, including weekend times and sleepover days, and have never experienced a time when he was sad. I think it's just another phase of the many, many phases that kids go through. The problem is they have a highly intelligent and sensitive mom. She doesn't believe that this kid is sad because she can't take accountability for her own actions and the catastrophic consequences that this had on everyone's life in her family. Not just her son, not just her daughter, not just Rob, not just Dan Markel, but those boys who lost their father. It wasn't better for them to be in South Florida. It was better for them to have their father. You must not base your verdict on the feelings of sympathy, prejudice, bias. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and the law. Yes, she's a grandmother. Most murderers don't look like that. But the evidence has revealed what she is. Please don't let her appearance influence your verdict in any way. It involves the two of us. What about the script? They didn't even talk about the script. She wrote a script for a witness that was perjured testimony about based on a lie, an extortion lie that's been proven in court to you to be false. This defendant tried to erase Dan Markel, thinking there would be no harm to those little boys. They don't have a memory of their father. They feel the absence of their father. This defendant decided they didn't need their dad. She doesn't get to decide that. She wanted it done. She brought the money. She stroked the check. She didn't have to do that. Charlie was a signator, had sign power on that account. He could have written the checks. She wrote the checks. Why? Because she was neck deep in this thing. She wrote the checks. She said it involved the two of us. She wrote that script. May you have the strength and the common sense to see this evidence for what it is. It's only one thing. There's only one truth. It can't all be right. There's only one truth. Render a verdict that does justice. Fine or guilty. Thank you.