COVERAGE & ANALYSIS: Charlie Adelson Trial Opening Statements

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: what's up sgs nation and welcome to this live special episode of surviving the survivor the [00:00:28] Speaker 2: podcast that promises to bring you the very best guest in all of true crime uh today of course we are going to be watching together live the opening statements in the charlie adelson trial we've got a roster of best guests here who you've seen before top of the top of the food chain as we say uh to help break this all down uh we've got carl steinbeck a former jag uh military officer he also is a combat veteran now has his own law firm uh representing veterans and others out of the great state of texas uh from the university of surrey in the united kingdom uh we've got dr melissa hamilton who was also at one time fancy fiction just reminded me a corrections officer so she brings a really unique perspective to all this and then of course the woman behind the avatar is fancy fiction she is uh here in the flesh uh behind that avatar just a very quick note obviously another horrific mass shooting in the united states of america i don't know when or if this is ever gonna stop at least 22 reported dead in lewiston maine and the vicinity last night a person uh by the name of robert card uh reportedly shooting up two different locations and the manhunt is still on with dozens injured and the death toll expected to rise so let's keep them uh top of mind this morning um again i just spoke to uh tim jansen who is recovering he may try to make it here today he's got a doctor's appointment uh to help us with this analysis um but he tells me that they're gonna be doing some court wrangling for the first 20 minutes or so uh maybe shorter and then we'll get right into the opening statements once those begin we will take you directly to those opening statements we will watch together and then we will break it all down quick programming note as if this was not enough we have uh famed criminal defense attorney mark garagos coming on the program at 5 p.m eastern time tonight with david lat a former classmate of dan markel and a legal scholar in his own right a very very well-known blogger in the legal world uh with a huge massive following so david lat mark garagos and tim jansen set to join us tonight at 5 p.m eastern time for that we were going to do a third show on brian coberger we're going to move that to tomorrow with bill and scott because there is a court hearing with brian coberger so when it rains it pours um but for now obviously the attention you're looking at him charlie adelson again in that gray suit uh fancy fiction to you first uh how's he looking to you does he look a little nervous to you [00:03:22] Speaker 3: sorry i had to unmute good morning um he's looked nervous to me this whole time he looks like a mess he looks unconfident drugged um gained some weight hairline receding he does not look good in the ill-fitting suit donna not a good match you need to go up and see your son in real life so you can know [00:03:43] Speaker 2: what size he is you think she you think she picked it out for him fancy um it was caught on one of the [00:03:49] Speaker 3: um i was told i didn't hear it myself but someone credible said that it was caught in sort of height hot mike during one of the hearings rosh bomb who was essentially donna and harvey's lawyer for many years throughout this as well so he's like the adelson family lawyer he said i talked to your mom and we're gonna get this suit so they were discussing rosh bomb was saying he was discussing with donna [00:04:09] Speaker 2: about getting charlie this attire for trial and uh fancy i know uh you are the insider when it comes to this case you've got a little bit of breaking news regarding wendy adelson can you share that with us yeah i think she's in town turn laura uh there you go wendy adelson is in tallahassee uh she is likely to testify and uh could come as soon as tomorrow hopefully it'll be next week selfishly because uh steve meve cohen and i get up there uh sunday evening um dr hamilton charlie's been in jail in leon county jail for the better part of a year um he doesn't look the way he once looked which was tan muscular now he's a little pudgy uh as fancy said a receding hairline put into this suit from his jumpsuit um what's it like to be in jail for a year as a former corrections officer what kind of toll does that take on you uh mentally and physically well interesting it um affects people differently so we [00:05:13] Speaker 4: have some people who cycle in and out of jail and jail time is nothing to them but people for like him it is very different this is uh his time has been substantially different than his entire life so it would affect him much more than many of the other people in jail and you are seeing it physically with him now the toll that it has taken um in the ways that you have mentioned um and i agree with fancy that he does he looks nervous um so even though interestingly his whole life um as you've recounted in the show a number of times is he's basically gotten away with everything now he's being held to account um and it is visually appearing to him that he is realizing this is a big moment and not necessarily in a good way um so even though uh he might be confident that he can convince a jury he's not guilty he's showing now that he's not overly confident of that so the time has come for him [00:06:11] Speaker 2: carl to you just walk sts nation through opening statements uh obviously a very intelligent community here i always say best guess better community but tell us all what we're going to see this morning um who's likely to start how long is it likely to last um and and what is the strategy here uh you know does each side want to be short and to the point uh explain the process right so opening statements [00:06:38] Speaker 5: they're not technically arguments but good attorneys can sort of weave arguments into their points they're making and what they want to do is really just walk the jury through their theory of the case which i would not advocate this is a theory but actually state as a prosecutor this is what actually happened and be strong and confident about laying out the facts here's how the crime unfolded here's how the defendant is responsible here's who did the hit for him and here's all the uh details of the case i think that they'll they tend to go very lengthy i i think in a case like this it's uh probably more appropriate because there are so many details i think though for the defense they're they're really going to have a hard time coming up with a theme a theory how did this happen where he is falsely accused that these people did this to him to set him up and and try to extort him is what i think the theory will be that this was sort of a concoction by katie and and sigfredo and and they try to blackmail him after the facts and after the fact and so anyway he's so close to the line of fire of the hitman and whatnot and then we have the money drops and all that kind of stuff and then the the videotape of him at the dolce video talking to katie mcbanwa and also the wiretaps so i they don't have really anything [00:07:55] Speaker 2: to work with joel uh here's a super sticker from mary benny thank you mary his parents and wendy should be up on charges let's listen in for one moment and coe please take that down thank you [00:08:20] Speaker 1: everyone may be seated [00:08:24] Speaker 2: looks like the judge just walked into chambers let's continue to listen that's charlie adelson of course in the middle fixing his jacket he does look quite tense to me good morning ladies and [00:08:32] Speaker 1: gentlemen of the jury before we get started with the trial i'm going to give you an instruction that's going to explain to you how the trial is going to be conducted space coast if we can pump that volume anymore that'd be great note taking as well does everyone have a note pad and pin in their seats all right and for the record the jurors have answered in the affirmative once i have given those two instructions to you the attorneys are going to present their opening statements and the state will begin with the presentation of its case once again i will be reading to you a fair amount during the trial it's not that i don't wish to have a normal conversation with you but rather the instruction on the law that you're to receive the jury throughout the trial must be specific and uniform ladies and gentlemen of the jury you have been selected and sworn as the jury to try the case of the state of florida versus charles adelson this is a criminal case charles adelson is charged with first-degree murder conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder the definition of these offenses will be explained to you later in the trial the state's charging document which is called an indictment is not evidence and is not to be considered by you as any proof of guilt it will be my responsibility during this trial to explain the law to you it is your solemn responsibility to determine if the state proved its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt against charles adelson in accordance with the law that i will provide to you thus the province of the jury and the province of the court are well defined and they do not overlap this is one of the fundamental principles of our system of justice before proceeding further it will be helpful if you understand how a trial is conducted at the beginning of the trial the attorneys will have an opportunity if they wish to make an opening statement the opening statement gives the attorneys a chance to tell you what evidence they believe will be presented during the trial what the lawyers say is not evidence and you are not to consider it as such following the opening statements witnesses will be called to testify under oath they will be examined and cross-examined by the attorneys documents and other exhibits may also be produced as evidence after the evidence has been presented i will give you instructions on the law the attorneys will then have their opportunity to make their closing arguments following the closing arguments by the attorneys i will conclude in giving you final instructions after the final instructions have been given the alternate jurors will be released and you will then retire to consider your verdict you should not form any definite or fixed opinion on the merits of this case until you have heard all the evidence the argument of the lawyers and the instruction on the law that i will provide to you until that time you should not discuss this case amongst yourselves your verdict must be based solely on the evidence or the lack of evidence and the law i now instruct you not to communicate with anyone including your fellow jurors about this case no communication includes no emailing text messaging tweeting blogging or any other form of communication you cannot do any research about the case or look up any information that is related to the case if you become aware of any violation of these rules at all please notify my bailiff concerning the violation during the course of the trial we may have to take recesses or breaks during these recesses or breaks you will either be returned to the jury room or you'll be permitted to separate and go about your affairs during these recesses or breaks you must not discuss the case with anyone nor permit anyone to say anything to you or in your presence about this case if anyone attempts to say anything to you or in your presence about this case please tell him or her that you're on the jury that is trying the case and ask that person to stop if he or she persists believe that person at once and immediately report the matter to my bailiff who will advise me concerning the situation all cell phones computers tablets and other types of electronic devices must be turned off while you're in the courtroom turned off means that the phone or other [00:13:15] Speaker 2: electronic device is actually off thank you elf we're going to continue to listen in thank you elf you may [00:13:21] Speaker 1: use your devices during any recesses or breaks but even then you may not use your cell phone or electronic device to find out any information about the case or communicate with anyone about the case or the people that are involved in the case do not take photographs video recordings or audio recordings of the proceedings or of your fellow jurors after each recess or break please double check to make sure your cell phone or electronic device is turned off at the end of the case while you are deliberating you must not communicate with anyone outside the jury room you cannot have in the jury room any cell phones computers or other electronic devices if someone needs to contact you in an emergency the court can receive messages and deliver them to you without delay a contact phone number will be provided to you for this very purpose the case must be tried by you only on the evidence that is presented during the trial in your presence and in the presence of the defendant the attorneys and myself jurors must not conduct any investigation of their own this includes reading newspapers watching television using a computer cell phone the internet any electronic device or any other means at all to get information related to this case or the people and places that are involved in this case this instruction is going to apply to you whether you're in the courthouse at home or anywhere else you must not visit places mentioned in the trial or use the internet to look at maps or pictures to see any place that is discussed during the trial jurors must not have discussions of any sort with friends or family members about the case or the people and places involved so do not let even the closest family members make comments to you or ask questions about the trial in this age of electronic communication i want to stress again that just as you must not talk about this case face to face you must not talk about this case by using an electronic device you must not use phones computers or other electronic devices to communicate [00:15:32] Speaker 2: do not thank you bud fox for the super stickers we continue to listen to judge everts instructions to [00:15:39] Speaker 1: the jury prior to opening statements by any means at all including posting information on an internet [00:15:45] Speaker 2: website and a special shout out to michelle abbott coming to us from maine where that horrific mass [00:15:50] Speaker 1: shooting happened thinking of you these rules are imposed because jurors must decide the case without distraction and only on the evidence presented in the courtroom if you investigate research or make inquiries on your own i will have no way to make sure the information you have obtained is proper and relevant to this case the parties likewise have no opportunity to dispute or challenge the accuracy of what you may find that is contrary to our judicial system which assures every party the right to ask questions about and challenge the evidence being considered against it and to present argument with respect to that evidence any independent investigation by a juror unfairly and improperly prevents the parties from having the opportunity that our judicial system promises any juror who violates these restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of the proceedings and a mistrial could result that would require the entire trial process to start over a mistrial is a tremendous expense and inconvenience the parties the court and all taxpayers if you violate these rules you may be held in contempt of court and face sanctions such as serving time in jail paying a fine or possibly both in every criminal proceeding a defendant has the absolute right to remain silent at no time is it the duty of a defendant to prove his innocence from the exercise of a defendant's right to remain silent a jury is not permitted to draw any inference of guilt and the fact that the defendant did not take the witness stand must not influence your verdict in any manner whatsoever the attorneys are trained in the rules of evidence and trial procedure and is their duty to make all objections they feel are proper when objection is made you should not speculate on the reason why it has been made likewise when objection is sustained or upheld by me you must not speculate on what might have occurred had the objection not been sustained nor what a witness might have said had he or she been permitted to answer the question during the trial it may be necessary for me to confer with the attorneys out of your hearing to discuss matters that require my consideration alone it is impossible to predict when such a conference may be required or for how long that conference may last when such conferences occur they will be conducted so as to consume as little of your time as is necessary for fair and orderly trial of this case if you would like to take notes during the trial you may do so on the other hand of course you are not required to to take notes if you do not want to that will be left up to each juror as an individual choice you have been provided with a notepad and pen for your use if you wish to take notes any notes that you take will be for your use however you are not to take your notepads from the courtroom [00:19:17] Speaker 2: shout out to heather m for uh gifted five memberships as we continue to listen to judge steven ever give instructions to the jury ahead of opening after you have completed your deliberations [00:19:29] Speaker 1: in this matter my bailiff will deliver your notepads to me from there they will be destroyed no one will ever read your notes if you choose to take notes do not get so involved in note taking that you become distracted from the actual proceedings your notes should only be used as an aid to your memory is the state ready to give its opening statement you may proceed thank you [00:19:57] Speaker 2: here we go georgia kappelman about to deliver opening statement to the jury of 15 people haven't heard [00:20:03] Speaker 6: for me yet my name is sarah katherine dugan and i'm going to be representing the state of florida in this case along with georgia kappelman uh so uh the last couple days we've obviously been in jury selection thank you all for your patience with that i know there's a lot of waiting involved with that in injury selection you know each side was able to kind of talk with you about your feelings and concepts i'm sorry your feelings about the law and different concepts but now it's time for opening statements where each of us is going to kind of give you a road map of what we expect that the evidence in this case will show and then after opening statements we'll start hearing from witnesses and getting into the actual evidence in this case so let's get right to it the reason that we're here today is because the defendant in this case charlie adelson hired a hip man to kill his former brother-in-law dan markell this murder was set into motion because back in 2014 the defendant's family the adelson family had a big problem and that big problem was dan markell and the solution to that problem was this defendant this defendant was the solution to that problem because he had a girlfriend with connections to the type of people who were willing and capable of pointing a gun at a complete stranger and pulling the trigger the victim in this case was known as danny to his friends and family he was a loving father to two little boys he was a highly respected professor at florida state college of law and tragically on july 18th of 2014 dan markell was shot twice in the head in broad daylight in the driveway of his home in the benton hills neighborhood here in tallahassee the last day of dan markell's life that day began like any other of his mornings that summer he woke up he drove his two little boys to preschool and dropped them off and then he drove over to the gym to work out after finishing his workout he returned home he pulled in his driveway opened his garage but little did he know that throughout his just normal routine that morning he was being followed he was being followed by two hired hitmen who traveled all the way in talla from miami to tallahassee for the sole purpose of murdering him and just like something out of a a horror movie he pulls into his driveway and the car that unknown to him pulls in right behind him moments later dan markell's neighbor heard a gunshot he looked out the window and he saw a light colored toyota prius backing quickly out of dan markell's driveway and then speeding away the neighbor waited for a couple minutes to see if maybe dan markell came out of his house or backed out of his driveway too and when nothing happened this neighbor got that funny feeling that maybe something could be wrong here so he walked over and what he found was a gruesome scene he walked in the garage and saw that the driver's side window of dan markell's car was shattered he saw dan markell was still behind the wheel with he was alive but he was moaning he was unresponsive and he was terribly injured the neighbor then goes and calls 911 law enforcement arrives and they find dan markell unresponsive with gunshot wounds to his head he was then taken to the hospital where he survived for several hours before he was actually pronounced dead dan markell was 41 years old and his little boys that were deprived of of their father that day were just three and four years old law enforcement immediately began to investigate to figure out who shot dan markell and the evidence they find sets them down two separate paths one path is that they had to track down that light colored prius that the neighbor saw fleeing from the crime scene and identify who was inside that prius and the other path relates to dan markell's personal life they look to see who if anybody in dan markell's personal life would hate dan markell enough to kill him and after years of tireless investigation and after years of tireless investigation by law enforcement both of these two paths led directly to this defendant so let's talk about the path involving dan markell's personal life first in looking at who might have a motive to kill dan markell law enforcement learned that markell was entangled in a very nasty divorce with his ex-wife who is the defendant's sister her name is wendy adelson a review of their divorce case file revealed that wendy adelson asked the court to allow her to move back to miami where she was from with the kids in order to be near her parents whose names are harvey and donna adelson and her brother the defendant dan markell was adamantly opposed to his children being relocated to miami he was a law professor here in tallahassee this is where he lived this is where his kids have been raised he wanted his kids to live here with him and for this custody dispute the judge ended up ruling in dan martel's favor so wendy adelson was not permitted to move to miami with the children unless of course something happened to dan martel a review of wendy adelson's emails revealed revealed that her mother donna adelson hated dan martel and was desperate to find a way for wendy and her children who were donna adelson's grandchildren to be able to move to miami donna adelson suggests in these emails that y'all will hear about several ways that wendy adelson could threaten or bully dan martel into submission into getting what she wanted him to do donna adelson even suggested offering dan martel a one million dollar bribe to allow the relocation and even said that this defendant charlie adelson would pay a third of that million dollar bribe to dan martel to make that happen the evidence in this case will show that donna adelson's closest confidant was her son the defendant she and the defendant talked multiple times a day every day he was the person with whom she would constantly vent and complain to about wendy's situation the defendant was also the person that donna adelson relied on to solve her problems and this was a big big problem for donna adelson and she made it the defendant's problem to solve so the divorce between wendy adelson and dan markell was final about a year before the actual murder but that was not the end of that case litigation was ongoing to say the least each side would continue to routinely file violations of the custody agreement violations of the settlement agreement and that continued right up until dan martel's death in july of 2014. this was a highly emotionally charged situation between them leading up to his death however there was no physical violence that wendy adelson needed to be rescued from or anything like that but make no mistake this was a very messy custody dispute shortly before the murder in fact dan markell the victim filed with the court and basically asked the court he alleged that donna adelson was disparaging him to his children by saying bad things about him and he asked the court to enter an order preventing donna adelson from having unsupervised contact with her her grandchildren this motion was still pending in court when dan markell was killed the murder of dan markell ensured that an adverse ruling on his motion would never be a problem for the adelson's and just about 48 hours after the shooting wendy adelson and the little boys real located to miami shortly thereafter moved into a home within walking distance of the adelson's miami home within a year of dan markell's murder wendy adelson legally changed dan markell's son's last name from markell to adelson and just like that their father was just effectively erased from their lives at three and four and the adelson's family their big problem had been solved you'll hear during this trial that the adelson's are a very tight-knit family the defendant and his parents harvey and donna adelson they actually even all worked together or worked together at the adelson institute which was their family's dental practice at the adelson institute the defendant and harvey adelson were dentists and donna adelson managed the office after dan markell was killed on july 18 2014 law enforcement interviewed wendy adelson and wendy adelson acknowledged that her family had a motive to kill dan markell or to want him dead she admitted that her brother the defendant had even said that he looked into hiring a hitman to kill dan markell as a divorce present to her but he decided to buy her a tv instead because it was cheaper and and coincidentally or not that tv that this defendant bought his sister as a divorce gift and said instead of hiring a hitman would be wendy adelson's alibi for the morning of the murder when the defendant when the victim was killed by a hitman so this path of looking into dan markell's life to see who would have a motive to want him dead leads law enforcement to the adelson's including this defendant a man who told his family that he'd looked into hiring a hitman to kill dan markell the defense asked yesterday in jury selection you know who's talked trash or heard somebody talk trash about an in-law which is not a rare concept a lot of people don't like their in-laws but the difference here is that the defendant's comment stopped being just a little bit of trash talk when dan markell was actually killed by a hitman while the police are trying to investigate you know who in dan markell's personal life may have a motive to kill him they're simultaneously going down that second path i described to y'all which was tracking down the vehicle that the neighbor saw fleeing the crime scene when law enforcement retraced dan markell's steps the morning of the murder they uncovered some chilling surveillance video of a prius fitting the description of the one seen by the neighbor following dan markell into the premier gym parking lot waiting for an hour while he was inside and then following him home from premier gym back to his neighborhood they got this the surveillance images from city buses from premier from everywhere they possibly could and these surveillance images coupled with a massive amount of phone data and sun pass records gathered in this case helped police to eventually track down the exact car used in this crime but police still had to figure out who was in the prius and why did they kill dan markell as part of this really painstaking review that law enforcement did of all of these records and when i say painstaking finding this prius and finding this these all of this evidence and all of these records was not an easy task and it took longer than your average investigation it was very difficult to do they combed through tons of phone records and even did what's called a tower dump which is where law enforcement collected a list of all of the cell phone numbers that communicated with the cell tower that serviced different spots in tallahassee that dan markell was at that morning including premier gym when the suspects prius were there because they thought if the person in the prius was using their phone at the time then their number will be somewhere in this tower dump they combed through all of that data and they found the number with the miami area code belonging to a man named sigfredo garcia law enforcement examined all of garcia's call logs and saw that he was in frequent contact with another number that was also present at premier gym that morning and that number belonged to a man named luis rivera luis rivera luis rivera is a lifelong friend of sigfredo garcia and is also from miami police then looked at all of garcia and rivera's phone records which showed that their phones left miami about two or two days before this murder on july 16th of 2014. the phones came to tallahassee and on the day of the murder july 18th they followed markell to premier gym the phone data is consistent with both men turning off their phones just minutes before the murder and leaving their phones off until about an hour hour or so after the murder when they're well on their way back towards miami and then a bank's atm camera caught both garcia and rivera in that light-colored prius once they arrived back in the miami area when they stopped at an atm so police figured out the identity and this should appear on the screens in front of you the identity of the two men responsible for following and killing dan markell louis rivera his nickname is tato and sugfredo garcia his nickname is tudow but they continued to look for evidence of why this why two seemingly random men came all the way to tallahassee to kill a man dan markell that they'd never met you know what or who is the connection between these killers and the victim well phone records reveal that one of sigfredo garcia's most frequent of contacts was a woman named katherine magbanua her nickname is katie garcia and katherine magbanua have a long history of an on-again off-again relationship over the course of many years and they actually share two kids in common and lo and behold when looking at the phone records katherine magbanua is also one of the most frequent contacts of this defendant charlie adelson law enforcement learned that at the time of dan markell's murder this defendant was dating katherine magbanua she was his girlfriend at the time so dan markell was a problem that this defendant needed to solve for his family the defendant was looking so you can see how both leads in this case followed by investigators both of them charted in a way to hire a hitman to hire a hitman to kill dan mark hell ends up being killed by a hitman and who ended up being the hitman it was someone with a close relationship to this defendant's girlfriend the hitman was the father of his girlfriend's children so you can see how both leads in this case followed by investigators both of them charted paths to this defendant not only did looking into the motive lead law enforcement to the defendant because he wanted to hire someone to kill to uh kill dan markell but looking into the car fleeing the scene also led law the law enforcement to the defendant through his girlfriend at the time so two different investigations arriving at the same conclusion law enforcement also tried to follow the money in this case and that was a third way that the evidence in this case points to this defendant law enforcement reviewed bank records employment records dhsmv records of all of the suspects and saw that in the months after the homicide sifredo garcia lewis rivera and katherine mcbanewa all acquired some big ticket items rivera and garcia both bought motorcycles and cars katherine mcbanewa got a breast augmentation surgery and later received a black lexus sedan whose previous owner was harvey adelson katherine mcbanewa's bank records were analyzed and there was no check ever written or matching cash withdrawal for the car or the breast augmentation which was paid for in cash bank record also reviewed bank records also showed rather that katherine mcbanewa's account had a huge spike in cash deposits right around the time of the murder she deposited more money into her account in the five weeks following the murder than in the entire previous year before the murder this was during a time when there was no record of her being employed anywhere also about two months after the murder the defendant added katherine mcbanewa to the payroll at the adelson institute and she began receiving regular checks from their business account every two weeks for two years after the murder and this was despite the fact that she did not work at the adelson institute so the money was talking but what were the suspects saying that's what law enforcement wanted to know so as they're examining the phone records in this case they see a distinct pattern surrounding important events dates in this case the phone calls and they can't see the content they can't hear the content of these calls in these phone records but they see that the calls are occurring and the phone calls always went from donna adelson to the defendant then from the defendant to catherine mcbanewa to sigfredo garcia and back the other way kind of like train cars they only touch the car right in front of them you know donna adelson never calls catherine mcbanewa or sigfredo garcia charlie adelson never calls sigfredo garcia or vice versa so if this is a murder for hire as law enforcement suspects could it be that the defendant was wisely insulating himself from the actual shooters by having catherine mcbanewa act as a middleman between them law enforcement decided to launch an undercover investigation designed to clarify who the members of the conspiracy were and how information traveled within this conspiracy so police applied for and received court authorization to listen in real time to the phone calls of the defendant and catherine mcbanewa and this is what's known as a wiretap by this point the the point that the law enforcement received authorization to do this wiretap it was april of 2016. so it's been not quite but almost two years since the murder of dan markel which occurred in july of 2014. so by april of 2016 the defendant and catherine mcbanewa are no longer dating at that point they've been broken up since the fall of 2014. catherine mcbanewa is actually back together with sigfredo garcia the father of her children at that point um the defendant has moved on to many other girlfriends since catherine mcbanewa but the defendant and catherine mcbanewa are still in regular communication and have remained very close friends since the murder and rivera who was the second hitman in that prius he in april of 2016 was actually in federal prison doing time on a another charge unrelated to this murder so all of the members of this conspiracy have presumably gone on with their lives believing they've gotten away with this murder so even though law enforcement has authority to listen to their calls now you know what are they gonna what reason would these people have to still be discussing the murder at this point so police needed to stage an event that would generate a conversation between the conspirators about the murder and the plan was to send an undercover agent posing as somebody on behalf of louis rivera who was incarcerated to walk up to donna adelson on the street and try to extort money out of her and law enforcement refers to this as the bump so this undercover agent walks up to donna adelson one day she's leaving the adelson institute during the day the undercover agent hands donna adelson a piece of paper and on the piece of paper is an article about the murder of dan markel with his picture on it and you know fsu professor killed um also on the piece of paper are a phone number and the amount of five thousand dollars the undercover agent tells donna adelson that he knows that the adelson's are taking care of katie and he's there to extort money out of her on rivera's behalf in order to even things out the undercover agent never says the defendant's name or anything about the defendant's involvement to donna adelson then law enforcement listens to see what will happen next will donna adelson go straight to the police to report this extortion attempt or will something else entirely happen as suspected based on the previously observed communication pattern the first person that donna adelson calls after the bump is the defendant despite the fact that the undercover agent never mentioned the defendant to her on that first call one would think that donna adelson would say to her son you know it's so crazy some man came up to me and he's handed me this article about danny's murder and he's he's you know seems like he's demanding money from us she never says any of that in fact she never says dan markel's name at all instead she tells the defendant that she needs to talk to him in person in person not over the phone about some paperwork that was hand delivered to her she said that this paperwork she says this to the defendant it involves the two of us and that he should know what she's talking about she says that he should bring cash to their meeting and she also says that this tv is about five donna adelson tells the defendant that the man who approached her mentioned an ex-girlfriend donna adelson never says which ex-girlfriend she's referring to she never says catherine mcbanwa or katie's name to the defendant in that on call she only says that the blackmailer mentioned an ex-girlfriend the defendant never asked his mom whose expert my ex-girlfriend which ex-girlfriend he never asked that because as the evidence will show he didn't need to he knew that this tv is about five meant that she was being blackmailed about danny's murder for 5 000 and he knew that the ex-girlfriend in question was catherine mcbanwa and we know that because after this call with his mother the defendant calls catherine mcbanwa he doesn't call his most recent ex-girlfriend he doesn't even call the most recent ex-girlfriend because before the most recent ex-girlfriend the one before that no he calls catherine mcbanwa and his call to catherine mcbanwa is the only call that he makes to any ex-girlfriend after getting the information from his mother that the blackmailer mentioned an ex-girlfriend and he had not dated catherine mcbanwa for a year and a half at that point and although the defendant threatens to do it often neither he nor his mom ever report the matter to the police the only people that he discusses it with on these calls is donna adelson and catherine mcbanwa and you'll hear these phone calls between the conspirators and as you listen to these calls y'all will notice that they are being cautious about what they say in over the phone it's very apparent that they are very careful with their words because they are immediately suspicious that law enforcement could be listening to their conversations so donna adelson calls the defendant and the defendant's first call is to catherine mcbanwa after that the defendant then meets up with his mom in person like his mom requested and his mom gives him this paperwork that the undercover agent gave her then next the defendant and catherine mcbanwa meet up in person and they meet up at a restaurant in miami called dolce vita and while they sat at their table in this dolce vita is a busy noisy restaurant an undercover fbi agent sat at a table nearby with a hidden camera in their bag and recorded this conversation and in the recording we hear the defendant discussing whether the man who walked up to his mom could be an undercover police officer or someone who's trying to blackmail them and if it's the latter if it's a blackmailer is it somebody who's just trying to make a quick buck or is it somebody who actually knows information from the inside the defendant reassures catherine mcbanwa that if it is the police that's a good thing the defendant thinks that if it's the police that means that they do not have enough evidence to charge anybody in fact the defendant tells her if they had any evidence we would have already gone to the airport the defendant starts giving her some legal advice he says that hey in order to prove that someone committed a crime you have to be able to put the person at the scene of the crime at the time that was committed which unfortunately for them is not an accurate statement of the law it's important to note too at the time of this conversation at dolce vita no arrests had been made the only thing that police had released to the public was a photo of the prius that fled the scene this was the prius that garcia and rivera rented and used the day of dan markel's murder so police knew at that point that it was garcia and rivera who were in the prius but the public did not know that yet and no arrests had been made because they wanted to do this undercover investigation and so the fact that this photo of this prius had been released to the public is interesting in light of some of the things that y'all will hear the defendant say to catherine mcbanwa in the dolce vita recording he starts giving catherine mcbanwa several analogies all involving rental cars used to commit crimes he reassures her that if dna is found in a car all that means is that at one point the person sat in the car and if that car was later used in a crime police can't prove that just from a person's dna being in the car the defendant points out to her that if a rental car is found that was a crime scene police also have to prove who was driving it at the time he gives her a very relevant hypothetical of her renting a car in miami and someone asking to borrow it and driving to orlando to commit a robbery and how she would be innocent in that hypothetical because she wasn't in the car at the time of the robbery so through these analogies the defendant is reassuring catherine mcbanwa that even if police identify who rented the car that fled the scene they still would not have enough evidence to hold anybody responsible for the murder even if they did find out it was garcia and rivera the defendant also says that crimes are tough to prove unless someone actually witness the suspect commit a crime or a suspect makes a confession or a suspect is caught on a wire talking about the crime so the defendant's trying to reassure her about the lack of evidence and hey as long as we all stay quiet then we don't have anything to worry about at one point the defendant said asked her let me ask you a question and then he asked her about money he says when everybody was there the next day did you take any money like are any of you driving around in a bentley i mean or no it's not like any of you are driving around in a bentley or cruising around in a mega yacht so here the defendants pointing out that the money wasn't used to buy anything flashy that would draw the attention of the police and when discussing and you all will hear during the course of this trial why why his statement or his question about the money from the next day is particularly important the evidence will show that katherine magbanwa went to the defendant's home the night of the murder where he paid her in cash and the next day katherine magbanwa paid garcia and rivera their cuts of the money when discussing the possibility of whether this is actually some gangster trying to blackmail his family for money the defendant says that whoever this person is whoever it is knows information the defendant told katherine magbanwa that there are two ways of dealing with this guy they could call the police but then the guy blackmailing them would be charged with trying to blackmail his family and the blackmailer would start talking and he would start calling out katherine magbanwa's name and then police are going to be asking questions about what happened the other option is to pay the blackmailer but let him know that this is a one-time thing and try to try to scare the blackmailer off by saying hey if you come around again we're going to the police so the defendant then gives katherine magbanwa very precise instructions he wants her to call the blackmailer and tell him that you know this is this would be he what he wants katherine magbanwa to say my friends meaning the adelson family have no idea what you're talking about and i don't have any idea what you're talking about either but the name of the person who you said is incarcerated sounds familiar so i'm going to give you this money as charity to help the less fortunate but don't contact these people again or they're going to go to the police and the defendant said he would give katherine magbanwa the 5 000 to pay off the blackmailer except he's concerned though that this won't resolve the issue for good the defendant is worried that this guy is not going to go away that he's going to keep coming back for more and more money and the defendant offers a solution to have this blackmailer killed and he says he's willing to pay whatever it takes the defendant tells her that this is the defendant talking to katherine magbanwa this guy meaning the blackmailer is effing with him and his wife and you better kill him or he's going to be a big problem because he knows who you are and the defendant then says if he can't handle this i'll have somebody else do it the defendant says so help me god if they fuck with my family it's going to be nazi shit because this will be done i mean katie i don't care what i spend it's important to note during this conversation and the entire wiretap the defendant never says sigfredo garcia's name but the evidence will show that the defendant was talking about sigfredo garcia when the defendant says that the blackmailer was effing with him and his wife and if hey if he can't do it i'll find someone else who will because immediately after that the defendant checks with katherine magbanwa to make sure that garcia has no hard feelings towards him no reason not to help him he says hey i have you on salary you think he'd be happy about that and he also says i mean our paths never crossed meaning hey garcia wasn't in the picture when he and katherine and man were together there wasn't any overlap after hearing that the defendant wants someone killed and is willing to pay whatever it takes to get it done katherine magbanwa then asked the defendant to help her out and the defendant reassures her that she'll be taken care of by saying he says i don't have to sometimes the chairs can be a little wobbly i know this has taken a bit but i'm almost done thank y'all for being patient all right so she asked him to help her out and the defendant reassures her that she'll be taken care of he says he doesn't have to tell her the things that he'll do for her he shows her what he'll do for her she doesn't have to ask him for anything he looks for things to do he says hey when someone's birthday's coming up or there's car problems she doesn't have to ask he looks for ways to help and after his meeting with catherine magbanwa the defendant immediately calls donna abelson to let her know that everything's fine and he does this using some pretty obvious code words which y'all will hear and you will hear the conspirators often use words to mask the meaning of what they're actually talking about catherine magbanwa then also using these code words tasks garcia with calling the number on the paperwork and finding out if a blackmailer is a legitimate associate of rivera or not and in the series of recorded calls that follow you guys are going to hear these conspirators talking and using words like tv false leads listings properties clients rap songs cds pot bellied pigs relationship advice all these different terms that are normal terms any of us may use but they're used in context in these calls that if you're listening to the conversation do not make any sense for example in the calls the defendant and catherine magbanwa don't outright debate the pros and cons of whether they should pay this blackmailer instead they talk about the fact that this property is cheap they might expect a property like this to even be a million dollars this property seems like a great deal but if you get the wrong tenant in there the tenant may keep increasing the rent and that tenant may become a leech that never leaves you so it will be up to y'all to decide whether this defendant is actually worried about a future tenant of a property that might raise the rent and pay him more money or if the defendant is actually worried that if he pays off the blackmailer then the blackmailer may continue to come back again and again or send a cousin or a friend to become a leech that never leaves him that he can't get rid of in another of these calls the defendant tells catherine magbanwa that whoever this person is this blackmailer is he's got a lot of effing details and in another they discuss the fact that this blackmailer is not from the inside and the defendant says that this guy is probably not from the first layer but the second layer so not someone who got info from garcia maybe somebody who got info from rivera but one fact and let me just say as the jury you all will interpret and decide what they're really talking about in these calls only y'all can determine the meaning and the weight to give this evidence and only you can separate just mere coincidences from evidence in the conspiracy but one fact though is really clear throughout these calls is that all of these conspirators are hopeful that this blackmailer is law enforcement just trying to get information because they think if it's law enforcement and the police don't have enough to bring charges just fishing for information versus the other possibility which would obviously be much worse for them that the adelson's are being blackmailed by somebody who actually knows inside information about their roles in dan markell's murder and may tell the police what they know so after this undercover operation which was in 2016 lewis rivera sefredo garcia and katherine mcbanwa are arrested they're charged with the same charges before y'all on this trial and lewis rivera ended up cutting a deal with the state to tell law enforcement the truth about the murder of dan markell and the people responsible rivera told law enforcement that he was hired by sigfredo garcia to help kill dan markell and rivera described how garcia told him that katherine mcbanwa the mother of garcia's children secured this job for them and the job was in tallahassee and it paid a hundred thousand dollars with rivera's being cut being about a third of it thirty five thousand dollars and rivera explained that he and garcia actually made two trips to tallahassee with the intent of killing dan markell the first one was a month before the murder it was in june of 2014 and the second was when dan markell was actually killed in july of 2014. rivera said that he bought a gun off the street for that second trip and garcia rented a car i'm sorry for the june trip uh rivera bought a gun off the street and garcia rented a car for that trip garcia and rivera did some scouting on that trip again markell's residence some surveillance but ultimately couldn't get the job done they ended heading back to miami um during the trip to tallahassee he said that garcia had a piece of paper with a picture of the man that they were supposed to kill on it and some handwritten notes as well cell phone records corroborated rivera's information about the june trip rivera also told a story about an incident in tallahassee where he and garcia were riding down the road in the rented prius and garcia accidentally discharged the murder weapon and the bullet struck the floorboard of the prius law enforcement tracked down that actual prius again and were able to see evidence in the undercarriage that corroborated rivera's information about the accidental discharge so they're looking at the phone evidence or trying to find whatever they can to kind of corroborate what he's telling them i mentioned earlier that both men garcia and rivera cut their phones off from the time that they left premier and kept them off until well after the murder when they're on their way back home rivera said that the first call that either of them made after the homicide was from garcia to magbanwa where garcia told her that the job was done and magbanwa assured them that they would get their money the next day which they did rivera says when catherine magbanwa brought cash to him at his home and all this information that lewis rivera provided them was corroborated by including when the money was dropped off was corroborated by cell phone records in this case well lewis rivera told police that the next day after the murder he was paid in cash by catherine magbanwa and that the money was packaged in a very unusual way the money was in stacks of 100 bills and the money was stapled together the stacks of 100s every thousand dollars was stapled together during this trial y'all will hear that the defendant had access to a lot of cash nothing's wrong with that he had a lot of cash because his family gives cash discounts at their dental practice and he keeps the cash that he receives in a safe again nothing wrong about that either however what is relevant in this case is that the defendant had a very unusual practice of keeping the cash in his safe in thousand dollar stacks of 100 bills that were stapled together just like the money lewis rivera received over the last few years since the 2016 arrests and interview of lewis rivera rivera law enforcement has not stopped working on this case there were trials in 2019 and 2022 so right before the pandemic and right after the pandemic of co-conspirators law enforcement also continued to try to gather all the evidence that they possibly could they continued to interview people who may possibly have any information about the case they tried to clarify any audio recordings that couldn't be clearly heard while the phone wiretaps are very clear the wiretap conversations that took place in public places when these people were meeting in person were not clearly audible back in 2016. Some still aren't but because these public places are often too noisy for instance the recording of the conversation between the defendant and catherine mcmanua and dolce vita had too much background noise to be able to clearly hear what the conspirators were talking about however since 2016 as technology developed over the years and thanks to law enforcement's just continued dedication law enforcement eventually found an expert that was formally employed by the cia with improved technology and enough expertise to clarify this recording at dolce vita that y'all would hear and he did that by being able to reduce as much background noise as possible and once this recording was clarified which was actually just early last year in 2022 the state arrested this defendant the presentation of this evidence as y'all can see from opening it's a lot it's a lot of information it's going to take a little bit of time and it may be tedious at times and i want to thank y'all in advance for the careful attention uh to all of the evidence y'all see in here during this trial when you'll do you'll see that this defendant carried out his plan to hire a hitman to kill dan markell he conspired and he solicited catherine mcmanua to get this murder done and he paid her for the job once it was completed this defendant acted in furtherance of this murder plot that went beyond just thinking about it or talking about it and these acts make him guilty as a principle to first degree murder just as if he pulled the trigger himself while the defendant's choices helped solve a problem within his family they came at a very high price he took the life of a loving father of two little boys and he caused a lifetime of grief for dan markell's loved ones y'all heard a lot in jury selection about how important this trial is to the defendant which i'm sure it is but dan markell was loved he was a brother he was a son and this trial is his family's opportunity to see justice done for the person who set up their son's murder and at the conclusion of this evidence y'all will be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty and at that point we'll ask you for the only verdict that does justice in this case which is a verdict that the defendant is guilty as charged thank y'all [01:13:08] Speaker 2: that was star dugan delivering opening statements uh she went just about an hour this is defense attorney daniel rashbaum getting ready to deliver his opening statement and then we'll get analysis from the uh best guests carl before he gets going just very quickly in a couple sentences what do you think of that uh unmute yourself and tell us what you thought of that opening statement uh you got to unmute yourself there carl [01:13:52] Speaker 5: i thought it was a great opening i think she covered all the major points the only point i thought she didn't cover which is not really necessary as much for charlie's sake but the aspect of wendy's involvement in it if you notice she didn't address wendy being a part of the plan as well but she covered all the main details otherwise for charlie i think her delivery method was really sound i think she connects well with the jury and what the jury's looking for is is this attorney credible trustworthy and uh do they believe what this attorney's saying over the other attorney so i think she's already won that game [01:14:26] Speaker 2: uh dr hamilton uh we have a very short amount of time quickly what did you think of the opening [01:14:32] Speaker 4: statements from sarah dugan and the state i think it started out as an a and then kind of meandered into a b just because i think that we needed a roadmap of where she was going because it got way into the weeds a lot perhaps over information for the jury without that roadmap but um she did connect the dots really well at the beginning gave the jury things that they would easily understand for example the motive was really compelling um and i see he's about to start but yet um covered many of the bases and we can cover some of the criticism a little bit later and fancy very quickly before he gets to the dais [01:15:12] Speaker 3: there your thoughts um i thought she was very very good uh it is boring to lay everything out but um it's i thought she did an effective good job excellent and we represent charlie aderson [01:15:29] Speaker 2: this is daniel rashbaum a miami attorney let's listen in the murder of professor markel was a tragedy [01:15:43] Speaker 7: the world lost a brilliant legal mind his family lost a son and a brother this community lost its sense of security and lost a good citizen and his two boys the nephews of charlie adelson lost a loving father his senseless murder continues to be felt throughout this community and others it was inexcusable despicable evil but what i'm going to tell you today is what actually happened you will see you will see that charlie adelson had nothing to do with the murder of professor markel you will see that the state cannot come close to meeting its burden why because charlie adelson is innocent now i don't have to prove innocence what i'm telling you i very rarely say in a courtroom as a defense leader charlie adelson is innocent and we'll get there but the next thing i'm going to tell you i also rarely say in a courtroom and you may be surprised to hear this from a defense lawyer i have great respect for the prosecutors and law enforcement on this case i have admiration for their efforts after the murder of professor markel in trying to find out who did it you will see that they spent countless man hours cell phone tower done surveillance videos from a boatload of places buses cameras on the street great law enforcement activity and it paid off they got the three killers they convicted them sigfredo garcia convicted for life lewis rivera [01:19:11] Speaker ?: luis rivera [01:19:11] Speaker 7: catherine mcbanua convicted for life problem is as you just heard the state saw no connection between these people and professor markel so from the very outset the state suspected the adelsons the family you saw the chart it wasn't limited to charlie adelson unindicted co-conspirators in this case the state has said it wendy adelson donna edelson harvey adelson the state knew as you heard that wendy adelson and professor markel had gone through a brutal divorce and you're going to see it but they couldn't find the connection but then they had their aha moment as you heard they determined that at the time of the murder in 2014 charlie adelson was dating catherine mcbanewald and they learned that catherine mcbanewald and had a previous relationship on again off again with sigfredo garcia they learned that sigfredo carcia and catherine mcbanewald shared two children together they have their connection the problem is that's where the state began to guess began to make assumptions and you will see we will show it that those assumptions didn't make sense now i love jigsaw puzzles i've loved them since i'm young the reason why i love them is because they only work if every piece fits no matter what you do no matter what you do with the jigsaw puzzle if a piece doesn't fit it becomes a mess you can't hammer it and you can't ignore it because if you ignore it you have holes in the puzzle what you're going to see is with regards to this case that's exactly what the state tried to do they heard things they saw things but there were problems they couldn't fit all the pieces together under their theories their theories that they told you about today i'm going to show you how those puzzles those pieces they didn't fit they don't fit and why respectfully the state does not know what happened on july 18 2014 on that day two crimes occurred the first one the state knows about and that was the brutal penis murder of professor markell the other one they don't know about they're about to find out like you because that day would forever change charlie edelson's life but before we get there i like cliffhangers it's important to give you some background and timeline of your age charlie edelson is 46 years old single with a young son he grew up in south florida in coral springs in broward county his father was a dentist a local dentist it wasn't the edelson institute when charlie was growing up it was a small dental practice with his dad charlie is the middle child the middle child of three he is very close with his parents as they said he is very close with his mom growing up the family was middle class and charlie was not particularly close with either of his siblings he grew closer with wendy as they got older he went to college at the university of central florida went to dental school in south florida and then periodontic school when he graduated as a periodontist he had an idea rather than work in his own practice he figured that he could travel around to dental practices all over south florida he would be a traveling periodontist so what you are going to learn in this case is that charlie edelson had practices from the very south of south florida to as far places as jupiter he's in the car sometimes for hours in the day and he worked a lot you're going to see that he was a workaholic he spent a lot of time in that car and what did he do when he was in the car to pass the time he spoke a lot on the phone he would talk to whoever would listen to him and you're going to see in this case this is one thing we won't deny charlie edelson likes to talk and he likes to repeat himself and who would he speak with the most he'd speak with his girlfriend he'd speak with his mom he'd speak with his friends now wendy edelson who's a state witness followed a different path she went to a prestigious university in boston she then went to school in england on a truman fellowship and later went to law school she got scholarships for law school and college soon after starting law school she met dan markel and they fell in love they got married they ultimately moved to tallahassee where they both worked for fsu professor markel as a law professor of the law school charlie edelson didn't have much to do with either professor markel or wendy during their marriage or before their marriage he would talk to his sister periodically maybe once every two or three weeks they lived in tallahassee for years charlie edelson visited him in tallahassee two maybe three times charlie loved his sister he sought advice from her as she did with him every once in a while but they weren't super close they were brother sister the truth is that charlie edelson was a little self-centered he was building his career see that traveling periodontist in the beginning it wasn't that successful but by the time of this case in the 2013-2014 time period you're going to see that charlie edelson was making a lot of money his practice was booming he was working six sometimes seven days a week you'll see it on the wires you'll see it in text messages he would start his day early in the morning and most days he wouldn't get home till eight nine ten at night at the time when this murder occurred he was not married he had no kids he had a lot of money and he was living a very good life now in 2012 wendy edelson [01:29:36] Speaker ?: wendy edelson [01:29:37] Speaker 7: on a trip down to south florida confides in her brother that she was having problems in her marriage she told charlie that she and professor markel had been going through marriage counseling she asked him she asked him what he thought he said look i want you to be happy but you have to do what's best for you i'm here to listen charlie had no involvement whatsoever in wendy's decision to divorce professor markel you'll hear that and in september of 2012 wendy filed for divorce and you're going to hear about how she filed for the divorce and you're going to learn that charlie had no involvement and her leaving the house had nothing to do with him but we got to talk about tvs and you're going to hear a lot about tvs in this case excuse me see charlie has a really bad history of telling bad jokes so when wendy left the house his mom told him that she didn't have a tv he asked her he said what can i do to help wendy she's moved to a new place she's left most of the stuff behind what can i do to help his mom said she didn't have a tv he said okay when you go to tallahassee go to best buy buy a tv for wendy and i'll pay you for it and so wendy got the tv and she called charlie this is back in 2012. the murders in 2014 and she thanked him for the tv and he didn't say he looked into hiring a hitman he joked a bad joke and he said it was cheaper than hiring a hitman now not only was the bad joke but you're going to hear in this trial charlie repeated the joke he repeated it a lot to a lot of people you're going to hear that he repeated it as late as late as march of 2014 so the man that they think hired a hitman is joking to others about hiring a hitman puzzle pieces and you're going to learn why his repeating of that joke is going to be so important i'm going to tell you in a little bit keep in the back of your mind but let's first go back to the divorce the divorce was bitter it was emotional wendy adelson and professor markel they'd have good times but when things were bad they would fight about everything and in january 2013 wendy adelson filed a motion to relocate to south florida with her two boys that motion was opposed by professor markel now what you're going to learn in this trial is that wendy adelson never thought that motion would be granted her lawyer told her that motion would never be granted but she said let's give it a shot charlie had very little to do with the motion he knew she was filing it he knew she didn't have much chance of getting it and the motion was denied when it was denied it didn't change charlie adelson's life one bit but unlike charlie his mom and dad were upset they were upset because their daughter had a job opportunity in south florida she had no family support in tallahassee and they wanted her home and you will see that don and harvey adelson are very involved in their children's lives we won't run away from that you will see that donna adelson and harvey came up with a lot of crazy ideas i mean crazy ideas you're going to see them you've heard about some of them when they show you those crazy ideas take a look if any of them includes murder does it take a look at any of those crazy ideas include anything illegal it doesn't take a look at if they're actually then go to lawyers to make sure that their ideas are legal murderers you heard it unindicted co-conspirators going to lawyers to make sure that what they're offering is allowed you're going to see that but the ideas were crazy you're going to read the emails a lot of emotion a mother-in-law [01:36:36] Speaker ?: a mother-in-law [01:36:37] Speaker 7: a grandmother with a lot of emotion and you're going to see that wendy adelson she rejected them she rejected the ideas they were never presented to dan markel and then you're going to see that there was another idea they have mentioned it in their opening but they don't understand the importance of it see at one point in time donna adelson harvey adelson came with an idea to pay professor markel one million dollars to allow their daughter to relocate and they went to charlie who frankly by this point in time had more money than them and they said will you lend your sister a third of a million dollars she'll pay you back or will pay you back and he said sure and you're going to see that they presented this idea to wendy adelson and the idea wasn't to take the boys out of professor markel's life the idea was that with a million dollars if professor markel agreed he could live in south florida and commute back and forth to tallahassee he could work out his schedule he didn't teach every day of the week he could work out his schedule so he could still teach at the university and go back and forth you're going to see that wendy adelson never made that offer but it's very important like the joke i want you to put it in your back of your mind for now let's fast forward to october 2013 october 2013 charlie started dating catherine magbanua we'll call her katie she was beautiful she was smart like charlie she graduated from ucf she was hard working he met her in one of the dental practices at first the relationship was casual they wanted it that way charlie particularly liked it and like katie because she had two children he worked a lot his priority was his job and katie didn't bother him a lot he only saw her like once maybe twice a week that's what he liked [01:39:50] Speaker ?: that's what he liked [01:39:52] Speaker 7: she was smart she was fun and he treated her very well and that was very different you'll learn from how she was treated previously now you'll hear that he spent a lot of time with katie over the months that they dated and remember i told you charlie talks a lot and repeats himself a lot well when they were together he did just that he talked about his day he talked about what was going on in the world he talked about his family which by the way was a constant topic every single day because when charlie's driving in the car every morning for an hour to work in an hour home sometimes longer he talked to his mom on the phone and when he talked to his mom on the phone what would be a topic of heavy conversation quite frequently wendy's divorce all the problems in the divorce they told you that they told you that in opening and what would charlie do he would tell these things to his girlfriend and what were the some of the things he told her well he told her about the million dollar offer he told her that he could pay it in cash she said that's a lot of money he said no i have it i have it in cash and i'm going to get it back he told her several times the joke over time you're going to see through text messages that katie wanted a deeper relationship and you'll see that charlie didn't want that you'll also learn and the timeline is important they meet in septem uh they they they start dating in october of 13 you're going to see that over time it takes a couple months charlie starts to learn a little bit more about katie's ex sigfredo garcia and what you're going to learn is that charlie edelson never meets sigfredo garcia officially but by all accounts he was not a good guy violent long criminal history sigfredo garcia and katie had been high school boyfriend girlfriend and katie was the love of sigfredo's life he lived for her and you're going to see that sigfredo garcia hated charlie edelson puzzle pieces so let me let me repeat it you saw their chart the shooter of professor markell the man who murdered him hated charlie edelson according to them he's co-conspirator and you're going to hear not from our witnesses from their own witnesses that he wanted to kill charlie edelson you're going to hear that in march of 2014 just seven or eight weeks before that first attempt of murder that they talk about he tried to kill him puzzle pieces you're also going to hear about a phone call on july 1 2014 you're going to actually hear that that july 1 2014 call is how they found these guys it's actually the craziest fact in this entire case and there's a lot of crazy facts you're going to hear that on july 1 2014 sigfredo garcia made a call to the cell phone number of harvey edelson it's the only call that helped investigators that helped investigators connect these folks to the edelson's in the beginning it actually broke the case what they don't know what you're going to see it's in text messages it's in text messages it's discussed on the wires they don't know it because they don't understand it because they weren't there is that on july 1st 2014 just three weeks or so after the first murder and by the way just 17 days before the murder let me repeat that the murder happens on july 18 2014 on july 1st 2014 sigfredo garcia tries to run charlie off the road he threatens him and what you're going to hear is that on july 1 he's so upset that he calls the edelson institute he doesn't realize that charlie isn't the doctor at the edelson institute he just comes in and out of the place so he gets their voicemail machine and you know how dentists are they say in an emergency call a cell phone number they take your call at home on the cell phone number what he hears an emergency call dr adelson at such and such number he thinks he's calling charlie adelson but he calls harvey adelson and he calls him and he threatens him he tells him if you keep dating katie we're going to go mano y mano i'm going to kill you 17 days 17 days before according to them he conspired with this man to kill professor markel puzzle pieces what you're going to learn is that in the spring of 2014 it became apparent to katie that her dreams of financial security with charlie were not going to work out you will learn that katie heard the hitman joke you will learn that she heard the million dollar offer and she got some ideas in her head the state itself has called katherine magbanawa the mastermind and that's exactly what she was so now let's get to july 18th i kept you waiting long enough the june attempt didn't happen because rivera [01:48:30] Speaker ?: because rivera [01:48:32] Speaker 7: didn't want to kill dan markel when his boys were around see what you're going to learn is during that june attempt and june 45th professor markel had custody of the boys you're going to learn that professor markel and wendy edelson shared custody 50-50 but you're going to learn but you're going to learn that the state thinks wendy edelson was involved with her brother in a murder for hire and she chose for the killers to kill her ex-husband when he had custody of her kids puzzle pieces so you're going to learn that luis rivera who is a bad guy he had some conscience somewhere he didn't want to do it in front of the kids so they came back by the way on july 18th who had custody of the kids when the murder actually happened professor markel you're going to hear he dropped them off at school but this family who did this so that their grandchildren could be with them were going to risk for two hired hitmen to go up when he had custody of the kids puzzle pieces july 18th for charlie starts as a normal day he works you're going to see he lives in fort lauderdale now i don't know how many of you are familiar with south florida so i'm going to give you a little bit of geography lesson he lives in fort lauderdale that day he's working in two offices because he'd often work in two offices a day he'd work in the morning at one place and the afternoon at another so he's working in two offices the first office he's working in both of them actually are in jupiter florida now if you're familiar with south florida fort lauderdale and jupiter are not close with south florida traffic in the morning he was in the car for at least two hours now he came home late that night you're going to hear so traffic was a little bit better but it's probably still an hour to an hour and a half jupiter is north of palm beach when i drive up here and i hit jupiter i know i'm about a third of away here that's a good way to look at it if you live in fort lauderdale when you hit jupiter you're one third done he's in the car and he's talking on the phone and you're going to see it we're going to show you what the phone calls are about he talks to his sister talks to his mom talks to his girlfriend we'll talk to you about it there there there are phone calls you're going to see there are a lot of phone calls and there are a lot of phone calls to his girlfriend and there are a lot of phone calls to his mom we're not going to deny that and he works in these two offices and at around six six o'clock you'll see a text message that he's about to start a very long surgery a big procedure by the way the text messages throughout the day are normal just after 7 pm he gets a call from his mom and he's told that professor markell has been shot and he's shocked he's upset his first reaction is wendy and the boys okay he's supposed to have dinner originally with a friend that night but earlier in the day that changes and he's supposed to have dinner with katie and you're going to hear that katie and him had gotten in a fight a couple days earlier about dinners you'll hear it and what you'll learn is after he finds out what happened he tells katie he doesn't want to go to dinner he leaves the office at around eight o'clock in jupiter and you'll learn that katie tells him she'll come to his house that night to comfort him he shook up now let me be clear you're going to hear he wasn't close with professor markell they weren't friends they had nothing in common but you shook up because someone he knew the father of his nephews had been shot when katie arrived that night and you're going to learn more details of how she gets there what she has to do to get there it's not planned you're going to see that the state's going to put on that evidence you're going to learn that she's scrambling to get a babysitter you're going to learn by the way that charlie had seen her for lunch the day before so if it's a murder for hire why did she get the money then puzzle pieces you're going to learn that she gets there that night sometime after 11 and when she gets there she is frantic she's upset and he's scared because he's never seen her this way and she sits him down and she tells him something terrible has happened she says that a friend of hers had shot professor markell she tells him over and over that she had nothing to do with it but these people she was talking too much and her friend and these people learn about the problems his family was having with professor markell they learned about the million dollar offer and they got it in their minds to do this as you can imagine Charlie is his life has just forever been altered he asked who are these people she won't tell him it's not safe for you to know screaming at her she won't tell him Charlie had a guess you will hear in detail what happened that night you will learn that Charlie Adelson was told if he didn't pay within the next 48 hours he or one of his family members would be next you will learn that Katie repeatedly said that she had nothing to do with it and acted distraught you will hear how she said that she would help him you will learn about the initial payment it wasn't a hundred thousand dollars it was more than a hundred thousand dollars he had took out everything he had in his safe you're going to learn about that the state doesn't know it it was more money but you're going to learn he didn't have a third of a million dollars so he had to pay every month they don't know about that either payments every month does that sound like a murder for hire or does that sound like extortion you're going to hear about these gifts and you're going to learn that the gifts were just that they were gifts because as time went on he became more and more certain that Katie was not involved he became more and more certain that she was helping him and he wanted to keep her happy too because he needed her he needed her help and you will hear that the payments changed a couple months after the night of the extortion and that Katie was put on the books of the Adelson institute and that Katie was put on the books of the Adelson institute paper trail they created a paper trail puzzles don't fit the pieces of the puzzle don't fit and you'll hear that in order to put her on the books despite Katie telling him the night of July 18th you can never talk about this with anyone you can never talk on the phone about this you can never talk about it in public you can never talk about it anywhere because if they find out they will kill you and your family if they think the police are coming to you to talk to you they will kill you look at what they did to Professor Markel but you will hear that he told someone he had to told his mom you'll learn that she was the bookkeeper for the dental institute you'll learn why he had to tell her you'll learn about those checks they've never been able to understand why are they so sequential why are they back and forth you'll learn why they talk about the bump in 2016 what I like to call is the second extortion what they don't realize is that their undercover operation was an extortion on an extortion they don't know it it's not their fault and we're going to go through the wires with you we're going to go through Dolce Vita with you and we're going to show you how they actually prove his innocence we're going to show you how they are talking carefully they're talking to him he's talking about an extortion they're happy if this bump is the police because if it's the police none of them are going to get killed if it's a bad guy they're in danger if you do a murder with someone the last person in the world you want this bump to be is the police because it means they're on to you puzzle pieces not from the first layer she says but from the second layer I got goosebumps when she said it it's one of my favorite lines in the recording not from the first layer the first extortion but from the second layer 20 months later is the bump that's the second layer to Charlie Edelson at that point in time you will also see and what's going to be weird about this case ladies and gentlemen and you're going to start to see it today much of their case I agree about they're going to I'm not going to ask them one question some of their evidence is exactly the truth it just doesn't prove a murder the staple money it's his money you will also see you will also see that Sigfredo Garcia was arrested on May 25 2016 you will see that Luis Rivera was arrested on June 2nd 2016 you will see that Catherine McBannerwell was arrested on October 1 2016 guess who wasn't arrested Charlie Edelson he wasn't arrested for six more years what you're going to see is that they have the exact same evidence in 2016 against Charlie Edelson that they do today the same wires they talk about an enhanced Dolce Vita recording you're going to get both recordings you determine if you can hear anything better see the key Seeds case against Charlie Edelson is a case of assumptions it's a case of guesses is not brought until weeks before Katie McBannerwell's trial you can ask yourself why ladies and gentlemen I want to thank you for your attention I want to ask for your patience in this case a man's life is in your hands he's innocent send him home thank you [02:05:35] Speaker 2: let's continue to watch for just another moment here and then we will get a reaction to what was a very puzzling defense theory at least [02:06:01] Speaker ?: at least [02:06:01] Speaker 2: to me it appears they might be going into judges chambers right now Carl Steinbeck let's go to you hang on one second here let's see looks like Judge Everett is coming back to the bench let's stand by and listen to him [02:06:23] Speaker 1: this is called the bail will escort you all into the jury [02:06:28] Speaker 8: please place your notepads face down on your chairs [02:06:36] Speaker ?: okay okay [02:07:06] Speaker 1: for everyone observing in the gallery i just wanted to provide you some instruction now that we're going to move into the actual witness presentation if you leave the room while the witness is testifying you'll need to remain outside the courtroom doors until the next witness changes please do not move out the room or distract the jury or the parties while the witnesses are testifying as well we will be in recess until 11 15 [02:07:44] Speaker 2: all right um we are in recess for eight minutes to get through a lot Carl Steinbeck um the way i understood that defense which was very confusing to me uh it essentially is an extortion plot by the three people already convicted um is that how you understood it were you expecting that [02:08:03] Speaker 5: right i mean the three people admit to being involved at least what we know from katie now coming clean after uh she's convicted and has no opportunity to see uh anything outside of the jail cell or prison cell so that that's to be expected what i what i also expected was this opening statement to really be nothing and this is like the worst opening i've ever seen i mean the first half hour was all argument i'm sort of surprised they didn't object to that because you're supposed to basically say what the evidence will show without argument and so he was basically arguing the whole first half without even telling us anything about what really happened so an opening statement should be a road map you walk the jurors through what actually happened from your version your theory of the case and he really didn't do that he started spinning around with it and the latter half of his is a second 30-minute session but it was such a um confusion bomb of um things and uh and then i would i would say that uh between listening to what he was saying and then seeing uh images of charlie sitting there looking looking pretty pathetic and then seeing those comments i was like busting up laughing because i thought this is like so ridiculous of a defense it's it's unreal you just you just don't really see those in real life but you see it here [02:09:24] Speaker 2: um so it's important here the jury is comprised of 15 people eight men seven women um and three alternates uh so 12 are active jurors um the makeup of the jury just so everyone knows seven white men one black man two white women and five black women so that is the uh demographic makeup of the jurors uh dr hamilton um to me it seemed like the state's opening statement was um very straightforward uh very methodical um when we got to daniel rashbaum on the defense uh and i have a graduate degree i i was totally lost until the very end when he basically said uh this is an extortion plot and then talked about a second extortion plot which i don't fully understand what did you make do you think this was one of the worst opening statements by a defense attorney as carl steinbeck just suggested [02:10:21] Speaker 4: well like like we say uh half of attorneys graduated in the top of their class and half graduated in the bottom of their class and i don't know where he graduated but there are going to be some good attorneys and then some poor attorneys uh yeah just amazing um with the amount of money the defense is spending that this was their opening um so a lot of problems with it because i'm a law professor that's probably why i like the grade i would give him a d the reason i'm not failing him is i don't fail students unless i have a really good reason for example i think they never attended class well he at least is aware of the facts he just played them out really poorly so i'm giving him a d on that so for example as well yeah and everybody's very annoyed with the jigsaw puzzle nobody's going to be probably be wanting to put together a puzzle tonight because it will just annoy them is that doesn't fit well that itself does not fit because proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not that every piece has to fit that is not equivalent so i didn't see that as an analogy and the other thing is you can have pieces of the puzzle missing and still get the picture so the prosecution gave us a picture uh even if there are pieces missing the jury still can see the picture of this murder and why charlie would be involved um the only so i want to be at least have some positives that to and i have to reach far so the one positive is he acknowledged that that there was a victim here so they acknowledged that that was a bad thing that's my positive um i know i can marry many other good ones to say and i have a lot more to say about it but i know you want to give fancy an opportunity to start [02:12:00] Speaker 2: well what we're going to come back to you in a moment dr hamilton but uh fancy i know you were texting um with some defense attorneys and uh prosecutors what did you think and what did they [02:12:10] Speaker 3: think yeah and journalists as well um it's i feel like i'm having an out-of-body experience right now because i feel like i've gone to heaven because it was i was laughing i mean he did not inspire a relevant or compelling defense and i literally am shocked i expected more from this guy i'm not scared of him at all at this point prosecutor um you know i put this in the comments but said you know jury selection is the most important part of the trial process and this person also said told me that i'm the second most important is this opening statement and he he wrote to me that he considers this trial to be over already and this is someone with i mean decades of experience um that i trust and seems to have been right through my communications with him about his predictions about this case so it is universal i'm hearing back that this was a huge fail it's an embarrassment the trial is lost and i just can't wait to keep roasting how horrible this defense is it's a huge gift to me and i will tell you this there is a song that i wanted to make a little music video to radio heads uh jigsaw jigsaw puzzle pieces falling into place and this is a huge gift because i'm just going to get real creative with uh with rosh bombs you know constant callback to the puzzling which is hilarious thank you [02:13:35] Speaker 2: yeah carl to you and i'm sorry to do this to you because i couldn't answer this question but can you succinctly in your own words explain what you believe the defense theory to be here [02:13:49] Speaker 5: well they're they're basically saying which is so preposterous they're wanting the jury to believe that charlie when he was extorted by katie that instead of calling the police or recording her he just freely just gave up money repeatedly yeah all the money he had she basically tried to drive him broke it's just so preposterous and ludicrous so the the fact that they admit to so much of the government's case otherwise it just goes to show that they really don't have much to prove it and as a prosecutor because defense has already conceded most of their case the only thing they have to believe is that you know that uh to believe the defense theory is that charlie would not call the police and that katie of all people could extort all this money from him so it just doesn't make any sense and and it's something ridiculous like this is the only thing they got to fall on so i could agree with dr hamilton that you know he deserves a d or an f i mean i would say the only reason he doesn't get an f is because he's got no facts to work with that make any sense at all so it's it's really just it's just a they might as well say that you know aliens came down and did this that's that's about as credible as their defense [02:15:01] Speaker 2: and then uh carl just to follow that up okay let's assume that there's an extortion plot here sigfredo threatens charlie which is what he said happened tries to drive him off the road uh on and on it goes why kill dan markell who's seven hours away in tallahassee is the one family member that you're going to target who's not really you know not a blood relative [02:15:24] Speaker 5: right so i i think they thought that they're going to try to say like they knew that he i mean one hand he says he didn't hate dan markell the other hand he kept talking about this this uh so-called joke about hiring a hitman and so really they would think of hiring a hitman and then extort him out of all that money it just makes no sense that's not credible truth is can be stranger than fiction but that that's so fictional and and out there that uh it's just not going to carry any weight with the jury [02:15:52] Speaker 2: uh phoebe beach i've never agreed with a statement more if i'm paying my defense team uh reportedly close to a million dollars we don't know exactly the figure this is the worst chart i have ever seen i mean my four-year-old could make a better chart than that um we know the coe certainly would make it look i mean look i can't i i went to college and have a graduate degree i can i cannot follow this chart um dr hamilton to you um so daniel rashbaum i'm looking at my notes here he says katie got ideas in her head uh this uh the state calls her the mastermind it was all an extortion plot he says that the state was right it was all an extortion plot uh katie was put on the adelson's book so throughout this he's also making a lot of admissions on behalf of the state uh here uh he says that katie is the puzzle piece um and then he goes on to this extortion on top of an extortion which listen i admittedly am slower than most i don't fully understand it do you understand the extortion on the extortion and uh please uh you have a wealth of experience and i'm sure you understand this much better than i so uh please explain how you understand it [02:17:09] Speaker 4: no i don't get the extortion on the extortion extortion and it seemed to me that he contradicted himself where he says katie was the mastermind and then later he says after the murder she goes to charlie and says they did this without me they did you know surprise me i'm upset about it well how are you the mastermind if you were surprised that they went out on their own so that didn't make sense to me as well um and yeah yes he admitted a lot of things um they think will be really beneficial to the prosecution it seems to be that he's admitting on behalf of his mother and behalf of the institute that they may have committed fraud themselves by putting her on the putting those payments on the books as an employee so that would seem to be a you know giving them an additional crime um so he tried to i guess it was a lame attempt to humanize charlie so generally what defense attorneys want to do is want the they humanize the defendant so that the jury feels for them feels oh they couldn't possibly do that but all of that went awry because what he admitted was uh charlie was he's a traveling periodontist how is that you know appealing that's not very humanizing who knows what a traveling periodontist is he admits that charlie was self-centered that he made a lot of money he wasn't close to his sister he made bad jokes he talked a lot um and repeated himself which the latter two things just is well that's a little bit humanizing but that's a humanizing to somebody who's an irritant we all know people who talk too much and repeat themselves we kind of don't like them um and we're not going to believe them uh then he admits that uh on the million dollars that basically he's willing to use money to buy children literally buying the custody and the closeness of the children really is that somebody that the jury is going to be sympathetic to um and i could go on but i won't for now so i want to give uh fancy opportunity we'll circle back but [02:19:05] Speaker 2: look at bleachers here come on joel balance your uh panel confirmation bias um dr hamilton's a law professor she has no skin in this game carl steinbeck's a former prosecutor find me someone that wants to come on to defend that uh opening uh defense uh statement and i'll be happy to have them on here here comes um the judge uh it might be interesting to watch the first witness or two uh dr hamilton are you able to stay on i don't i know you're busy um are you able to [02:19:32] Speaker 4: stay on for a witness or so i can't unless there's a it's an invitation actually to leave are you inviting me to leave no i'm inviting you to stay okay i'll stay all [02:19:43] Speaker 2: right um so let's let's take a look at this first witness and then we'll come down the first [02:19:47] Speaker 1: witness do the parties believe we'll be able to get through both mr greer and the sergeant or just mr greer before taking a break for lunch uh i would like to go all right mr rash bomb do you wish to be heard anything to add no your honor please bring in the jurors [02:20:22] Speaker 2: uh carl real quick look at this question question panel who will testify to this theory katie will not is this indication that charlie will take the stand what do you think [02:20:32] Speaker 5: well this makes me think to have the most credibility he would have to take the stand but it's so ridiculous that he could just try to make this theory through questions of defense which are the excuse me of the prosecution witnesses which is not really evidence at all he's just trying to make uh make a story with them to try to discredit them and it's not going to work so if he has any chance of of trying to have this be actually considered evidence he's going to have to [02:20:59] Speaker 2: have charlie take the stand and look i want bleachers to be heard he says we don't understand criminals like garcia uh i think the implication here is sigfredo garcia may have just done this on his own volition i find that incredibly hard to believe uh dr hamilton um to you do you think charlie would have to take the stand same question in order to defend the defense's theory here [02:21:25] Speaker 4: uh technically no because the defense um can throw out these various theories and often they don't actually uh circle back and show to the jury um you know so they don't actually follow through a lot um so it could just be throwing confusion so will the jury want to hear that yes but it it could just be a hail mary um to introduce confusion i don't really think that charlie's going to get on [02:21:50] Speaker 2: the stand because he will he'll come untethered but dr hamilton i say this completely seriously not facetiously because usually i have a lot of sarcasm but it was so confusing and disjointed to me that almost felt like it was done on purpose just so the state wouldn't know how to respond um to the theory that they are espousing is there anything to that possibly [02:22:14] Speaker 4: that would be a theory of the logic it's because there's not another theory i can think of that explains um that particular opening um even charlie looked kind of amazed like what is this [02:22:29] Speaker 2: he really did this is what i'm paying for yeah kind of crazy laura walde here uh thank you so much thank you for being here uh giving us a super sticker dennis ballen uh great panel thanks for the coverage thank you thank you for that super sticker much appreciated uh since we're all here uh let me know sds nation let's stick through at least the first witness or two they're going to break for lunch um fairly soon uh and this is interesting um charlie's uh laughing a bit right now and there's anything to laugh about um kind of shows his uh arrogance talking to his defense attorney they could be talking about a football game for all we know uh have no idea um fancy fiction um one of the other things um that i thought was interesting fancy and i know you're not an attorney is at the end daniel rashbaum says and i quote here much of their case meaning the state's case i agree about some of their evidence is the truth were you surprised to hear him making concessions like that essentially saying uh what they're saying is true but i'm going to show you why this guy is not guilty [02:23:40] Speaker 3: not really that seemed to be from the start uh you know his his persona or courtroom persona which is i'm agreeable i'm reasonable trust me um so i very much expected that to be his vibe um he also you know he praised the prosecutors in his opening statement which you know i kind of you know i thought that was interesting um so no i'm not surprised but um yeah i'd just like to reiterate how bad the opening seemed to me it would not convince me or compel me if i'm sitting on that jury as a layperson [02:24:12] Speaker 2: carl again i don't want to put you on the spot the extortion upon the extortion that part of it can you um elucidate for that for us if you understand it clearly because i still do not [02:24:25] Speaker 5: well maybe he's just trying to get into the fact that there's extortion is the only defense for what happened uh involved involving dan's murder and then i they're trying to also make it like a sympathetic ploy like not only was he extorted by katie but then you got the law enforcement doing it on top of it so they thought there may be extorting by another party as well it's just it's such a convoluted mess i think is a theory that no jury's gonna buy into it so and defense counsel knows it i mean defense counsel does not have any any belief that what they're arguing anybody's gonna [02:24:59] Speaker 2: even believe i would say so are you saying the second extortion is the bump is that what you're [02:25:03] Speaker 5: referring to right right that's what they're saying that they thought it was another extortion for somebody else that they were there was another katie out there in the woodwork that was coming after him so and they just didn't know how to respond and so but but the dolce vita video confirms that it's not a bomb that he actually was acting like he was the mastermind behind this so that's that's what i'm saying it's just it's just all charades it makes no sense and a jury will see right through it [02:25:29] Speaker 2: super sticker there from sunny um murray muncie dr hamilton is on fire to carl's point dr hamilton by the way mcspunky always uh gifting memberships thank you mcspunky um dr hamilton to carl's point um don't the adults you know the so-called dolce vita tape and the matsuri tape you know implicate and show guilt um or at least consciousness of guilt that is is almost irrefutable it's his words on tape how do they get around that [02:26:02] Speaker 4: uh i agree that that's going to be troublesome for them because if as he was trying to convey charlie was entirely innocent and he was surprised to hear from katie that night the night of the murder that um you know people had taken them seriously about wanting to pay money to solve the problem is you wouldn't immediately then pay extortion why wouldn't you know the innocent person would immediately go to the police and say this has happened so that's not painting the picture of an entirely surprised innocent person so that also doesn't make sense um but i do just want to uh for another part of my life i also teach on um so i have a relevant aspect for why he might have been laughing there just a little bit about charlie is part of a stress response that a person that experiences and i imagine that charlie is very stressed um in part of the stress response it your body releases various stress hormones well one of the hormones your body can release in that is oxytocin which um people probably here are know is um is an uplifting type of one that can make you giggle in places when you're actually stressed the reason they think from a scientific perspective that oxytocin is also released in the stress response is to reduce the other chemicals such as cortisol and adrenaline that are also released in large amounts and so that's just a scientific explanation potentially for why he's giggling in a at a time where that seems just unreasonable and horrific and dr hamilton since [02:27:32] Speaker 2: i have you and you're an expert at this the fact that uh charlie adelson's family is not present they're not there to support him wendy is apparently at least on her way there i don't know that she's in the courtroom right now but the parents are not there uh does that impact uh jurors in any way are they looking at that to see who's behind the defendant i think at this point it's way too early [02:27:55] Speaker 4: the jury just got bombarded with a ton of information so that i think that's going to be beyond that something they're thinking about at the moment because they're just identifying who has been speaking to them i doubt that they're also trying to figure out who's in behind those people so just later on because this trial is supposed to go three weeks we'll see if it does uh they may start to then wonder who's behind them but i think at this point it's they're trying to absorb way too much and that [02:28:22] Speaker 2: would be a little bit beyond i think their ability uh fancy to you a lot of people said this so katie was the maestro they think that charlie is going to be upset with this defense because of course we know he had the maestro license plate number one do you think he will be upset by that number two i wanted to ask you look at this uh the coe did a vote i didn't even know uh who had the stronger opening statements prosecution said 81 defense seven percent i'd like to know uh who those seven percent are i'm curious not impressed by either eleven percent the coe working behind the scenes um fancy to you um i forgot what i was just asking you but the other part of this um was oh about the maestro yeah i remember yeah you think he's gonna be upset by that real quickly [02:29:11] Speaker 1: before we get to the you may call your first yeah he's too drugged up it calls james geiger [02:29:18] Speaker 2: joe i gotta take a call i'll be right back thank you okay no worries carl i'm gonna mute you james geiger appears to be the first witness if i heard that correctly let's see who he is [02:29:35] Speaker 1: mr geiger please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth you may take your seat please speak loudly and clearly you can adjust the microphone [02:29:49] Speaker 2: if you need to thank you for the super sticker deborah we will listen in now the first wit uh first witness james geiger morning mr geiger good morning please spell your name for the court [02:29:59] Speaker 9: reporter first name james j-a-m-e-s middle initial w last name geiger g-e-i-g-e-r mr geiger do you live here in tallahassee yes i do where do you live i live on trescott drive in tallahassee how long have you been living on trescott drive i think it's about 45 years now judge without objection [02:30:25] Speaker 10: i'll move into evidence states one it's one is admitted permission to publish by way of the laptop you man okay did you used to have a neighbor by the name of dan martell yes when was that well um restate the question when when did mr markell live next door to you oh well it was uh [02:31:09] Speaker 9: he died nine years ago and he had been there about five years before that all right and where in [02:31:15] Speaker 10: relation to your home did mr markell live uh he was my next door neighbor all right so if we're looking at this photograph right here which one is your home of the one on the right is my home the one on the left was danny's all right so that driveway there with the vehicle in the driveway is that would that have been mr markell's driveway yes it would okay can you tell us about something that occurred um back on july 18th of 2014. um on that morning [02:31:51] Speaker 9: my wife and i were sitting in our living room which looks out over trescott drive here and um we were working with an ipad on a couch and we heard a noise a loud bang we weren't sure what it was and i quickly got up to see what might have caused that noise and there had been at the time some burglaries in the area and i was concerned that perhaps uh that had been a burglary attempt and so as i approached we have a large window looking out on the street and as i got to the window i looked to the left and to the right because i wasn't sure where the noise came from but on my right as i looked out i saw a car quickly back up out of the driveway and then head towards benton road very rapidly [02:32:52] Speaker 10: let me interrupt you for just a moment judge if there's no objection i'd like to introduce states two and three at this time okay so is this the view you had from your window looking out toward mr murkel's drive yes that's correct and you said you saw a vehicle backing up out of his driveway yes [02:33:16] Speaker 9: what type of vehicle was it well it uh i caught it out of the corner of my eye so it was not i didn't uh look at it real hard but it looked like a prius to me look like a silver or white uh colored prius [02:33:34] Speaker 10: anything about the way it backed out did it do that normally it just went very quickly and that's what caught my attention all right which way did it go after it backed out of the driveway [02:33:44] Speaker 9: as as it backed out of the driveway uh it headed uh to the right uh which was towards benton road [02:33:52] Speaker 10: all right were you able to see the occupants of the vehicle no i couldn't see any inside did you do anything to further investigate the situation could we publish [02:34:06] Speaker 9: well as i said i had uh i was concerned that we we had heard that there would had been some burglaries in the area and so i thought that i would walk next door to see if that might have been what happened and uh as i uh approached uh danny's house i noticed that the garage door was up and his car was in the garage and it was running and so i stopped then almost as i got to the garage and i thought well so much for a burglary if he's getting ready to leave it wasn't anything like that and so there must not be a problem and i turned around and went back to my [02:34:47] Speaker 10: house at that point all right what about once you got back inside the house did you do anything else yeah [02:34:52] Speaker 9: i i i as i got back in i kind of stood right at this window and why i'm not sure but uh i just thought i would stand there for a minute or two and wait for him to go ahead and back out and leave uh and uh after maybe three or four or five minutes he hadn't backed out yet and i said to my wife i said something seems wrong to me i don't know what it is uh danny hadn't left yet uh i think i'm gonna walk back over there and check things out and so that's what i did was to walk back over again what happened when you got over there well as i got back over the garage door was still up the car was still in the garage it was still running and i thought perhaps then that maybe he was on a phone and was simply staying there while he was had his phone conversation but again i just wasn't quite sure and i said to myself well i'm going to walk on into the garage and make sure everything's okay [02:35:57] Speaker 10: and mr geiger that's what i did in the five years or so that you'd live next door to mr markel had you ever had an occasion to go over there and check on him before no so he probably sat in his driveway talking on the phone before right he may have i don't know he [02:36:12] Speaker 9: was in the garage this time i wouldn't have known if he was there or not all right but for whatever [02:36:17] Speaker 10: reason the hairs on the back of your neck stood up this time i don't know that they stood up but [02:36:22] Speaker 9: there was just something that said i need to check it out all right so what happened when you got over there well i i as i said i decided i'd walk on into the garage i felt a little awkward doing that but i walked on in and i looked at the driver's side window when it was busted out uh and i at that point i i recalled stepping on glass uh and as i looked in and i could see a man's head i didn't uh it was bloody uh and he was looking through part of the glass was still there from the driver's side window and a part of it was blown out and i looked inside and i i i saw a head it was bloody and it was moving [02:37:11] Speaker 10: back and forth slowly and was it mr markel inside the car yeah and i said danny what happened [02:37:19] Speaker 9: and there was no response just that slow moving back and forth and i hollered out again danny danny what happened and there was still nothing and at that point i knew he needed help and i had to call 9-1-1 and so i reached into my pocket which is where i normally keep my cell phone and it wasn't there and then i recall that while i was sitting on the couch i'd taken it out and set it down there so i quickly ran back to the house it's not very far away as you can see and got my phone and then called 9-1-1 [02:38:01] Speaker 10: did you know anything about dan markel did he have a family living there with him yeah he and his wife [02:38:07] Speaker 9: had just been married when they moved into that home and they were there and then a couple of years later they had a child and then another child and they they had some difficulties and they divorced or i guess were in the process of being divorced and she had moved out and so dan stayed there um frankly we [02:38:32] Speaker 10: didn't see him a whole lot all right but he was living there and had the boys sometimes yes all right at the time that this happened correct okay were the children there with him when he was injured in this way not that i'm aware of so you didn't see the children no all right so you go back and get your phone and call 9-1-1 correct okay have you had an opportunity to review the 9-1-1 call in this case previously i have all right and is that your voice on the call that we played previously yes it is all right judge at this time i'd ask to introduce states exhibit 81 i'm sorry 82 and ask for permission to publish [02:39:11] Speaker 1: any objection okay [02:39:25] Speaker 11: uh it's right next door at my house which is 2122 truscott drive can you repeat that clarification 2122 truscott drive the team okay the phone is where you're calling from i'm calling from 850-212-4623 okay so exactly what happened uh we heard a a loud bang in the car pulled away from next door i came over and looked down the garage door was up and i thought the gentleman was backing out and i went back to my house but he never backed out and i came back over and his wind his driver's side the window is shattered and he's spattered and can't answer he's inside i don't know if somebody tried to shoot him or if he shot himself or what i don't know and it was at this location correct why next door i'll give you mine i don't know if it's a customer okay he's been in that once and already he's still alive he's moving okay what what's he what's going on with him i don't know the the driver's side window is all bashed in he's inside the car is running and he's got blood all over his head he's not responding to me that number by the way is 2116 what's your name sir my name is jim geiger g-e-i-g-e-r mr geiger you said that the man that you saw in the [02:41:32] Speaker 10: vehicle was unresponsive to you um with if there's no objection i would like to introduce states exhibit five at this time [02:41:45] Speaker 1: okay it's five in the middle may i publish [02:41:53] Speaker 10: is this mr mr markell your neighbor yes okay and when you say he was not responsive was he able to say any words to you i didn't hear any words at all okay what sounds did you hear coming from i didn't [02:42:07] Speaker 9: hear any sound i just saw his his head slowly rolling back and forth okay he wasn't moaning at [02:42:14] Speaker 10: all or not that i heard okay all right um may i introduce states exhibit six and seven at this time [02:42:23] Speaker 1: your honor publish six please all right so is this looking up mr markell's driveway yes all right and state [02:42:37] Speaker 10: seven seven please is this how mr with the exception of the doors being open in this photo is this how mr markell's vehicle appeared to you when you approached on that day yes i'm going to approach with state's exhibit four mr weiger have you had an opportunity to see that image before yes is that your signature there on the image yeah initials oh yes it is okay and is that indicating that the vehicle pictured in this exhibit is consistent with the vehicle you observed in mr markell's driveway that day yes that's true permission to publish introduce and and i believe you said on the recording there that the car was running is that true that's true did you touch the victim or the car no i didn't did you move anything inside the garage no can you estimate how much time passed between the time you heard the loud bang and the time that you [02:44:22] Speaker 9: called 9-1-1 i would say um between five and ten minutes [02:44:34] Speaker 10: i'm going to show you state's exhibit 81 the states exhibit 81 a fair and accurate map it's an aerial map of your residence and you're seeing where this occurred yes ask to move an evidence states 81 i publish all right so if you're coming in off of thomasville road there the yellow line how would you get to mr markell's residence from thomasville road well you could do it more than one [02:45:33] Speaker 9: one way one way one is to uh go on the yellow road there which is thomasville road down to pretty close where that green mark is which is betton road you would take a left come up to trescott drive and then go back okay that would be one way to do it yes sir another way would be to exit off of uh thomasville road on klein and then come uh across to uh trescott drive and in that case you'd be turning right [02:46:11] Speaker 10: on that one we've got to go up a little bit right yes yeah so maybe armistead to climb um yeah to trescott okay thank you sir no further questions cross-examination no question john mr geiger you may step down sir thank you mr geiger please release he is does the defense intend to call mr [02:46:37] Speaker 1: geiger at any point no your honor mr geiger you are released have a good day please call your next witness [02:46:44] Speaker 10: say call sergeant sims [02:46:52] Speaker 2: so that was uh the next door neighbor who witnessed a lot of this called 9-1-1 uh james geiger melissa to use sergeant sims is about to take the stand but melissa to you obviously a very credible witness he's testified before um what purpose does he serve uh in this case for the state [02:47:13] Speaker 4: but you're starting to establish the facts um number one that somebody was killed uh like they're possibly by a gunshot because he mentioned it um his assumption of a gun but he's identified the um a car that looked like a prius so they're starting to put together the [02:47:28] Speaker 2: will be the truth pieces you may take your seat i will now listen to sergeant sims and i think then we're we're wrapping for lunch [02:47:47] Speaker 12: hello hello please introduce yourself and spell your name david sims d-a-d-i-d-s-i-m-s how are you employed sir i'm retired sergeant for the thaisley police department how long were you with tpd 28 years and were you working there back in 2018 yes i was did you respond you said 2018 i'm sorry sorry 2014 [02:48:09] Speaker 10: 2014 yes i'm sorry um did you respond to 2116 trescott drive back in on july 18th of 2014. i did [02:48:19] Speaker 12: and what were you responding in reference to um a call of possible shots fired [02:48:26] Speaker 10: okay what did you observe when you arrived there [02:48:29] Speaker 12: um when i arrived i parked on the street and the neighbor mr geiger pointed out the house i went walked up the driveway the garage door was up there was a vehicle parked in the driveway running as i approached the vehicle i noticed glass on the ground outside the driver's side and i checked the door locks and the car was locked but it was running um there was a person inside the car kind of slumped over maybe a little to the right um the glass for the driver's window let me pause you right there [02:49:02] Speaker 1: may we publish seven things [02:49:17] Speaker 10: all right so proceed with your answer so you arrive in is this what you see yes the doors were shut [02:49:22] Speaker 12: correct okay go ahead um as i approached the the in the picture there the vehicle door is open but it was closed and locked when i arrived in the glass and the driver's door was partially broken out um and there appeared to be a small half circle in that glass as if a projectile had entered or exited [02:49:43] Speaker 10: through that window at this time i'd like to move into evidence states exhibit eight any objection okay states eight is a limit he's published date all right does this photograph show the little shattered glass with the half circle you were right right up there in the corner okay [02:50:02] Speaker 12: what else did you observe there um inside the vehicle i called the the victim's possible name i was given the name of daniel i called daniel there was no response he was breathing but in a gasping manner it was just kind of repetitive gasp um no movement no response to me i went around to the other side of the vehicle after i had unlocked and reached in the window unlocked the door went around to the other side opened that door turned the car off so the car wouldn't possibly be put in the gear when ems got there plus the fumes so i dropped the keys on the floor in the garage and i tried to call the thing again no response by that time i heard ems um their sirens right down the street so they were almost there um i did notice that in his left hand he had a cell phone and in his right hand he had like a business card and he also the glass there was eyeglasses half was laying in his lap and the other half was laying on the floor of the car like they had just been broken right across the bridge [02:51:08] Speaker 10: at this point i've asked if you're using the evidence states nine and ten [02:51:13] Speaker 1: any objections you're okay states nine and ten everybody [02:51:20] Speaker 10: so this could you zoom in a little bit on the floor of the garage next to the driver's side all right so what is this that we're seeing on the ground here [02:51:35] Speaker 12: yeah that looks like possibly the cell phone and i i don't know if that's the glasses or not because once this these this picture would be after ems arrived and they took him out of the vehicle and i'm not sure what on that side what was moved and everything that was done when ems [02:51:50] Speaker 10: was trying to extricate him from the car okay before the doors were open and ems extricated the victim were you able to observe some shattered glass oh there was definitely glass definitely glass on the outside yes okay and the next photo publishing 10. it's just another shot of that shattered glass there and can you tell whether those are the glasses that you observed yes okay and the cell phone there on the ground correct where was that cell phone when you initially observed it um it was in his left hand so it was moved whenever they removed the victim correct try to render aid correct and was he taken to the hospital yes when you say that you open the car doors did you have to touch both door handles to do that [02:52:45] Speaker 12: um usually when i have a car that's something like this a stolen car or anything i don't want to get prints on and my uniform always have a pen like just a big pen with the the top that comes off and i use that to pull in the door handles and i use that to reach in and unlock the vehicle so i don't touch anything [02:53:00] Speaker 10: okay did you observe any signs there at the scene that there had been forced entry of the residence [02:53:09] Speaker 12: or anything disturbed or taken no after um the victim was removed from the car then myself another officer we took the keys that i had taken out we had to unlock the door to get into the house from the garage and we checked the house the other doors were locked and there was no signs of anything in the house no other no persons and no struggle or anything inside the house okay and the children were not [02:53:28] Speaker 10: present children were not present okay did you move the car at all no all right so the way it's photographed here is the position it was in [02:53:41] Speaker 12: when you found it right after we were done the checking the house and the scene was turned over to our investigators and to forensics okay no further questions [02:53:56] Speaker 1: yes sir you guys have a good day sir please call your next witness state calls joanne maltese [02:54:05] Speaker 2: that was quick that was sergeant david simms of the tallahassee police department joanne maltese the net next witness being called uh they're getting a bunch in right before lunch here [02:54:29] Speaker 1: okay good morning please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to go we'll be the truth yes you may take your seat [02:55:01] Speaker 8: and please introduce yourself and spell your name joanne maltese joanne maltese m-a-l-t-e-s-e how are you employed ma'am retired tallahassee police forensic specialist i now have some businesses in thomasville [02:55:18] Speaker 10: georgia how long were you with tpd tpd for 26 years and were you with them back in 2014 [02:55:25] Speaker 8: yes i was what were your duties back in 2014 2014 i was a forensic specialist and my primary duties were the documentation collection and preservation of evidence at a crime scene and what training and education did you received to do that type of duty at the time i had over 1500 hours of specific crime scene training to include photography collection dna fingerprints as well as i taught at pat thomas law enforcement academy in crime scene as well as teaching at the police department did you respond to [02:55:58] Speaker 10: two one one six trescott drive on july 18th 2014 yes i did and is that the scene that's shown in the photograph states 10 that's up on the screen right now yes it is inside the garage all right is that residence here in leon county yes it is okay i'm gonna ask to introduce at this time your honor [02:56:17] Speaker 11: states 11 through 17. you'll get your honor okay it's 11 or 17 are admitted at this time all right [02:56:26] Speaker 10: so did you photograph this vehicle as part of your duties yes i did all right may i publish states 11 all right just if you'll just kind of walk us through these photos and what [02:56:38] Speaker 8: you so what we're looking at is this 11. this photo is the rear passenger area showing um child's children's [02:56:47] Speaker 10: shoes and car seats all right were the kids present when you were working the crime scene [02:56:52] Speaker 8: no they were not stacy's over 12 please what is this a photograph of it's a piece of broken eyeglass [02:57:00] Speaker 10: that was on the floor of the garage and how was the glass the eyeglass broken if you know [02:57:08] Speaker 8: uh the opticals or the lenses were located still inside of the vehicle uh just half of the eyeglass was outside and there is damage to the nose piece of the eyeglass potentially consistent with the bullet [02:57:21] Speaker 10: causing the damage to the glasses it would be consistent what is this this is the optical or [02:57:29] Speaker 8: the lens of a pair of glasses uh located on the uh floorboard of the vehicle in the driver's compartment states exhibit 14 what is this it's gonna be a wallet found in the glove box of the vehicle [02:57:44] Speaker 10: was the glove box open or shut when you arrived on scene it was closed all right states exhibit 15 did it appear that the box had been rifled through or that any items had been taken from the wallet no [02:57:57] Speaker 8: states exhibit 16 what does this show this is going to be uh the driver's side door window the driver's door window uh with a hole in the glass consistent with a bullet hole yes it would be states exhibit 17 what does this show what does this show this is another photograph from a different angle of the same hole in the window that would be consistent with a bullet hole and did you collect some physical [02:58:25] Speaker 10: items of evidence from the photographs that we've just looked at yes i did start with states exhibit 115 do you recognize 115 yes what is 115 it's going to be the eyeglass frame that was [02:58:53] Speaker 8: from the uh passenger floorboard the front passenger floorboard in the vehicle states exhibit 116 what is that 116 is going to be the other side of the eyeglass frame that was on the garage floor [02:59:11] Speaker 10: manner publish i'm sorry i'd like to introduce 116 and 117 correction for the record you're on our 115 and 116 [02:59:23] Speaker 11: phase 115 and 116 are admitted [02:59:44] Speaker 10: moving on moving on to 117 do you recognize 117 yes what is that it's going to be the lens or the optical [02:59:56] Speaker 8: located on the front driver's floorboard in the vehicle about 118 118 is going to be a piece of the other lens or eye optical from the glasses uh that were on the front driver's seat are those in the same or substantially the same condition as [03:00:15] Speaker 10: when you are found with them yes judge i'd move into evidence 117 and 118 [03:00:23] Speaker 8: 119 is going to be the wallet and its contents um other than the cash that i had to take out it was [03:00:38] Speaker 10: located in the glove box and that item in the same or substantially the same condition as well yes and moved into evidence states 119 your order any objection no objections 119 is admitted may i publish you may and whose driver's license was in the wallet states exhibit 119. daniel markel i'm showing you state's exhibit 120. do you recognize this item yes i do what is this item it's gonna be the actual glass from the driver's door and how are you able to remove the glass and package it in this way due to the glass being [03:01:39] Speaker 8: broken i use clear tape and line the entire inside and outside of the glass prior to taking it out so [03:01:46] Speaker 10: it would stay together is it in the same condition as when you invalid it that day yes [03:01:51] Speaker 1: judgment states 120. any objections no objections states 120 is admitted may i publish you may [03:02:15] Speaker 8: all right this is going to be the inside that you're looking at and [03:02:21] Speaker 10: so yes i would be in that reference next i'm showing you state's exhibit 121. do you know what this item is [03:03:10] Speaker 8: yes what is that item this item is a fragment of glass that was taken off of mr markel's face at the [03:03:19] Speaker 10: hospital did you respond to the hospital yes i did what were your duties at the hospital i arrived at [03:03:26] Speaker 8: the hospital to document the condition collect clothing swabs and any evidence from mr markel [03:03:33] Speaker 10: all right as part of that did you photograph mr markel in the hospital yes i did all right move into yes your honor at this time i'd ask to publish states 22 wait wait one moment please yes your honor at this time i'd ask to publish states 22 can you rotate it please by the way this was the condition mr markel was in at the hospital yes how long after you arrived at the scene the crime scene did were these photos taken at the hospital if you know [03:04:36] Speaker 8: uh the crimes he and i arrived at around 11 30 in the morning and then these photos would have been taken [03:04:47] Speaker 10: around 12 30. so an hour later okay and mr markel was still alive at that time yes please publish states 23 [03:05:00] Speaker 8: why did you take this photo this photo i'm documenting a dark area on his forearm which is consistent with stippling now you're referring to this area here in the photo yes and what is stifling stifling stifling stifling is when you're in close contact or close area of a gunshot blast or a gun going off and the gunpowder that is exiting from the gun comes out at a high speed and it will stain or tattoo your skin all right so the indication is potentially a close proximity of the muzzle of the [03:05:34] Speaker 10: firearm at the time of firing yes publishing state's exhibit 24 is this a close-up of that stifling that you described yes all right and once mr markell was pronounced deceased did you go to the autopsy no i did not i have a couple other photos to show you in reference to your work on this this is 18 through 21 do you recognize these photos yes i do and what are these photos of these photos were taken at the [03:06:23] Speaker 8: tallahassee police department i was requested to document a vehicle there what type of vehicle was that it was a 2007 honda odyssey van all right and was that wendy adelson's vehicle yes it was all [03:06:40] Speaker 10: right move to introduce 18 through 21 your honor [03:06:50] Speaker 1: no okay [03:06:54] Speaker 10: may i publish publish 18 please all right this is just the exterior of the vehicle yes okay 19 please all right next photo 20. was this a receipt from a purchase that was made the day of the homicide yes okay just photograph that there inside the vehicle yes i did front passenger seat all right and next photo 21 so close-up of the receipt yes it is and where was the purchase made purchase was made at abc [03:07:39] Speaker 8: fine wine and spirits on what date and time was the purchase made 7 18 of 2014 at 12 49 p.m okay [03:07:52] Speaker 1: good afternoon good afternoon good afternoon when you arrived on the scene it was uh taped off correct [03:08:05] Speaker 7: yes it was uh and the tape was approximately five or six properties to either side correct so either side of the residence right yes now going back to exhibit 20 20. can i put exhibit 20 on the screen [03:08:38] Speaker 9: so this is a picture um that you took yes [03:08:52] Speaker 7: and it's a picture of bullet with whiskey is that right um bullet rye whiskey yes is there a reason why you took this picture uh uh i was requested to take a photo of it who requested you to take it uh investigators that were there with me [03:09:20] Speaker 8: and i would have also photographed everything in the in the in the vehicle and this came out of wendy adelson's car [03:09:32] Speaker 7: yes are you aware that wendy adelson was invited to a party where she was asked to bring bullet bourbon bullet whiskey no i was not you didn't try to do investigation into that i do crime scene i'm not an investigator okay now i'm going to exhibit 21 this is so far away going to 21 can you can you tell when the um the purchase occurred at abc when it occurred at what time [03:10:16] Speaker 8: um according to the receipt it's 12 49 and 13 seconds [03:10:22] Speaker 7: okay and you see that right under the words regular sale yes i have no further questions [03:10:32] Speaker 1: is the witness released yes have a good day at this point we are going to take our lunch break members of the jury you've heard this instruction from me several times i'm going to add yet another log to the fire do not discuss this case with each other or anyone else or look at any of the news reports or find any information concerning this matter if you choose to have your lunch together you certainly may again the only prohibition is you're not to discuss the case itself you will need to return by 1 15 and at that point we will resume with the trials as quickly as possible enjoy your break [03:11:20] Speaker 2: uh with that uh the jurors who sat through this like sts nation will have a one hour lunch break they have to be back uh actually get an hour and four minutes so how about that um carl steinbeck uh these witnesses seem to be very straightforward um just love to get your uh overall thoughts on what we witnessed on this historic morning where charlie adelson is on trial for the murder of his ex-brother-in-law dan markell right this is just back by 110 from there [03:11:55] Speaker 1: we'll just be waiting on the jurors to be settled and come back out and we'll resume with the testimony [03:12:03] Speaker 10: uh let's go ahead and deal with it now uh space coast let's kill the audio we can even lose the [03:12:16] Speaker 2: picture now uh space coast there we go uh carl your final thoughts today on what we just witnessed [03:12:25] Speaker 5: that's just routine processing of a crime scene and also of the victim's state of but the body at the hospital so that's pretty much nothing that rosh bomb has to object to because it's indisputable how they processed it i think is his points about the uh bourbon rye i think we're just trying to maybe show later that they're right away looking at an adelson and uh but otherwise he's really got [03:12:48] Speaker 2: nothing to dispute on these and um carl what do you think happens uh with the defense team at lunch today uh realistically do they say to each other wow we did great uh you think they're realistic with themselves and say uh we we can't see the jurors faces but do you think they have to reassess um are they just in it now and have to uh follow through with what they uh said that they were going to deliver [03:13:14] Speaker 5: well because there's really no legitimate credible defense i don't think there's really much war gaming and strategy to go on is if you really had a tough battle on your hands you're trying to prevent a innocent person from being convicted so i i think they're just gonna have a regular lunch and really not worry about it and really not have much to strategize about uh the defense has nothing blooming [03:13:36] Speaker 2: rose says the family's entitled enough to believe that they have to be free no matter what uh dr hamilton uh you're joining us from across the pond i think are you in the uk right now i am yes you are um yeah appreciate you being here um just your overall uh final thoughts on what we uh witnessed here this morning uh as opening statements took off [03:14:02] Speaker 4: uh many more thoughts than you have time for um just on the latter ones um so notice yes the witnesses uh so far are establishing there was a murder and all and i agree there was not a lot for the defense too too because they weren't um challenging that a murder happened and that uh how it happened um but you know it was just curious for them to have this some of the questions for the crime scene technician because they well know is he was just trying to offer facts not in evidence and probably will never be in evidence about why she purchased the liquor and of course the defense attorney knew that the crime scene technician had no no duty or it was not within her scope of her employment to investigate why the you know wendy had purchased that so that was just a red herring for that purpose um yeah still we have not seen an improvement in the luring on the defense part and i also think he's not making himself likable to the jury what at all because most of those juries would also say or understand the game he was playing with those questions to the crime scene technician so yeah dr hamlet by the way [03:15:19] Speaker 2: i meant to ask uh either you're a carl so i'll ask you this what about when uh daniel rashbaum was kind of portraying this uh you know sort of middle class dentist who came from humble beginnings um i don't think that would play very well with a tallahassee jury what do you think i mean most dentists are pretty [03:15:40] Speaker 4: well off yeah and he said he was well off so the only real middle class thing was his father started with a small dental practice which is still not lower middle class um you know somebody had money to put him through dental school and then he very quickly admitted that he made a lot of money so um i don't think they personalized him charlie to that jury in tallahassee at all they will not be able to identify him i think on any particular level uh thank you to diana hernandez and others who have [03:16:12] Speaker 2: said that they are enjoying this coverage we really appreciate that um keep in mind we just got into true crime less than a year ago so we are still figuring out all the twists and turns and this was our original case uh so we are on it but we are going to follow other trials uh and i'm going to speak to the coe we're going to bring you uh coverage uh if wendy takes a stand if katie magbana what takes a stand if charlie takes a stand we will take all those uh high profile witnesses live and we'll have people hopefully like dr hamilton coming back and carl steinbeck coming back the tim jansen's of the world uh fancy fiction uh you're there behind your avatar uh watching this with glee i think [03:16:54] Speaker 3: um your final thoughts and then we'll wrap up i don't have much to add it i think uh we're going to start seeing the trial we've seen twice before especially with the the next witnesses that are sort of establishing what happened and um yeah i don't have anything really else to add at this point i'm going [03:17:13] Speaker 2: to think about it well fancy do you think let me ask you this do you think we see uh wendy on the stand do you think we see charlie on the stand do you think we see katie on the stand wendy yes she's in [03:17:23] Speaker 3: town with her lawyer um i've heard uh charlie uh katie i don't know 50 50 i think that they'll call her if they need her and if they don't need her i don't think they'll call her but i don't know and um charlie yeah i've got a gut feeling he is and he's going to try to think that he's going to be able to explain this all the way and uh get people to feel uh sympathy for him because that seems to be [03:17:50] Speaker 2: the line they're casting out and uh we are going to continue to cover this and if charlie as i said katie wendy take the stand um if there are any surprise witnesses we will be there for uh all their testimony again i've got to get with the coe is going to say you're giving me another thing to do i can't believe it but uh we'll talk and maybe i'll buy her some more flowers um quick programming note by the way where are those flowers coe they disappeared quickly i hope you didn't give them to uh another guy that'd be uh devastating to me but uh i don't know anyway i'm loopy um it is now 12 18 we'll be back in four hours and 42 minutes if i'm doing the math right at 5 p.m eastern time at 5 p.m eastern time we're going to break this all down with michael jackson scott peterson's former attorney mark garagos the famous hollywood defense attorney coming on with david lat a well-known blogger who went to harvard law with dan markel a legal scholar in his own right and tallahassee's own famed criminal defense attorney tim jansen that is at 5 p.m eastern time no rest for the weary until then america love you the uk love you texas love you wherever fancy lives in that anonymous life of hers new jersey my home state tasmania because we have viewers there a lot of aussies in the chat today the republic of ireland buenos aires for some reason israel and everywhere near and far between panels stay on for one moment here we go [03:19:49] Speaker ?: you