2.Closing Arguments

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. May it please the Court, Counsel.

Good morning.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: This is Dan Markel. He's the victim in this case -- a son, a brother, a colleague, a mentor, a professor, a friend, but most of all, a father, an abba, a dad, a dedicated and loving father, whose downfall was brought about by the fact that his number one priority was maximizing his time with those little boys in the wake of a bitter divorce from their mother.

The defense called witnesses to come in here and give you an expert opinion that his divorce and the subsequent litigation was not contentious. Not contentious to whom? It was contentious to Dan Markel. It was contentious to wendi Adelson. And it was contentious to this defendant.

And then after telling you what a great guy Dan Markel was in opening statements, they called witnesses to tell you what a pain in the butt he was. And he was a pain in the butt to those people, those awful lawyers that can't even admit that divorces are emotionally charged. He was a pain in their butt. He was a pain in wendi's butt, and he was a pain in Donna's butt. why? Because this was his life we were talking about.

Dan Markel was not a file on some lawyer's desk. He was a real person who cared passionately about every scrap of paper in that divorce file. He wasn't some bumbling idiot. He was a Harvard-educated law professor. And, yeah, he was making it as difficult as possible for this defendant to get her nonnegotiable, which just also happened to be Dan Markel's nonnegotiable, those two little boys.

You have learned about this conspiracy and how it has unraveled over the last 11 years since Dan Markel's death. The defendants in this case have all attempted to point fingers at each other. They have argued that the State's theory is right. It's right. You got it right. Everybody except for me; I didn't do it.

Garcia's defense was that Charlie went directly to Rivera to arrange the hit on Dan Markel. After Magbanua testified in her trial and said she had no knowledge of this murder, Charlie must have gone around her directly to Garcia.

In Charlie's trial, he said Magbanua, Garcia, and Rivera all got together to kill Dan Markel without any direction from any Adelson family member.

Each defendant characterized himself or herself as another victim in this case, a victim in this situation, a victim of their codefendants setting them up, or the appearance of evidence that seemed to implicate them, but wasn't what it appeared to be. But despite their efforts to insulate themselves and to distance themselves from their coconspirators, they made enough mistakes to get themselves caught and held accountable for their respective roles in this conspiracy.

And today is Donna Adelson's turn. Despite their efforts to play victims, Dan Markel is still the only victim in this case. And the only thing he was guilty of was fighting like hell for those little boys, and he lost. He lost everything.

This is what he looked like before this defendant conspired to hire a hit man to have him killed, and this is what he looked like after. The evidence has shown that on July 18, 2014, this brilliant, accomplished, beloved man was gunned down in cold blood in his own garage.

This horrific death ultimately sent the police down two separate paths, following the two most promising leads that they had. The first lead was to chase down that Prius that, thank God, Mr. Geiger caught a glimpse of pulling out the driveway that morning.

And the second path was to ask, as we would with any murder investigation, who had a motive to want him dead? And within one hour of the shooting, well before Professor Markel had even been pronounced dead, this path was already pointing to the defendant when wendi Adelson revealed to officers that her parents had more reason to dislike her ex than anyone else.

And what offense had mr. Markel committed against Donna Adelson and her family? Refusing to let his children be taken away from him. Objecting to her telling his kids that he's stupid.

The evidence has shown that Donna Adelson was all about psychological warfare. And when all else failed, she was willing to do whatever it took to accomplish her nonnegotiable, to get a win.

In order for you to render a verdict of guilty, the State must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that these crimes were committed and that this defendant is the person who committed the crimes, or in this case, one of the persons who committed the crimes.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: It is undisputed that these crimes were committed. This was a first-degree murder, no doubt about that.

But who did it? The only issue left is identification, or what we call ID. The defense told you in openings, motive doesn't really matter. Don't pay attention to all the motive. Don't pay attention to all the emails. But motive can be compelling proof of who done it, identification, and, thus, critical to your determination of the defendant as one of the persons that committed this crime.

Despite some of the testimony that you heard, it is clear that the divorce between wendi and Dan was contentious. Except, the person who cared most about wendi's divorce and relocation specifically wasn't Wendi. It was her mother.

Charlie Adelson solicited Katherine Magbanua to kill Dan Markel, but why? who solicited Charlie? Because Charlie didn't care about the Adelson family getting a win against Dan Markel. He didn't care about relocation. He didn't care about Wendi's divorce. He cared about go-karts and jet skis and pretty girls.

But he also cared about getting things done for the number one woman in his life, and that was his mother. She managed Charlie's life for him, and in return, he solved problems for her. That pattern is seen throughout this case. He talks to wendi on the defendant's behalf to get her to pull the plug on the Tallahassee house, to date Dave and invite him to Mother's Day, to pursue a medical malpractice job, even though that's not even her area of the law, and on and on and on, she micromanaged wendi's life.

Charlie knows how to manage wendi in a way that Donna can't, or knows how to talk to her in a way that Donna can't. And wendi needs their help, right? Because according to them, she doesn't even have enough of a brain in her head to run her own life without their help.

Donna decides what's best for everyone. And if she runs into any problems making that happen, Charlie is her go-to guy to get it done. He is the problem-solver. And what was the biggest problem that Donna Adelson had in 2014? Dan Markel.

wendi filed her petition for divorce on September 10th of 2012, and the defendant was right in the middle of it. In the fall of 2012, the defendant told her son, Rob Adelson, that she had been in Tallahassee for several months, renting a new place for wendi. She used her own maiden name to do that, to disguise the identity of who was renting it, arranging for movers, moving money around, and getting things set up for wendi to leave Dan.

Then wendi calls Dan Markel and delivers the news that she's leaving him. How does she do it? She tells him she and the boys are moving out of the marital home. And the defendant gleefully -- that was Rob's word -- reported to Rob, her son, that she and wendi strategically planned to deliver that news to Mr. Markel so that he would get this bomb dropped on him right as he is about to take the stage to deliver this lecture.

According to Mr. Markel in one of his filings, quote, while the husband was away on a short business trip, the wife left the husband and the marital home, taking with her the children's furniture, clothing, toys and whatever assets, both marital and nonmarital, she desired. The evidence has shown that from the start, this defendant was very involved in managing Wendi's divorce.

In October of 2012, the defendant writes an email entitled: Things to Discuss at Your Mediation to Make Sure You Have in writing for a Settlement, in which she refers Wendi -- refers to Wendi as a hostage and a prisoner in Tallahassee. That's what she believed.

The email also includes the suggestion that wendi pursue a restraining order against Dan Markel, that wendi should go for 100 percent full custody of those two kids and relocation and the threat of this conversion to Christianity, quote: If he leaves you in Tallahassee, the children will not be attending Hebrew Day School. That's not a threat, just a warning. A warning that her friend, Ms. Cunningham, on the stand dismissed: Oh, that was just a foolish thing to say, right?

But the characterization of these threats as, you know, just something that was a one-off, heat-of-passion thing has been completely destroyed by the evidence in this case because she repeats it. She plans it with a lot of specificity.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Wendi even admitted that her mom was serious about planning a baptism for these kids to change their religion as a ruse to try to strong-arm Dan Markel into giving up those kids. This is an example of the defendant operating with the emotional subterfuge as described by her daughter, wendi Adelson.

Also, remember how her son, Rob, described her. She has rigid and fixed ideas of what she wants. And as long as you comply, things are fine. But when you don't comply, things are not fine.

wendi even admitted that if Dan had relented and moved to South Florida, or at least allowed her to move there, they might have coparented happily ever after. But Dan did not comply. So things were definitely not fine. The defendant ends this email with, quote, we will help you in any way possible for you to come here.

In October, this defendant drafted language for wendi's petition to relocate, including allegations that wendi had been upset about having to live in Tallahassee since 2005 and a mention of putting the boys in a Christian school and on a non-Kosher diet. Again, that's not a threat, just a reality.

And the suggestion that the boys live in South Florida with wendi and Dan just fly back and forth to see his kids, you know, he can just come see them every other weekend by airplane. Doesn't that sound like an amicable, equal time sharing that the lawyers for the defense described was going on here?

wendi's lawyer said she had no knowledge of wendi's mom being involved in her divorce, but the evidence shows she absolutely was. Wendi sends the proposed petition for relocation from her lawyer to the defendant with a note that says, Here it is. Let's edit. And the defendant responds the next day with detailed feedback, include an argument that Dan Markel is incapable of taking care of his own children and that wendi should seek 100 percent custody, arguments which wendi forwarded to her lawyer as her own. And upon receiving the lawyer's answer, she sends the lawyer's answer back to the defendant. That's in evidence.

The defendant's thoughts about wendi's earning potential and her work environment in Tallahassee, arguments about she'd be better off with this other job that's higher paying in Miami. And defendant says she's been living in Tallahassee -- that she, the defendant, has been living in Tallahassee since the petition was filed to help wendi with the boys.

In January of 2013, the defendant advises wendi on her amended petition to relocate. And this is where the argument is raised about the job as a major bargaining chip in the divorce. The defendant writes here that Dan needs to know that there is no way in hell wendi is going to stay at FSU.

On January 14th, wendi files an amended petition with request to relocate, which you can read and see. The petition contains many of the defendant's arguments. She couches this relocation in terms of not only important, but, like, a matter of life and death.

Look at these quotes: It will create a major negative change in our lives. It will ruin your entire life. The rest of all our lives, mine, dad's, and even Charlie's will be affected by how well she can perform and act before July 31st to try to get this relocation thing turned around.

Donna has even started prescreening men for wendi to date in the Miami area. In February, Dan files his response to wWendi's motion to relocate, alleging wendi took his stuff when she left. The sole reason for relocation is to be close to her mother and family in South Florida and that contrary to what Wendi put in her pleading, he was not seeking to leave FSU. He wasn't trying to move. wendi failed to comply with their Skype agreement, that wendi exhibited deceitful behavior, made false statements, showed a lack of integrity, and had unclean hands.

These are some pretty nasty words. Maybe not the worst thing that the defense experts have ever seen, but pretty nasty. Dan Markel requests sole decision-making authority for these kids regarding education, medical, and religious matters.

The defense lawyer witnesses said: Oh, that was never going to work. Maybe that's true. But these were concerns that Dan Markel took seriously. There's tons of discussions in evidence, in these binders before you, in the pleadings, and in the emails about Dan Markel's desire to raise these boys in accordance with his faith. And his concerns that his wishes were going to go right out the window as soon as the boys went over to be with wendi or her mother.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And the defendant took this matter seriously, too. She made it crystal clear in these emails that she had no respect for these boys' father's wishes for them regarding religious practices. In this email, defendant says she's sitting at wendi's kitchen table working on wendi's response to the filing we just talked about that Dan Markel made. So much for her having no involvement in her daughter's divorce.

She says in this email to a friend: All wendi wants out of this is to relocate to South Florida where she has us and Charlie. Danny is making it very difficult.

On March 5, 2013, defendant sends a long email in response to every paragraph of Dan Markel's arguments against relocation including that Dan's religious practices are fanatical and dangerous to the boys and that Dan Markel is psychologically unfit to have custody of his children. It's not sounding very amicable, is it?

In opening statements, the defendant's attorney acknowledged that Dan Markel was an intelligent, accomplished professor and a dedicated father. And the State could not agree more. But the evidence has shown that her client didn't agree with that. Donna Adelson repeatedly paints Dan Markel as a self-important idiot who is not fit to care for his own children.

On March 6, 2013, Dan Markel sends wendi an email, threatening to take her to court over her failure to cooperate with the Skype thing. That comes up repeatedly. Here he says: You've made zero efforts to facilitate that when you or your mother could have easily done so. I don't want conflict or tension. I desperately want peace and joy. Please let that happen. But do not mistake my politeness or desire for cooperation as a lack of firmness. I will not tolerate failures on your part to keep our agreements. They did have a Skype agreement. And she was violating it. And he was furious about it.

This email was forwarded by wendi to this defendant. So she knows about all this stuff.

Dan Markel sent wendi an email in December, which was pretty personal, and in which he -- it's kind of a mea culpa. He apologizes for things that went wrong in the marriage and takes some accountability for what he views as his mistakes in the marriage. And wendi forwards this email to her mother.

Then Donna responds to this personal email and goes through Dan Markel's writings paragraph-by-paragraph, suggesting how wendi can manipulate his words against him. Oh, look, he's admitting this here. This will help you in the divorce. And she does it in wendi's voice. It's weird. Look at it.

So although sometimes wendi seems to be complaining about her mom overstepping, you know, she's tramping my autonomy, it's like she's also inviting her mother into her business and wants her help, but also don't trample my autonomy. In fact, Wendi thanked her mom for the thoughts that she gave on this letter Dan Markel wrote. She also wrote that she never would have left Dan Markel without her mom's support.

In May of 2013, the defendant refers to one of Dan Markel's responses as a, quote, 23-page rant. Then she doubles down on relocation as the most important and nonnegotiable part of wendi's divorce. I mean, how many times does she have to tell y'all: It's important, but somehow the defense is still: It wasn't important or it was over. It didn't matter. She knows here that Dan Markel threatened wendi with federal kidnapping charges. He threatened her daughter with federal kidnapping charges for taking those kids without telling him where she was going when she left. The defendant signs off: I'm too angry to write anymore. The evidence has shown that this nice, normal sweet, little grandma certainly was angry.

To support the argument that wendi should be able to relocate because Dan was always traveling on work trips, the defendant sends wendi this email, and it contains every date, like the date ranges that Dan Markel has been out of town, traveling for work, since the birth of their first child. That's four years she is able to go back and send to wendi: He was out of town this date to this date, this date to this date.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: It's a little shocking that she recorded that information, but we know she is a very detailed person. She keeps these extremely detailed day planners. But Dan Markel's travel schedule is of particular interest in fact -- in light of the fact that the hit men knew that Dan Markel had to be killed on July 18th because he was going out of town the next day. The question is: How did they get that information? who had that information?

Then the next day, Dan Markel files a memo of law, asking for the attorney's fees and saying that, quote: If costs are not awarded, then the wife and her affluent parents who are the wife's litigation so they can enjoy closer access to the grandchildren will persist in vexatious and groundless litigation. Dan Markel knew that wendi's parents and their considerable resources were a big part of why this divorce litigation was dragging on.

They thought he was filing frivolous stuff to drag out the divorce and the proceedings, and he thought the same thing about them.

On June 21st, the Court issued the order denying relocation. When wendi was on the stand, the defense mad a big deal out of: Oh, you didn't tell Mom it was final, did you? You stipulated to it, didn't you? which we later learned was because the judge had already ruled at sidebar that it wasn't going to happen. But basically, you know, you kept your poor mom in the dark, and she thought this was still something that was viable and you didn't tell her it wasn't. But on redirect it was proven that that was not true.

The defendant did know that the order was final and she expressed this in an email to her friends. Poor mom wasn't kept in the dark on anything in this family. In fact, the defendant recognized perfectly well that this order meant she wasn't going to get relocation through the courts. She wasn't going to get what she wanted through the legal system. But that wasn't the only way to skin a cat, was it? She wasn't deterred by a loss in court.

Instead she started looking at other options to get a win for the Adelson family. There was testimony offered that everyone knew that there was a slim chance of wendi winning relocation. Maybe everyone knew that on the lawyers’ side, but the defendant didn't know that. She was not happy about this loss in court.

Her she laments: Unfortunately, after paying a lawyer $600 an hour for ten months of case preparation, the judge listened to wendi for one hour and made up her mind. Outrageous. So at the moment, we will not be allowed to relocate. Note the phrase: At the moment. Jibbers has not beaten the Adelson family yet. The defendant concludes this email: Anyway, if I sound angry it's because I am. we are all very upset and cannot believe the outcome.

She couldn't believe relocation was denied. when wendi expresses defeat over the Court's order, the defendant isn't having it. She encourages wendi to never, never, never give up, to take control, to not let Jibbers think he's won anything by having you remain in Tallahassee and to show this fucker what will make him absolutely miserable. How amicable.

Then defendant solicits Wendi to put on the performance of her life because Jibbers hadn't beaten the Adelson family yet. And this is where defendant rebuilds her plan of action, including having her Jewish grandsons baptized and offering a million bucks to Dan Markel to facilitate this relocation.

Control is a theme that's featured prominently throughout this email and throughout this case. There is evidence that the defendant controlled wendi. She controlled Harvey. And she controlled Charlie. But she could not control Dan Markel. He wasn't going to give her a win. As long as you went along with her rigid, fixed ideas, things were fine. But if you didn't, things were not fine.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Defendant continues to react to relocation being denied and wendi's inclination to give up on the matter, including: Everyone has a price. Now is the time to start. You said this divorce is not about winning and losing, and it's not a competition. You've already lost relocation according to the legal system. well, it is about winning and losing. we are trying to get a win. You deserve it. You deserve so much more than a life without family, teaching in Tallahassee. Life is tough -- if you don't stand up and take a chance, you don't stand a chance. Please, wendi, do your part and stand up to him. Make an effort to do this so that our group offer will stand a better chance of being accepted. Don't let this temporary move to Tallahassee ruin your entire life. Fight for yourself, wendi. we'll be there to help move. Just don't tell us that what you need to do is move forward with a sense of peace.

Can't have that, can we? That's giving up. Giving up on relocation was not on option for Donna Adelson. Neither was losing.

Throughout the trial, the defense tried to distance themselves from these emails. One of the ways they did that was by trying to put them off on Harvey. They pointed out: Hey, this is a joint email account. One of these is signed: Mom and dad. And there's a few that are signed: Mom and dad. But it's clear that the defendant is the author of these emails and that she's the one driving the bus on this relocation effort.

And during the presentation, we highlight all the Dad and I language, all the indications in there that Donna is the author as opposed to Harvey being the author.

According to her own daughter, wendi, she's the dominant force in that household. And according to her son, Rob, she is a controlling person as opposed to the more passive, go-with-the-flow type of personality that the dad, Harvey, has.

In opening, the defense attorney told you that this defendant was a normal person and you don't have to decide she's not a normal person. You're the judge of the facts, right? Was a crime committed? Is this the person that committed the crime?

But in this email, she suggests that dressing her Jewish grandchildren up in Hitler youth uniforms would be acceptable. That would accomplish her goals. The ends justify the means for her people.

That is illustrated here. And it sums up this entire case. The defendant wanted this done because that was the only way left to get a win. If he had submitted -- if he had let her take those kids, he'd be alive. If he moved to South Florida himself, he would be alive. But he would not submit. She could not get that win.

He was a huge problem, and she made it Charlie's problem. Charlie, who liked the idea of being a tough guy, who had connections to people on the wrong side of the tracks, the price of Dan Markel's life was worth the reward of pleasing his mother and easing her diarrhea and getting her to finally shut up about wendi's divorce.

In the mind of this defendant, all their lives depended on the success of this relocation effort. She tells you as much herself in these emails. Listen to her. And as such, any and all means were justified, because not everything one has to do in life is comfortable or easy. Sometimes it's ridiculously hard. This is what passes for normal in this family.

I said the defendant made wendi's divorce Charlie's problem, and the evidence shows the defendant did keep Charlie in the loop every step of the way. Here is a July 10th email, states: Just to catch you up on what's happening with wendi and discusses who should be involved in the bribe that the family wants to offer to Dan Markel.

On July 19th, the defendant requests and wendi sends her copies of the motions, responses, orders, and transcripts from her divorce so far. That same day Dan Markel makes a settlement offer that this defendant encourages Wendi to reject, saying the answer is no to all of this. Please, wendi, we've been with you from day one. Do not accept or sign anything without the two of us reviewing and discussing all of this with you. Screwing him financially is what will aggravate him.

But ultimately a settlement is reached. And y'all have heard about this date, July 31, 2013. But contrary to what the defense has told you, the fighting did continue.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: On October 12th of 2013, three months after the divorce was final, the defendant forwards an email to Charlie Adelson, which Dan Markel had sent Wendi. And the defendant adds the note: This is what this fucker is sending your sister on a regular basis. He is absolutely crazy, impossible.

Does it sound like everything was over? was the amicable divorce over? Not contentious at all, right?

This is fall of 2013, the same timeframe in which wendi starts dating Jeff Lacasse and Charlie starts dating Katherine Magbanua.

On October 13, 2013, the defendant texts Charlie Adelson, quote: Horrible evening for your sister. The pattern of this defendant getting worked up about wendi's divorce and then forwarding it on to Charlie is seen over and over again, which brings us to Halloween 2013.

Several important events in the case occur on Halloween 2013. One, wendi officially takes Dan Markel back to court, filing her motion to enforce the marital settlement agreement. So she's alleging he violated it, and she's asking to hold him in contempt of court, alleging that he's not paid the agreed-upon fees that he was supposed to pay by a certain deadline.

wendi backs out of the contract that she had signed to buy a house in Tallahassee on Halloween 2013. Charlie later brags to the defendant that he talked wendi out of buying the house, and the defendant calls him a miracle worker for having convinced wendi not to buy the house in Tallahassee.

Also, Charlie meets up with Katherine Magbanua on Lincoln Road on Halloween 2013, the same day wendi pulled the plug on the house, and broaches the subject with her for the first time of: Hey, do you know anybody that I could hire to harm someone?

And she did. Charlie sends this picture of himself and Katherine Magbanua together to Wendi that night, October 31, 2013. First night he solicited Katherine Magbanua to be a part of a murder, or part of what would become a murder.

Mid-November, Jeff Lacasse meets the defendant for the first time. Remember Jeff, he was wendi's boyfriend that testified. He said he would meet her six to seven other times in addition to that first time during the course of his relationship with wendi. Sometimes just in passing, picking wendi up for a date. Other times more substantially, including taking the boys to the circus. And that becomes maybe important later.

Meanwhile, the fighting continues into December. we are in December of 2013 by now. On December 16th, Dan Markel emails wendi and the parenting coordinator that was assigned to help them try to navigate these issues about the defendant, Donna Adelson, disparaging him to his kids.

In this email, he introduces what he calls a major issue. The headline on this concern is not buried, guys. Like he says, I'm introducing a serious -- a major issue. He very plainly gives a preview of the grandma motion, which will ultimately be filed in March of the next year. And here he says that on November 8th, one of the boys announced at a Markel family dinner that: Grandma, referring to this defendant, says you're stupid. Grandma says you're stupid.

Then the following Monday, on November 11th, when Dan Markel was buckling the boys in at the park, they both tell him that: Grandma says you're stupid. when asked why, they say: Because you're trying to take her sunshines away from her. when asked: who are her sunshines, the boys answer they are her sunshines.

Then again on November 30th, while playing with the older child, that child repeated the statements to Dan Markel: Grandma says you're stupid. And, again, when asked why, the child repeated that the defendant said that Dan Markel was stupid because he was trying to take grandma's sunshines away from her.

Markel implores wendi's to address the situation as he would like to avoid a hearing in which his kids are going to be primary witnesses against their grandmother. He assures her that he will, though, if necessary, seek judicial relief that prevents contact between the children and their grandmother.

The lawyer that testified said: Oh, that wasn't going to work. well, he didn't think so. Oh, that's no big deal. I have seen much worse than that in my career. well, yeah, Dan Markel hadn't seen much worse than that. Dan Markel had a big problem with grandma saying he was stupid, and he wanted to take it up and address it with the judge, if necessary.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Dan Markel emphasizes that this is a matter he takes very seriously and says that the defendant's actions could lead to the termination of Wendi's parental rights. Is that true or not? It doesn't matter. He thought it was true. He threatened it. And those are fighting words, going to terminate your parental rights.

wendi forwards the email to the defendant the next day, December 17th. And what's the response? wow. That's a response we see from the defendant quite a bit.

She's usually more verbose. That's true. But why is the defense working so hard to say that their client didn't see this email and didn't know about these allegations? Isn't it clear that wendi is sharing all the issues relating to her divorce with her mother? wendi communicated with her mother on all these filings, and this one pertained directly to her mother.

of course, they discussed it. Are we really to conclude that nobody was fighting anymore prior to Dan Markel's murder when the evidence leads you to conclude the exact opposite?

This was a pressure cooker, and it was being turned up hotter and hotter with each passing day. Not only is this a situation that's escalating between the actual parties to the litigation, but now the defendant has moved from working behind the scenes, helping wendi with the divorce, to actually being the subject of the pleadings that are before the Court. There was supposed to be a hearing on that issue.

One thing Dan Markel wrote in this email is, quote: I fear that the children's best interests are not being pursued so much as what gramma wants. If he only knew how legitimate that fear really was.

Those weren't just some ugly, foul words thrown around in the heat of the moment, folks. They continued well past the finalization of the divorce. Here on January 10, 2014, so now we're into the year where Dan Markel is killed. Six months after the divorce is final, the defendant says: Oh, Dan Markel, wow, is he on drugs? Is he also going to pay 70K plus the legal fees and interest that that bastard owes you?

So the bad blood is going strong here six months before the murder. And the divorce wasn't really final anyway in the sense that we are continuing to have pleadings get filed back and forth.

In February of 2014, Dan Markel emails wendi threatening to file motions, exposing her for what he said was hiding assets, $200,000 worth of assets from the Court and giving false testimony under oath and also to accuse her attorney of misconduct. Her lawyer witnesses say none of that is a big deal, none of that was going to be successful. But he thought it was going to be successful. To him, it's a lot of money. To him, it's a big deal.

The next day on February 15, 2014, we see a text from the defendant to Charlie: Wendi is totally stressed out. Yesterday was a rough one. She will probably have to go through another depo. Outrageous.

Rob Adelson testified that his mother told him they were, quote: Depo'ing wendi to death.

But then their expert witness got up there and said wendi was never deposed. I guess they didn't provide her with that information or any of these emails or text messages post July 31st, because this thing was not over on July 31st.

In this text, the defendant accuses Dan Markel of stalking wendi. And Charlie agrees. The defendant tells Charlie to keep the conversation with wendi light and don't bring up the divorce drama, which kind of implies there was divorce drama going on.

There is a sense in this email and elsewhere in the evidence that defendant and Charlie have to tiptoe around wendi, like she's this damsel in distress that needs the two of them to step in and help her handle her business.

On February 17, 2024, defendant again reports to Charlie how wendi's hearing went and talks about how there are plans to seek to have Dan Markel forced to submit to psychological testing.

Here defendant is seven months after the divorce and just five months before the murder responding to Dan Markel's filing a request to produce, and she says: It's time to give it to him. Let's aggravate him the way he's trying to aggravate you. And what can your attorney do to be proactive to give him some grief? Can't you meet with her and work out a plan of attack? Something has to be done with this asshole. This is five months before the murder.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Here defendant texts Charlie about Wendi yet again: If you speak to wendi today, tread lightly. Don't ask questions about the depo, her lawyer, et cetera. Tough time, and she's really stressed out. The asshole showed up at soccer yesterday, and she goes into a story about, you know, he showed up at soccer and they got into it. And then she ends with: Such a fucker. Super amicable.

And then we have this text on March 4th, switching gears. This is about the birthday gift. Defendant texts Charlie that she's going to call him from the bathroom in Gainesville where she can have some privacy. Please pick up because I will have very limited alone time today. Erase this text after you read it. Then the defendant says: we'll speak privately about dad's birthday gift.

So erase after reading. You might think: well, maybe she was just trying to keep the birthday gift a surprise. But why does Charlie need to erase it? Harvey is not with Charlie. Harvey is with Donna. And according to Rob, there were no birthday gifts for Harvey unless the murder was supposed to be the birthday gift. Plus, in the text, Donna wants Charlie to delete after reading the text that doesn't mention the birthday. She doesn't say anything about deleting the one that does mention the birthday.

Rob Adelson was present at the birthday party which did take place between the two trips that the hit men took to Tallahassee. And there were no birthday gifts according to him. The defense suggests that the friends coming to the party was part of the surprise. But then they also suggest that Harvey sent the Evite. So I don't think they can have it both ways. He can't send the invitations and be surprised by the friends.

The next week Jeff Lacasse, wendi Adelson, Katherine Magbanua, and Charles Adelson all go out to dinner. That's the first meeting between wendi and Jeff and Katherine Magbanua. At dinner, Magbanua mentions her ex having several run-ins with law enforcement. That stuck out to Mr. Lacasse. After dinner in the hot tub, Charlie bragged about having connections to people on the wrong side of the tracks.

Notable in the same timeframe, March 21, 2014, the defendant signs a lease on a condo in South Beach, a condo where wendi, after Dan is killed, would move in with her kids. They say, oh, that was a weekend place. well, it's pretty convenient timing. You just happen to get this other house and have it set up for wendi to move into after her ex-husband is murdered and she's able to relocate.

3/26/14, this is when Dan Markel officially files the grandma motion, which takes aim at the defendant raising more allegations about failure to comply with the Skype thing. wendi leaving the boys with her parents rather than giving him the right of first refusal. And he says: By violating the right of first refusal, the former wife creates conditions for Mr. Markel to be disparaged in the presence of the children by their maternal grandmother.

Dan Markel then alleges all the same allegations about the defendant disparaging him to the kids that he outlined in that previous email in December.

Contrary to what the defense said in court, in his prayer for relief, the remedy Markel was seeking was to have the Court order this defendant to have no contact with those boys unless she was supervised, because he didn't want her disparaging him to the boys and because it was a violation of right of first refusal in his opinion for Wendi to leave the boys all the time with her mom and not give him a chance to have them if wendi wasn't going to keep them.

How do you think Donna took this information? She refers to those kids as hers. She was the one sacrificing her time at the office to be up here in Tallahassee doing for those boys. She had invested so much of her own time in this fight against Dan Markel to try to get a win for the family. And after all that investment in those kids and all the money spent on the attorneys and all that time spent at the kitchen table, working on those divorce filings, Donna Adelson was losing. The boys and wendi were stuck in Tallahassee. wendi wasn't working at the law firm in South Florida, raking in a bunch of money and dating some new guy that she prescreened for her. And grandma's sunshines weren't in South Florida.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: That's where they belonged. That's what was best for them. They had lost in court. Wendi wouldn't comply with Donna's plan of action. And Dan Markel apparently wouldn't take a bribe or be strong-armed to allow his kids to come to South Florida.

But as it turns out, Jibbers still had not beaten the Adelson family because there was still another option. The option of hiring a hit man man. Charlie joked about hiring a hit man. But he had also been actively pursuing that option at least since Halloween of 2013. Over the last several months, Charlie had several conversations with Katherine Magbanua about this job which started as a request to harm and then eventually revealed itself as a murder for hire.

Recall that Magbanua said that often when she and Charlie would discuss the murder and the pressing need to get it done, he would emphasize to her that the toll that wendi's situation was taking on his parents emotionally and physically, as they were stressed to the point of being physically ill. So he would often tell her that's the motive. That's why we need to get this done. It's stressing out my mom.

On May 16, 2014, two months before the murder, wendi was added as a resident to that condo in South Florida.

On May 30, 2014, Donna sends Charlie the text, quote: Horrible morning with Danny. Tough conversation with her. This text was sent less than two months before this murder. The drama is continuing. Everyone is still fighting. It's contentious.

Prior to the June trip, Charlie had prepared an envelope containing the murder instructions. He told Katherine Magbanua that he used gloves when handling the paperwork inside, that he printed it, not on any printer that could be connected to him, and that she was not to touch the contents of what was inside. She was to deliver the envelope to Sigfredo Garcia.

She followed these instructions. In early June, she came back to Charlie, asking for travel expenses for the hit men. She got a couple hundred bucks to give them to rent a car to come up here.

They came. well, let's back up just a little bit. They rented a car June 2, 2014. Magbanua drops Garcia off at the rental car place and then Magbanua calls Charlie on the way home from the rental car place.

You saw the evidence of this in Sergeant Corbitt's presentation. Charlie immediately calls Donna on the landline after hanging up with Magbanua. How do we know that he talked to his mother and not his dad since it was the landline? well, because a few minutes after that call, he talks to Dad on his cell, so he probably didn't talk to dad on the landline, and then a few minutes later talks to him on his cell.

Garcia and Rivera travel to Tallahassee. This is June 4, 2014. Rivera notes that Garcia is in possession of a piece of paper. The paper has a photo on it and some information. This information allowed them to locate and follow Dan Markel's vehicle, a black Honda Accord with the tag number 534YBM. Information that the defendant had written in her 2014 planner.

wendi and Jeff Lacasse have their coffee date, at which she cancels their planned trip to California on July 11th through the 17th. She offers no real explanation for why she's canceling except to say that she's real worried about being able to pick up the boys on the 18th. The 18th, of course, ends up being the day that Dan Markel is killed.

Later that night, Jeff Lacasse goes to Wendi's. And she's a nervous wreck. She won't tell him what's wrong, but her stomach is upset, and he goes and gets her Pepto-Bismol.

The killers are in town when that happens. The hit men spend a day and a half following Dan Markel around Tallahassee. Here they are near the park there by his residence. They scope out his residence. And although Rivera had already purchased the murder weapon, a revolver that he got on the streets for the expressed purpose of killing Dan Markel, they lost him or he was with the kids or for whatever reason, they did not get the job completed on the June trip.

After the hit men failed to get the job done, Charlie tells Donna on June 7, 2014 that he's still working on dad's birthday present. And she says: I know you will come through.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Sometime around June 11th, Jeff Lacasse went over to wendi's residence and observed her living room Tv to have some impact damage. This was the same TV that Charlie got wendi as a divorce present because it was cheaper than hiring a hit man. The location and damage to the set did not appear consistent with something the kids could have caused, at least to Jeff. Note that this was over a month before the murder, that Jeff observes this damage. So it hung out there for awhile.

June 13th, the defendant has a note in her calendar to consider canceling Harvey's birthday party if that's what he wants to do. Now, this is between the June and July trips. There is a note to herself to talk to Harvey about whether or not he wants to cancel the party.

Rob Adelson testified that there was no illness or anything going on in the family that he knew of that would potentially result in the canceling of dad's party.

This note may be contemplating that if the murder had happened on the June trip, that Harvey might decide it's not appropriate to go through with the party and we need to cancel these invitations.

wendi took a photo with Katherine Magbanua on the beach two days after that note to self in the planner. Here she is in front the South Beach condo, pictured with Katherine Magbanua. That photo was taken June 15th of 2014.

Wendi sends Rob a text with a picture of her and Jeff Lacasse. This is June 28th of 2014. She includes a request to her brother, Rob, not to tell her parents about her relationship with Jeff. The suggestion of a secret boyfriend later prompted Rob to suggest Jeff as a potential suspect to the FBI, a secret boyfriend. This was also a little odd that she sent this because Wendi never talked to Rob about her boyfriends and also because Jeff had already met her parents several times.

June 30th of 2014, the defendant comes and gets wendi and the boys from Tallahassee to take them down to Miami. Remember how she doesn't let wendi drive with the boys to Miami. She rents a car and comes here and picks them up and drives them to Miami herself. I think Harvey come with her.

wendi was to be in South Florida for two weeks. In the time between the June and the July trip, Charlie begins to put more pressure on Katherine Magbanua to get the murder done. On several occasions when he and Magbanua were discussing the murder, Charlie would step out of the room to call his mother and then return and advise her that the murder needed to get done as soon as possible because his parents were so stressed and worried about wendi's situation.

Charlie painted Dan Markel as an awful person to Katherine Magbanua. He was making Wendi's life hell. He was stressing out her parents. Katie knew somebody who could get this thing done, and he wanted it done.

Magbanua understood that the murder was needed urgently to relieve the stress on Charlie's mother.

July 1, 2014, we have a single call from Garcia to Harvey Adelson. This call did not connect. It appears like it went to voice mail. And we would later learn from Magbanua that this was after an incident in which her two love interests, Charlie Adelson and Sigfredo Garcia, had a little bit of a run-in. Garcia was angry and jealous about Magbanua dating Charlie and tried to confront Charlie.

After this attempted confrontation, it's believed that Garcia was trying to call Charlie, but ended up getting Harvey, and that was that one hang-up call. But it ended up being important because it showed up on the tower dump, Garcia's number. And then when we cross-referenced it with all the Adelson numbers, that was the first match that gave us Sigfredo Garcia's name.

we would later learn that the real connection between the Adelsons and the killers was Katherine Magbanua and her relationship with Charlie Adelson.

The text messages found in Charlie's icloud corroborate what Magbanua says about the interactions and the call made the day before. So here she's saying basically Garcia is being ridiculous and childish.

Harvey's birthday Evite goes out on July 3rd of 2014. The Evite addresses the boys by the last name Adelson. Their name was Markel. This is two weeks before the murder of Dan Markel. Even though the Evite says hosted by Donna and the party was for Harvey, the defense has suggested that it was Harvey and not Donna that sent the Evites. The evidence showed otherwise when Corbitt told you there was some follow-up from Donna with the Evite people. She sent that email.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: A text is sent from wendi's phone to Dan Markel on July 6th of 2014. At the time this text was sent, this phone was present at -- the phone was present at the South Beach condo where the defendant lived. Dan Markel confirms: Yes, I am going to be in town to get murdered -- not specifically -- but he's asked: Are you going to be in town July 14th through the 18th? Those are the dates the killers were here. And this, despite the fact that the schedule for that week had already been decided way before this text, and wendi was already scheduled to have the boys on that wednesday, which is what she's asking about. She doesn't ask about the whole week that he's got the kids. She only asks about the 14th through the 18th. And I think the killers ended up going to Tallahassee the 15th through the 18th. Obviously, Dan Markel was killed on the 18th.

July 11, 2014, the defendant comes back to Tallahassee to bring wendi and the boys home. So bringing her home from the Harvey birthday party, that same day both Harvey Adelson and the defendant separately, eight minutes apart, email wendi Adelson about her TV repair appointment that's going to happen on the date of the murder.

July 13th, wendi and Lacasse meet at wendi's house, and she's an emotional wreck, again, for no apparent reason. Lacasse impeached her regarding some statements that she made during a discussion of their relationship that evening in the context of: You have got to get past this moving to Miami thing. I mean, you are not going to be able to move to Miami. And she says, you know: Yeah, it's not an issue unless something happens to Dan. And she says: Can I tell you something in confidence? And she makes the chilling statement at that time that her brother, besides joking about hiring a hit man because it was -- buying a TV because it was cheaper than hiring a hit man, he also, in fact, had looked into hiring a hit man to kill Dan Markel. This conversation occurred just five days before the murder.

July 15th, the Prius is rented. July 16th, Rivera and Garcia travel to Tallahassee. July 17th, Rivera and Garcia follow Dan Markel around Tallahassee. July 18th, murder day.

You guys okay? Anybody need a break?

July 18th, 8:11 a.m., the defendant texts wendi about the TV repair appointment. The TV repair appointment was planned for between 8:00 a.m. and noon that day. And she says: They are on their way over now to help you with the Tv sets in your living room in case she didn't know which Tv set it was. This is the Tv that Charlie bought as a divorce present because it's cheaper than hiring a hit man. Could it be a coincidence that this TV is also the alibi for wendi on the day of the murder, while he's being murdered by a hit man?

And then as we know, the defendant later uses TV as code when she's speaking on those wiretap calls. 8:20 a.m., Wendi texts Charlie: This is so sweet. we don't know what it means. But she put that -- she texted him that, and then she deleted it sometime between the time it was sent, 8:20 a.m., and the time that her phone was cellebrited or downloaded at the police station later that day.

9:04 a.m., Dan Markel leaves a voicemail for wendi, telling her he's headed to the gym and wants to know if okay for him to pick up the boys early and take them swimming that afternoon. Wendi says: No, you cannot take the boys swimming after school that day.

Meanwhile, what's going on across town? The Prius is following Dan Markel into the gym parking lot. There it is at 9:16 a.m. 9:19 a.m. to 9:37 a.m., Charlie and wendi talk for 18 minutes. Wendi and Dan argue back and forth a bit about him wanting to take the boys swimming. But after getting off the phone with Charlie, wendi concedes the argument with Dan and says: Okay, you can pick them up and bring them back to me when you are done swimming.

But, of course, the swimming plan didn't happen because Dan Markel was killed. 10:38 a.m., the Prius follows Mr. Markel out of the gym parking lot. 10:45 a.m., Mr. Markel was shot twice in the head in his vehicle in his garage.

10:51, the Prius is captured fleeing the scene on a city bus camera. 11:01, Mr. Geiger calls 911. 11:15, law enforcement arrives at the scene and sets up a perimeter. Dan Markel is rushed to the hospital. He is treated, but the damage is catastrophic. It's not survivable, and he passes away about 14 hours later.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: 12:30, the hit men now headed back south turn their phones on. They had turned them off for the homicide. They turn them back on. The first phone call that either one of them makes is Sigfredo Garcia to Katherine Magbanua. They want their money.

where is Magbanua getting the money? From Charlie. 12:45, so while the killers are calling Magbanua and heading south, wendi goes out of her way to visit the crime scene, encounters a roadblock and crime scene tape. Per the officer at the roadblock, she would have been able to clearly see the police activity at her former residence, the residence where her children currently lived half the time and where they woke up that morning. Yet she abruptly turns around and leaves. She does not make contact with the officer to ask what's going on. She does not call the police to inquire. She does not call Dan Markel to say: Are you okay? There's a bunch of cops at the house. She does not call the daycare to make sure her children arrived that morning and are okay.

Instead, she proceeds to the ABC Liquors, purchases her Bullet Bourbon at 12:49. She's later approached by law enforcement at lunch and gives a law enforcement interview in which she says: My parents have more reason to dislike Danny than almost anyone else. This echos Rob Adelson's testimony, that his mother hated Dan Markel at the time of his murder. And even from the periphery, it was known to Ryan Fitzpatrick, as Charlie's friend, that his mother did not like Dan Markel.

In her law enforcement interview, wendi suggests her mother as someone who is very angry at Dan Markel. She suggests Charlie when asked if someone might do this on her behalf. She calls her mom and the defense has put that call into evidence.

7:04 p.m., she tells her mom that there's been a shooting. And afterwards, wendi expresses relief that they sounded surprised. 8:59, the defendant arrives at Charlie's with the murder money.

How do we know she went there and that they aren't just old people that drive really slow? well, there is a text message: Outside your house. I guess we're going to find out what that means, but I guess it's not going to be outside your house. And he says: Ten min.

I guess we're going to find out what that means, but apparently it doesn't mean: I'll be there in ten minutes and meet you there and get the money.

About ten o'clock, Katherine Magbanua joins Charlie at the house. Here they are making plans for that meeting.

Next slide, please.

Charlie answers the door with a gun in his hand. He's extremely amped up. He tells Magbanua: My parents just left. They both end up taking Xanax and sleeping over there for the night.

The next morning, July 19, 2014. So this is early morning hours, 1:25 a.m. -- I think we need the next slide. Yeah, 1:25 a.m., Donna and Harvey arrive at their Orlando hotel. In the morning, Charlie puts the money in Katherine Magbanua's trunk. She's seen at 9:33 a.m. approximately, heading south toward Rivera's house where she's going to meet up ultimately with Rivera and Garcia and give them the money.

Garcia takes the money out of the trunk where Charles Adelson put it and divides it up between the three of them. Magbanua says she did not count her cut. But we know she put some of it in the bank, creating the largest monthly cash spike of any of the records we examined for her bank. This cash spike also occurs at a time when Magbanua was not employed. Rivera says his understanding was the job paid a hundred thousand total to be split between the three and that the cut that he received was roughly a third of that at 35,000. we don't know the amount of Garcia's cut, but we know he got at least enough to buy a car and a motorcycle.

So July 20, the defendant and Harvey Adelson take wendi and the boys back to South Florida, two days after -- not even 48 hours after -- Dan Markel is shot. They are gone, relocation granted.

On the way, wendi receives a call from Detective Isom. She tells him that the call is breaking up and she hangs up. Afterwards referring him to her lawyer. Katherine Magbanua that day or thereabouts opens her Ziploc bag of money and finds her cut to be hundred dollar bills stapled together in thousand dollar stacks, how we know Charlie keeps his money. She also notes that her cut is damp and moldy. She mentions this to Charlie, and he tells her that his mother washed the money, not like laundered, like washed.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Rob Adelson gets a call from Donna Adelson, advising him not to talk to the FBI. What? Rob Adelson gets a call from this defendant, advising him not to talk to the FBI just in case they call.

He says: well, I already did. She says: well, you don't know anything anyway, and hangs up.

July 24, 2014, Dan Markel was laid to rest in Canada. His children were not in attendance. August of 2014, the defendant registers the older child for flag football under the last name Adelson. His name is Markel. This is one month after their father was killed. And already he's being erased from their lives. Within one year, their names would be legally changed to Adelson.

9/12 of '14, the defendant refers to the younger child by the last name Adelson. 9/17 of '14, the first check is written to Katherine Magbanua, signed by this defendant. This is the murder money. Even though Charlie has signing authority on this account, he could write these checks. He chooses to connect his elderly mother to a murder payment? If she wasn't involved, there is no reason in the world why she would write these checks.

The defense said in opening that Charlie told Donna to write the checks because it was his business. But half of these checks were written after the business was sold back to Harvey on October 2, 2015. Regardless of who owned the business --

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you, Judge.

And regardless of who owned the business at the time, all the Adelsons had an interest in the Adelson Institute. All three of them had signing authority on that checkbook. But the defendant is the one that wrote that check. September 17, 2014, and the 43 checks that followed.

Is that consistent with what we've heard, that she would just write the checks and not ask any questions? we've heard that she is assertive. She's controlling. She's a details person. She ran that business and those people's lives. She ran a tight ship. we've seen her weekly planners where she plans out every detail of her own life, making meticulous notes. She kept detailed information about Dan Markel and lots of other things.

Rob Adelson testified that she's not the type of person who is just going to do something someone tells her to do. She's going to be asking questions. And we heard that Charlie testified that he told his mother about extortion. He says he was being extorted, right?

Let's fast-forward to October of 2015, Charlie's had a couple of girlfriends since the murder and is now dating June Umchinda. Remember her? June, one of Charlie's girlfriends, that testified. She said they were enjoying a fairytale relationship in October of ‘15. During her relationship with Charlie, June observes that Charlie packages his money in an unusual way, hundred dollar bills stapled into thousand dollar stacks. June also observes the defendant to be in control of the family and super involved with the grandchildren. However, she found it odd that nobody in the family seemed curious about who killed Dan Markel, nor did they seem upset about the murder.

Rob Adelson also noted a complete lack of curiosity on the part of his mother about this murder in the family. when he asked what the defendant thought happened to Danny, she said, quote: I don't know, and I don't care. It doesn't concern me.

As someone who liked details and who always stayed on top of everything, her total lack of interest in who killed her former son-in-law, her grandchildren's father is totally out of character.

From July of ‘14 to April of ‘16, Donna Adelson got everything she wanted. Wendi and the kids were in South Florida where she could drop them off and pick them up, manage their schoolwork, their tennis, their piano lessons, and have her sunshines with her every day. All the while, she's steady paying for the murder of their father.

Everyone is living their best life, thinking they have gotten away from murder until the bump. Everything changed on April 19, 2016, when the bump occurred. The undercover approaches Donna and hands her a piece of paper. The most human reaction in the world is to look at paper.

The defense told you in opening that this defendant is a normal person just like you and me. There is nothing normal about the way she conducts herself in the minutes, hours, and days after the undercover approaches her with that paper.

The bump and the wire were designed to expose the coconspirators and their roles in this conspiracy, and it did. Here, we are just ten minutes later, there is only one thing a normal person would do if approached on the street by a stranger who appears to be threatening harm to them in some way. A normal, or maybe I should say, an innocent person would, one, look at the paper. She didn't do that. Two, get to safety, get help, contact law enforcement or your husband or somebody that's going to come help you. Get somewhere safe.

What you would not do is lead the bad guy right to the grandchildren. The last thing a normal, innocent person would do is go get her little grandchildren and walk right back down the same block with them where this stranger just approached her.

But that is exactly what she does. Then she gets on the phone with Charlie and says absolutely nothing about Dan Markel. His picture is on the paper. What she does say on the wire, which, by the way, is direct evidence -- I know y'all like that, some direct evidence -- when Charlie asks Donna on State's 99, Call A:

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Does it involve me or other people? Well, probably both of us. That is direct evidence. If anyone wants to acquit her, make them tell you how that is not a confession.

In Call B, Charlie calls back because he can't stand it, and he asks his mother: Will you send me a picture of the bump flyer?

MS. CAPPLEMAN: No, I don't want to do that. Well, Why not? Why not? Normal, nice little old lady who knows nothing about this murder and has nothing to do with it. If Charlie is the one making you write the checks and Charlie is the one that knows something about it, send him a picture of it. He's asking for it. She doesn't want to do it. Why not?

Call C, Charlie calls back to say:

MS. CAPPLEMAN: This TV was probably about five. She's the original code talker. This TV -- and look what he says: They asked you for $5,000? He decodes it. He's not the one talking in code. He's decoding and saying what she's -- he's picking up what she's putting down.

There is no TV mentioned by the undercover operative that approached Donna Adelson on the street. A couple of big takeaways for you, please: Innocent people do not talk in code. Second big takeaway: TV is code for the murder throughout this case. You've got Charlie's joke. Wendi's chilling statement to Jeff Lacasse, the alibi of the TV, and now here we've got this TV again.

A TV, a TV that's the alibi for Wendi. It sat broken for over a month so that a repairman could come out to be her alibi on the morning of the murder, an appointment that her parents set up for her which was pointless because the TV was smashed and, of course, could not be repaired. Then she claims she had an 18-minute phone call with Charlie about the fact that a smashed TV can't be fixed before she got in her car and went to the crime scene, where she did not get out of her car or make any phone calls or make any inquiries about what was going on at the house where her kids lived.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Whereby, without knowing which ex-girlfriend, Charlie calls, not his most recent ex-girlfriend, not the one before that, he only calls one, Katherine Magbanua, because that's the only one he did a murder with, because he probably did have a general idea what his mother was talking about.

When Charlie brings up going to the police, his mother says: That's not a good idea. Why not?

Then instead of notifying the police, Charlie and the defendant leave the safety of her very secure building and meet at a marina just 300 yards from where she was approached by the undercover. They were observed speaking very intensely to each other in low tones.

After that meeting, Charlie goes to Dolce Vita. This is the restaurant where he meets up with Katherine Magbanua, and we are able to capture some of that conversation that was had there. In that recording, we hear Charlie make statements that are not only incriminating, but also are totally inconsistent with the defense that he would later offer at trial.

Pause on the wiretap here for a moment just to go to what his defense was and what we have learned about that defense. I told you earlier that he said that Magbanua, Garcia, and Rivera acted alone. They just came to Tallahassee and killed Dan Markel, you know, kind of in the hopes that they would get paid.

There were several pieces of evidence that Charlie had to explain, and he designed a defense that he thought would do that. First, he had to explain that he's got this close connection to -- between his girlfriend and the hit men. So the obvious defense there is, you know, she heard me griping about Markel and she thought she was doing me a favor, so she did it on her own.

well, the problem with that is normally you are not going to have your extortionist spend the night with you. You are not going to have the woman that has murdered your former brother-in-law spend the night with you. You are not going to inquire about her plans to go to the pool the next morning if she's, you know, just murdered your ex-brother-in-law.

So to explain these messages, he testified that he did not believe she was a part of it. She wasn't one of the extortionists. I was extorted by the killers. I had nothing to do with it. No one in my family had anything to do with it. But I thought that Magbanua was just a victim of the hit men, too. She was a go-between for them. She was protecting him from them.

All the money he and his mom were paying her, cash and checks, were going to the hit men, not for the benefit of Katherine Magbanua. Even the checks that were being deposited into her bank account, he said he believed she was taking out and giving the money to the killers. It was just funneling through her account so she could get insurance for her kids.

So Charlie testified that he had previously mentioned to Magbanua the million-dollar offer that his family was going to give Dan Markel. And from that, she deduced: Oh, he's got a bunch of money. So she ran her mouth to her associates. And her associates took it upon themselves somehow to figure out who Dan Markel is and where he was and kill him on their own.

Per Charlie, it was Katie alone that came to him on the night of the murder and demanded money on behalf of the hit men with the threat that if he didn't pay, they would kill him or other members of his family. Since he didn't have that much money, Magbanua then negotiated a layaway plan with the hit men for him to pay her monthly to go toward this amount of money that the hit men were demanding.

He agreed. He opened up his safe, not at gunpoint or anything, and gave her all the money that was in there. And because she needed to show proof of employment to get insurance, that's why that money was funneling through her account. It was all for the extortionists.

The problem for Charlie with that was that he had already agreed to put Magbanua on the payroll between the two trips. You see here in June, he hadn't done it yet, but he says: No problem. So he had already agreed to do it before she allegedly extorted him.

Even though he had signing authority, it's this defendant that wrote those 44 checks. So if he's being extorted, why doesn't he write the checks? It's this extortion theory that we are saying that the defendant adopted when she heard Charlie's testimony and texted everyone she knew that what he just said on the witness stand was the truth.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: There is a concept in the law known as adoptive admissions. That's when one party makes a statement and the statement is adopted as the truth by another person.

So when Charlie says in those first couple wire calls, if there's a threat, you go to the police, it's of interest that Donna doesn't say: what do you mean if there is a threat? we have been extorted for two years. There's been a threat for two years.

Charlie did tell his best friend Ryan Fitzpatrick about the bump. So what I want to highlight here is the difference between their conduct during this, like, alleged extortion that was going on for two years versus the way they act after the bump, which we know was a ruse, but was supposed to be, like, a blackmail effort.

So Charlie tells Ryan Fitzpatrick about the bump. He also tells him about the confrontation with Garcia and the roadway on July 1, 2014. But he never previously confided in Ryan Fitzpatrick about -- even though it's his best friend -- about being extorted for two years by this girlfriend of his or her associates. Ryan also noted a major change in Charlie's demeanor around the time of the bump. He was displaying a level of stress and anxiety that was not present before the bump, evidence that his story about being extorted the whole time is false.

June Umchinda noticed these changes in Charlie's behavior as well. But she also noted a major change in this defendant's demeanor after the bump. Although she didn't know about the bump, around this time, she observed the defendant to be a mess. She had a swollen face, was crying, and said she was on painkillers for stress.

On the balcony of the Icon, which I'm not sure this is the right balcony, but some high-rise, the defendant told June Umchinda she felt Danny was haunting her from the grave. why would she make that statement unless she felt guilty about having wronged Dan Markel?

So keeping that all in mind, let's see if the other evidence in the case makes sense with this Charlie version of events that this defendant has adopted. Starting with his statements to Katherine Magbanua at the Dolce Vita restaurant. Charlie says to Katherine Magbanua: If they had evidence, we'd have already gone to the airport. Even if they bug your phone, you are still not talking about any of this.

Like his mother, Charlie emphasizes that the coconspirators should not talk about what they know on the phone. The cops would only bug your phone to get information about the murder, right? I mean, why are we not talking on the phone if we had nothing to do with it? why are we not talking on the phone if we are being extorted and we're the victims here? why are we not reporting it to the police if we are being extorted and we're the victims here. If the cops are listening, we are not reporting it to the cops because we are afraid they will come kill us if we do that.

Talk about it on the phone. If they are listening, they will hear it, and they'll know you are being extorted. But they don't do that because it's bull.

Discussion about how he's going to start arming himself. So Charlie says at Dolce Vita: I'm going to start -- I don't remember his words exactly. But he's going to start carrying a gun and he's prepared to shoot. And goes through a scenario where, you know, he might have to kill somebody in his driveway and the cops will not ask any questions because he's a dentist.

If he's been an extortion victim for two years, why is he just now starting to carry a gun? And then he says: If somebody comes up to me asking for money in my house, he's going to shoot them. This is the same guy that's been, like, too paralyzed by fear over the last two years to report his victimization to the police or to anyone. This is a guy of considerable resources that could, I don't know, get some muscle or some help or some something; not just roll over and open a safe and give all his money to some girl that's not even armed.

This is a tough guy that would never tolerate somebody coming up to him at his house and asking for money. But he's talking to the woman who supposedly did that exact thing. Came into his house and asked him for money. He doesn't mention: well, I gave you the money, but I'm not giving this guy any money. You know, it's like they don't mention this extortion. So you see the problem.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: But this defendant doesn't see a problem. She says it's the truth. The truth is out, thank goodness. The truth is out after we remained silent for so long. The defense does not have to prove anything. But through cross-examination and the witnesses they called, they chose to kind of suggest, you know, maybe Charlie was involved, maybe wendi was involved, but there is no connection to our client.

But Charlie's story was that he and his mom were involved in the sense that they were extorted by Katherine Magbanua, so they knew who did the killing. They just didn't speak up because they were scared because they were being extorted.

Donna Adelson calls Charlie's story the truth when it suits her to support her son and proclaim his innocence during his trial, but now she kind of wants to distance herself from that because it's a ridiculous story. It's not the truth. The truth wasn't out. Don't let her distance herself. She adopted that statement as the truth. She's stuck with it.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you, Judge.

when the bump happens, you get to observe this defendant and her son in action, working the problem. Neither of them would ever just lay down and let themselves get victimized by anyone. The bump is an actual recorded example of how these two act when they are threatened by an extortionist; in this case, a blackmailer and it's the complete opposite of how they say they had been acting before on the previous extortion.

Several other things to note about this -- let's just compare, like, the two extortions, the prior one and the one with the bump. So when the bump happens, they resist, right? They don't open their safe. It was only $5,000 compared to thousands and thousands of dollars they have been paying, $5,000 they don't pay. They resist. They take action.

There are in-person meetings between Charlie Adelson and his mother, Charlie Adelson and Katherine Magbanua and eventually with dad, too, about the bump and what to do about it.

The defendant eventually downloads a recording app and records a call to the would-be blackmailer. She records this call, an action that wasn't taken in the two years that they were being extorted previously.

Charlie tells Ryan Fitzpatrick about the bump; although, he never mentioned being extorted over the previous two years to Ryan Fitzpatrick. They investigate the bump. This defendant questions every aspect of the undercover, his look, his words, his behavior. You know, it's done like that. It's not done like that. Charlie enlists Katherine Magbanua to find out who it is and to handle it, right?

Charlie says he's not going to take it lying down. He threatens Nazi shit if they mess with his family. Katie, I don't care what I spend, you'd better kill him because he's gonna be a big problem. If he can't do it, I'll have someone else do it.

Now these guys want an extra five grand, you're going to kill them when you've been paying, I don't know, a hundred-and-some-odd-thousand-dollars over the past two years? You weren't killing anybody then.

They don't pay the money. If Mrs. Adelson has been blindly writing these checks every two weeks for two years and her son has been paying additional monies each month on the layaway plan to the extortionist, and they have done nothing to investigate it, nothing to report it, nothing to stop it, but now they are going to launch a full-scale investigation over five thousand more dollars?

They don't call out Katherine Magbanua. According to Charlie and this defendant, they have been paying Magbanua now for two years, or at least funneling money through her.

And here Charlie is talking to the person that's been collecting that money over all those months, but at no point does he acknowledge in that Dolce Vita recording or even allude to this long history of payments he's been making to her, this long history of extortion that's been ongoing through her?

while they are still in the restaurant, Charlie gives Magbanua instructions: Say my friends have no idea what you are talking about and, frankly, I don't know what you are talking about. But the name sounds familiar of who is incarcerated. So I'm going to give you something as charity to help the less fortunate, but do not contact these people again or they are going to the police. The whole time you are talking just say, I don't know what's going on and only use the words help and charity. Charlie proceeds to give Magbanua a whole lecture on blackmail, which is pretty ironic in light of the fact that his defense is she was blackmailing me or extorting him.

And these are just a selection of the incriminating quotes from the Dolce Vita recording that you-all heard. After the meeting with Magbanua at Dolce Vita, Charlie calls the defendant in Call F and tells her he had coffee with a friend and gave her some good relationship advice. well, at this time Katherine Magbanua is living with Sigfredo Garcia. Relationship advice, this means he talked to Katie, and she's going to talk to Garcia, and they are going to handle it and deal with the problem. Donna seems to understand this from the use of the term relationship advice.

In Call G, she's less sure than Charlie that this is the police. That's his theory. She's worried it might not be accurate. She says she has a different theory. He assures her repeatedly it's being handled. There is nothing to worry about. Don't freak out.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Magbanua does not want to make that phone call, though, and neither does Garcia. And you hear him pretty emphatic on that wire, that he's not making that phone call. But everybody starts lying to each other about having called it because everybody wants to reassure the coconspirator up the chain that: It's all good. I'm handling it. This is not going to come back on us.

Charlie expresses concern that if they pay the money, they will create a monster that will demand more and more and more money. And the defendant replies to that exactly.

So these calls go up and down the train cars, back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, Donna to Charlie to Katie to Garcia and back over and over again.

In Call R, Charlie is telling Magbanua that he has a very nice gift for Garcia for Garcia's birthday. So we think about his defense, the defense that this guy is extorting him after he, on his own, killed the ex-brother-in-law, he's going to buy a birthday gift for the guy, the man that he knows killed Dan Markel? And Donna says this is the truth. The truth is out.

Once Charlie and the defendant finally decide for sure that the bump is an undercover as opposed to a real gang member, a bad guy, you have never seen two people so happy to be under investigation for first-degree murder in your whole entire life. They convince themselves that they are untouchable: Oh, it's just the FBI fishing. They don't have anything on us. If they had anything on us, we would already be at the airport. They are thrilled about it.

Even on a call that the defendant staged and recorded to the undercover, where she is proclaiming her innocence, it's pretty interesting the words that she chooses. For example, she says: I'm out of the loop. How odd is that statement? It implies she knows there is a loop, and she's not in it. The evidence has shown that the coconspirators in this case were all on a need-to-know basis for their own protection.

That's why Katherine Magbanua wasn't shown the murder instructions. That's why no Adelson had any contact with the hit men. And that's why the defendant didn't attend the murder meetings with Charlie Adelson and his mother. They were insulating each other.

She was out of the loop on the stuff that the undercover was talking about. You know, my brother in Broward, Luis Rivera, she didn't know anything about Luis Rivera. She was out of the loop on that.

But she was in the loop on Katherine Magbanua. She knew an ex-girlfriend met Katherine Magbanua. She knew that Katherine Magbanua needed to give relationship advice to deal with the problem with her baby daddy. She was in the loop on paying for this murder, and she was in the loop with Charlie to get a win for the Adelson family.

In May of 2016, after the bump, the defendant stops writing checks. Stops -- the bad guy comes up to you and wants more money, so what do you do? You stop writing the checks you have been writing for two years under some threat?

She's still not going to the police, but apparently she's -- apparently she's not scared anymore. She's going to stand up to him and stop writing the checks.

Okay. why? Isn't because she's gotten spooked because she's figured out this is law enforcement, and they are getting close.

In May and June of 2016, Garcia and Rivera are arrested. The news of this makes it all the way to Rob Adelson's operating room. when Rob next speaks to his mother, he says: Hey, they got the guys. They arrested the guy that shot Danny.

Getting no response, he brings up the matter again, like, did you hear they got the guys that killed Danny? And she responds: I've got to go, and she hangs up. That is the last time that Rob Adelson has talked to his mother, because he knew and she knew he knew.

A couple of other problems for the defense that I want to point out as far as this whole Charlie story goes. These are kind of mind benders, so bear with me. In 2016, after the arrest of Garcia and Rivera, but before the arrest of Magbanua, there is a text, indicating -- this is Charlie to Donna. Charlie says basically that his lawyer was meeting with Garcia's lawyer.

If Garcia acted alone and then extorted Charlie, why is Charlie's lawyer meeting with Garcia's lawyer? This is your extortionist. In fact, regardless of whatever the defense is, why are the two of them meeting, unless they have common interests?

MS. CAPPLEMAN: And while Charlie's lawyer is at this meeting, he runs into Magbanua. Magbanua hasn't been arrested yet. She's up there seeing Garcia's lawyer. well, why is she doing that?

According to Charlie's story, that this defendant adopted, Magbanua is not in on it. She's a victim, too, of Garcia, her baby daddy who is a bad dude.

why is she up at his lawyer's office? And when they learn that Magbanua is up there, Charlie says: Oh, my lawyer ran into Magbanua while he was up there. He said she was nice and pretty. And Donna says: Just like all your girlfriends. well, why isn't she saying: what do you mean? why is she up there? I thought she was a victim of Garcia, just like us.

So here is another text. This one is from August of "16. In this one, Charlie and the defendant are discussing a newspaper article in the 7a//ahassee Democrat, which talks about a drug dealer that the killers had contact with when they were here in Tallahassee from Miami. And somehow Charlie deduces this drug dealer is going to be the State's star witness. And they are basically spitballing alternative defenses. This is August of 2016. They have known supposedly who the killer was, the truth came out that the killer was Garcia and that they knew about it since the time of the killing. But here they are saying: Well, maybe a drug dealer killed Danny in a drug deal gone bad. This is because the extortion thing hadn't been invented yet. The extortion thing didn't get invented until right before Charlie's trial in 2023, when he's trying to think of what he was going to say from that witness stand to explain all the evidence against him.

Rivera gives a proffer. That's on September 30th of 2016. Magbanua gets arrested October 1, 2016. You would think that if Charlie's story was the truth, he would be sleeping well for the first time in a long time, knowing that these folks that were taking his money and taking his mother's checks were off the streets and behind bars.

But to the contrary, you've heard evidence that he started freaking out around that time and so did the defendant, right? His behavior became erratic. He became angry, paranoid, stressed. Per June, he gota second phone. He started sleeping with a bag of clothes by the bed. He started communicating with her via whatsApp.

In April of 2022, Charlie gets arrested. In that Dolce vita restaurant recording, he repeatedly refers to the bump as a blackmail attempt. He uses the word “blackmail” on the Dolce vita recording. But in trial, he switches that up to extortion, claiming that he and his mom had been extorted, extorted by the hit men. That was going on since 2014.

But, interestingly, on October 16th of 2023, so just seven days before Charlie's trial started, this defendant, Donna Adelson, Googled the difference between blackmail and extortion. And the difference is that blackmail is the threat to expose some dirt on somebody. I know something about you. And if you don't pay up, I'm going to expose the dirt.

whereas, extortion is the threat to harm somebody. You don't pay up, I'm going to harm you. Obviously, when they developed this defense in preparation for Charlie's trial, they realized the term "blackmail" was not a good word for them because it indicates they were somehow involved. Got to have some dirt. It needs to be extortion, threat of harm. we're totally innocent. They did this on their own. They came to us. They extorted us.

The defendant doubles down on this, so, yeah, she said the truth is out. The truth is out. what does that really mean? well, doubles down on it when she writes that script for the witness, Drina Bernhardt, who she solicited to come in here and purger herself to you-all. what does she write in the script? "Extort,” underlined. The script is Charlie's story. She's, again, adopting it by writing it out for her witness that she's trying to recruit to come in and deliver it to y'all, which, of course, backfires.

And according to the defense investigator who interviewed Byrd, her first story involved the word "extort." Pretty unusual. Regardless of what you think of Drina and Byrd, it's clear what the defendant was trying to do with them. I mean, when Drina Bernhardt had that script and it read exactly like Charlie's whole story, with the exception of the part where he told his mom, it was in the defendant's handwriting. That was very compelling evidence that this defendant was trying to buy herself some witnesses.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: I do want to talk about one more piece that has to be dealt with regarding this whole story of the extortion, and that's that wendi wasn't in on it. Okay. There is a text November ist of 2023, so this is after the truth comes out, this defendant texts wendi Adelson, her daughter, and acknowledges that wendi doesn't know anything about all this extortion stuff. And, like, sorry we had to keep it from you for so long kind of thing.

If Charlie's defense was the truth and Charlie and the defendant knew there was a threat to wendi and her kids from the people that killed Dan, it's a little shocking that they failed to mention it to her. Instead, they let her and the boys move to Miami where the bad guys were and, you know, walk up and down the street without any extra protection or even knowing that the killers knew who they were and had threatened their lives and lived there in Miami.

The defendant also acknowledges in this November 1st text, at the bottom there -- next one. Previous one maybe -- on that text, which is in evidence, it says, get the quote: You know I'm next. This is the defendant to wendi Adelson. You know I'm next, but that won't happen. I'll take care of that. An important insight into her state of mind when you are considering this evidence about her flight to Vietnam.

All right. 11/6/23, Charlie's jury is deliberating. The defendant gets angry about Wendi sending prayer hands -- I guess, you know, your brother is on trial for his life and you are sending prayer hands, an emoji. She says: Protected his sister for years. Protected her, protected her from what?

would he need to protect her from the knowledge that they were being extorted, or does it make more sense that the protection that's referred to is the murder and the fact that this defendant is a little angry that wendi doesn't seem to appreciate what she views as a huge sacrifice that her brother has made for her and her benefit. Wendi is not charged. This was all for her.

11/6/2023, Charlie is convicted. Nothing about the extortion defense adds up for Charlie, and it doesn't add up for Donna Adelson either. It's true that she did not pull the trigger. She's guilty of first-degree murder as a principal, which we talked about at jury selection, about how a party who assists in the murder can be charged and convicted the same as the person that pulled the trigger even if they are not physically present when the trigger is pulled, which is not disputed that she was not.

And you-all agreed to follow that law even if you ended up not liking it. I don't know if anyone admitted to not liking it. But you don't really know if you're going to like it or not until you have to make a decision. If you don't like it, you still must apply it. I know that I can trust you to do that.

we talked in jury selection about the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. And it's true that this is largely a circumstantial case. You might recall my powdered doughnuts example. Had direct evidence that it was the kid not covered in powdered doughnuts. But we agree that being covered in the powdered doughnuts was pretty good evidence that that's the child that ate the doughnuts. This case is not entirely circumstantial. I mean, she's covered in powdered doughnuts; don't get me wrong.

But there is direct evidence as well. And I want to go over those. To Rob, when told that he had already spoken to the police, she says: well, you don't know anything anyway. That's direct evidence. You can consider that as direct evidence. To Charlie, after being handed an article about Dan Markel's murder, it involves both of us. It involves the two of us.

No. 3, 44 checks to the killer, signed by Donna Adelson. Katherine Magbanua admits she was in a plot to kill Dan Markel. And she got 44 checks, and they were all signed by this woman.

Next, that license plate number. She had the car, make, model, and license plate in her 2014 planner. Her statements to Byrd. She admitted she did what she was accused of. The script written by this defendant in this defendant's handwriting for Drina Bernhardt to come in here and deliver to y'all about stuff that wasn't true.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: She also speaks in code. Innocent people do not speak in code, ladies and gentlemen. And consider the things she didn't do. She didn't want to talk on the phone. She didn't want to talk in the apartment. She did not want to send a picture of the bump flyer to Charlie. She didn't say the name of Dan Markel anywhere on that wire. She did not say his name -- Dan, Danny, Jibbers, that asshole, nothing. why not?

And she didn't go to the police. Nice, normal, Jewish grandmother approached on the street about a murder and an extortion attempt. She didn't go to the police. why not?

After Charlie is found guilty, the defendant sends this text to wendi Adelson: Your brother protected you for years. Now you are not guilty. Your lawyer took very good care of you. You can bury me in the dress that I brought for L.'s bar mitzvah. It does not sound at that moment as if she's totally committed to attending a bar mitzvah.

You heard that open line call where she's making plans to either flee or kill herself. She is distraught over the verdict. And she's distraught over the knowledge that she's next. The defense has tried to sell you that her emergency fast-track visa and one-way ticket to a non-extradition country was a vacation.

On November 7th of 2023, this defendant Googled a list of U.S. extradition treaties. She was looking for a non-extradition country, and she booked a ticket to one with a stop in another non-extradition country. She applies for a fast-track emergency visa for Vietnam. I want it the fastest I can get it. She indicates a 30-day visa is not sufficient. She requests for the longest visa, which is 90 days, which is past the bar mitzvah date.

She tries to get wendi to help with business assistance. And when wendi doesn't respond, she ends up asking her friend Annie Cunningham, who y'all met in court. She says: I can't say exactly why, but we need you guys to come here, both of you. wendi is not responding to us, and we have an issue that we cannot discuss over the phone.

why can't you discuss it over the phone? You are just going on vacation.

Annie responds basically: Just say the word.

when they leave for the airport, Harvey leaves this note dated 11/12/23 for wendi regarding what is needed to sell some property, a gun.

Donna makes notes in her planner to have wendi have the lawyer tell Charlie where they are on the lawyer's private line, so the call will not be recorded. why not? Y'all are going on vacation. You are coming back. You are not fleeing.

There's also a note in her planner to cancel disability insurance. That doesn't seem like something one does when they are going on vacation. There is a note: Tell wendi do October expenses, child support through mid November 2025, presumably for Charlie's son, planning to pay child support two years in advance. This is made in ‘23.

All right. November 13, 2023, the defendant is arrested, trying to board a one-way flight to a non-extradition country. I mean, y'all decide if it's a vacation.

This is a conspiracy. I mean, this took a lot of thought and effort. It's not a typical murder case. The defendant and her son set this up in a way that was designed to protect them. The main benefit of the structure of this conspiracy is that each party can insulate or distance themselves from each other.

The primary risk of a conspiracy is that you are doing it with other people, right? You can get caught. Somebody can squeal. Somebody could give you up. And that's why the conspiracy is not shaped like this. Rather, you know, they are not all huddled up together. They are going to be more like train cars. This is the way we see the communication flow throughout the course of the conspiracy.

The best way to insulate yourself from your coconspirators is to organize the conspiracy like a train car, with each car only communicating with the one in front and the one behind. That way if someone gets caught or cooperates with law enforcement, they won't have enough information on you to give you up. And it's also very important to position yourself within the conspiracy such that those that have the most information on you are those most loyal to you.

And that is exactly what Donna Adelson did. To be guilty of conspiracy, it's not necessary for the defendant to say any particular word or do any particular act.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: But in this case, she did do that. we have all those words and acts that we went over that directly tie her. They are direct evidence tying her to this conspiracy, plus all the powdered sugar dust.

Don't let the way she thought she was going to get away with this be the way she gets away with it. Render a verdict that does justice; find her guilty. Thank you.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Okay. It does not matter what Ms. Fulford thinks, if she's right, if she's wrong, if I'm right, if I'm wrong. what the lawyers say is not evidence. You have the evidence before you. They say it means one thing. I say it means something else. Only you guys decide, right?

I think "outside your house" means outside your house. But apparently "outside your house" means something else. I think a very contentious divorce means a very contentious divorce. They think it means an amicable divorce. You guys decide, right? Look at the evidence and you guys decide.

Is everything not what it seems and actually something else? You guys decide.

A TV repair appointment is not an alibi because she could have changed it to earlier, but she didn't change jt to earlier. That's where she was when he was getting killed. That's an alibi. This Tv, that's not code. That's a hint. A hint for what? It's code.

What does it involve? The two of us. Oh, well, that actually means it doesn't involve the two of us because we're being extorted. We were victims. It doesn't involve us. So what does it involve; the two of us actually means it does not involve the two of us. That's what we've heard.

A One-way non-extradition ticket to Vietnam, it's not fleeing. It's a setup. how did I set her up? I didn't make her do that. I didn't get her the fast-track visa. I didn't get her a one-way ticket. She did that. She made those choices.

wendi didn't bother to tell her mom she was ready to give up on the relocation. Yes, she did. Look in the emails. She was giving up and Donna wasn't having it. That's when she gets the totally unhinged email from her mother, suggesting: You are not going to give up. You want to move on with a sense of peace. Hell no. we are going to fight this guy. we are going to dress your kids up as Nazis. That's what happened when she suggests -- when Wendi suggested giving up, never, never, never give up, right?

This murder charge is not based on the fact that she said some bad words. I mean, I'd be facing murder just in this courtroom. Obviously, people, that is not what this case is about.

You've got to look at all the evidence. I mean, it is death by a thousand cuts. It is powdered sugar. You have got to look at the whole thing and make a decision.

And I'm sorry that there is not a smoking gun. But she was too smart for that. She thought about it. She planned it. She made sure we could never get her, right? She took precautions. But she did make mistakes. And that's what all those exhibits are. Mistakes.

My spin and the spin I'm putting on all the evidence, that's not -- it doesn't matter what my spin is. It's your spin. You look at the evidence. You decide. I tell you what I think it shows. They tell you what they think it shows.

And what do they think it shows? They don't have to prove anything. I have to prove the case. Yes. But what are they saying? wendi -- Charlie definitely. wendi maybe. Not Donna. But also not Charlie. wWe were getting extorted. Not Charlie.

I mean, you can't have it both ways, right? It's, like, hard to get your head around it. But we can't be getting extorted by the killers who killed Dan Markel on their own, and also Charlie is pretty guilty and wendi looks a little guilty, too. It's got to -- like, there is no lane that's been picked.

And they don't have to prove anything. But they are throwing all that out, right? And it's, like, you were getting extorted or Charlie and wendi did it behind your back and they don't tell mom what they're doing?

Can't charge Donna because Charlie already went down for this. No, that's not true. Everyone that's responsible for this murder should be held accountable for their role, not just Charlie, not just the two killers that came here and shot him. Everyone that played a part in it should be held accountable.

They said some things in their closing that doesn't comport with my recollection of the evidence. For example, Corbitt said that the defendant did not send the Evite. My recollection is the complete opposite. You guys took notes. You have remembrances. You guys rely on your own memory. TI don't want to go through every single thing, but there are a few of those.

The only complaint from a three- and four-year-old was: Grandma says you're stupid. Oh, that's dumb. well, now, I remember that the kid also said: Grandma hates you.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Rob has an ax to grind. Mary Hull said that the Adelson Institute was Charlie's until 2022. Not my recollection, but hopefully you remember that it changed hands in 2015.

No SunPass records. Do you need SunPass records to know that Donna Adelson was outside Charlie's house on the night of the murder?

we didn't know that. Katherine Magbanua told us when I got to Charlie's, he told me his parents had just come, right, and brought the money. But when we looked in the records, there is a text: Outside your house, corroborating what she said. That's important. She was outside his house.

Oh, well, she had the garage code. why didn't she go in? TI don't know if she went in. Maybe she did. She told him: I'm outside your house. He said: Ten mins. He's going to be there in ten minutes. Maybe she did go in. I don't know. But she was there. That I do know. And I don't know why she is denying that.

Grandma motion, we disagree with what the words say. I mean, I don't know what to tell you. TI say the words say: I don't want the kids around grandma because she's disparaging me. Somebody needs to be there to monitor. They say: No, that's not what it means. It means something else.

Charlie's extortion story, she wrote the checks because she had to to save her son's life. well, right, so if that's the case, we are picking lane two here, down below. And that's where all that evidence comes up about -- that pushes back on that, like, that couldn't happen. They are not going to be spitballing the drug dealer defense years after they have been extorted. Like, that didn't happen. That was a lie, right, that Charlie came up with in his testimony and that she then kind of got stuck with after saying all: The truth is, truth is out, truth is. Plus, she's got to come up with something for writing those checks. She paid for the murder.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: Thank you, Judge.

Sanford said he never made a mistake. Not my recollection. what's the pushback on extortion? Her behavior on the wire. She doesn't say: Oh, my gosh, it's happening again. She doesn't say anything about the prior extortion. If the prior extortion had occurred, she would immediately tell him: It's happening again or some reference to the fact that this is something that's been ongoing. She doesn't do that. Instead, she talks in code. It's a TV. What the heck? why are you talking in code?

Her Googling extortion versus blackmail seven days before Charlie's trial. That wouldn't happen if the extortion was real. She wasn't extorted. Charlie didn't tell her there was an extortion. She was paying for a murder. She knew it was going to be a murder. She's the one that wanted it done.

Her discussion of Charlie's lawyers meeting with Garcia's lawyers. What? If she was being extorted by Garcia and Charlie was being extorted and his life being threatened by Garcia, the lawyers aren't going to be meeting up. Look at those text messages.

She said: Bring cash. They say: Oh, that's not code. She said: Bring cash. She literally said bring cash for dinner on that call. It's not a hint. It'sa code word.

They say the bump failed. I say the bump succeeded. She said it involved the two of us. That was before we got made -- before that Matsuri operation, where they literally see the camera in the bag and know the camera is in the bag. Yeah, she called and put on a great show when she had called the undercover. But what does she say in the first call, the second call, and the third before we got made, before she knew it was law enforcement? She said: It involves the two of us. Both of us.

Okay. I want to hit one more thing. Don't call time on me. Two years after the murder, we've got two emails, 64T and 641. The defense told you in opening that this defendant cares about others more than she cares about herself. The problem is that she decides what other people need, what's necessary for other people, and their lives, and she is willing to justify whatever ends she thinks are needed, right? Any means to get to those ends are justified in her mind.

The problem is, she doesn't care about the collateral damage to get to her ends. Evidence has shown that this defendant I think did believe that Wendi and those boys were better off in South Florida. She thought that's what they needed. They would be better off with her. And she was angry that that couldn't happen.

Dan Markel is the thing standing in the way. what was the cost of that to not only Dan Markel, but to those little boys? Those little boys lost their father. Look what she says in 64T: The children are two and three. Children do not even have a memory of life before age five or six.

Look what she says in 64II, when wendi is concerned. This is two years after the murder. Her child is having trouble at school, crying because he misses his father. And this woman, this nice grandmother, innocent woman says, quote: I still do not believe that B. is sad about his father, quotations on the sad. 641II: I still do not believe that B. is sad about his father. I spent a minimum of 25 hours a week with him. And, oftentimes, more than that, including weekend times and sleepover days and have never experienced a time when he was sad. I think it's just another phase of the many, many phases that kids go through. The problem is they have a highly intelligent and sensitive mom.

She doesn't believe that this kid is sad because she can't take accountability for her own actions and the catastrophic consequences that this had on everyone's life and her family, not just her son, not just her daughter, not just Rob, not just Dan Markel, but those boys, who lost their father. It wasn't better for them to be in South Florida. It was better for them to have their father.

You must not base your verdict on the feelings of sympathy, prejudice, bias. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and the law. Yes, she's a grandmother. Most murderers don't look like that. But the evidence has revealed what she is.

Please don't let her appearance influence your verdict in any way.

It involves the two of us. What about the script? They didn't even talk about the script. She wrote a script for a witness that was perjured testimony about -- based on a lie, an extortion lie that's been proven in court to you to be false.

MS. CAPPLEMAN: This defendant tried to erase Dan Markel, thinking there would be no harm to those little boys. They don't have a memory of their father. They feel the absence of their father. This defendant decided they didn't need their Dad. She doesn't get to decide that. She wanted it done. She brought the money. She stroked the checks. She didn't have to do that. Charlie was a signator -- had signing power on that account. He could have written the checks. She wrote the checks. why? Because she was neck-deep in this thing.

She wrote the checks. She said it involved the two of us. She wrote that script.

May you have the strength and the common sense to see this evidence for what it is. It's only one thing. There is only one truth. It can't all be right. It's only one truth. Render a verdict that does justice. Find her guilty. Thank you.