October 30, 2023 • 10 mins
Karen Cyphers, reporter for Florida Politics and friend of the Markel family, joined us to discuss the opening day of the trial of Charlie Adleson who is accused of being part of a murder-for-hire of his former brother-in-law,FSU Law Professor Dan Markel.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Thirty five minutes past the hour ofthe Morning Show with Preston Scott has promised
we will devote time daily until weget a verdict to the trial of Charlie
Aedelson. The first day of thetrial took place yesterday, and joining us
on the program is Karen Ciphers.She is covering the trial for Florida Politics.
(00:29):
Is also a friend of the Markelfamily and has been a guest on
this program. Karen, good morning, How are you? Good morning,
Preston, Thanks so much for havingme back my pleasure. What surprises took
place yesterday? Were there any whoI think that I would say? I
actually had to go back and relisten to the defense opening. It was
(00:50):
probably the most confusing new theory thatwe've heard yet. As anyone who's been
watching this trial knows, there's beenone very consistent state theory of this case
from since twenty sixteen, at leastas far as we've heard, which is
that members of the Adelson family hiredthree people to carry out the execution.
(01:11):
We are now going on the fourthor fifth different defense theory that we've heard
from the various defense teams that havecome up here to try their cases.
What did we hear yesterday that wasnew? Well, I mean, we're
going to say it's new. It'snot true, but it is new.
So the defense is claiming that nomember of the Adelson family hired anybody to
(01:37):
kill Dan Martel. The defense nowwas claiming that Charlie's then girlfriend overheard him
complain about his sister's litigious divorce.She knew he had a lot of money
and got a plan in her head. She somehow masterminded a plan, looped
in her sometimes husband, sometimes thefather of her children to carry out the
(02:05):
act and then extort the family foryears. They claim that the shooter was
motivated to do this because he lovedKatie so much and this was a way
in his mind to get Charlie outof the picture. There's just a lot
of elements. I'm sorry if itsounds confusing, but that's literally what it
is. It is a confusing narrative. And of course, at no point,
(02:30):
big hole in the narrative, didthe Aedelson family do what anyone would
do if they were being wrongly extorted, and that is go to the police.
Correct. In fact, I'm assumingjurors might hear prior jurors have heard
wiretaps in which Charlie says to Katieand says to his mother, well,
if you're being threatened, you goto the police. Very clearly, if
(02:50):
you're being threatened, you go tothe police. Now, this would be
approximately two years after the alleged firstextortion began of him in a family where
he claims that Katie disclosed to himwhat happened and said that if they didn't
get paid within forty eight hours,a member of his family would be next.
So that's clearly a threat. Heclearly did not go to the police,
(03:15):
nor did he go to the policeafter the three alleged bad guys were
put behind bars. For those ofyou just tuning in, Karen Ciphers is
covering the murder trial of Charlie Adelsonfor Florida Politics. Is a friend of
the Markel family and the three convictionsso far, two convictions and a plea
deal. Luis Rivera pled and turnedinto a state's witness in the trial of
(03:38):
Sigfredo Garcia, who is the triggerman that was convicted of murdering Dan Markel,
and there's very little doubt about that. Katie mcbanuwa is the person that
is alleged to be kind of thego between between the family, beginning with
Charlie Aedelson and the two men whocarried out the crime. Wendy Adelson appeared
(04:00):
on the witness stand. Were yousurprised she was called so quickly? I
suppose, as though you know herpart of the story is really setting the
stage for the motive. So Isuppose not. And certainly her testimony did
give clues as to why her familywould want Dan Martel eliminated. It was
(04:23):
interesting to me. Wendy had greatrecall of conversations which support Charlie the family,
dynamic, little meetings, little parties. But boy, she had trouble
recalling much of anything else. That'scorrect. I mean, her recall is
spotty. It varies between different testimonies. We don't know what she would have
(04:46):
said or not said during a defensedeposition many years ago, because she chose
to invoke her at amendment right aboutthree hundred times. So it's hard to
really piece together a consistent thread.There. Get it off your mind,
get it off your chest. Youhave a story you want to share,
write him at Preston at iHeartRadio dotcom. Welcome to the Morning Show with
(05:06):
Preston Scott forty one minutes after thehour, Karen Cipher's with us talking about
the trial of Charlie Aedelson. Dayone. Help me understand is you know,
Wendy is testifying as a witness forthe prosecution, but yet seemed advisarial
(05:28):
the defense, as opposed to atypical cross examination of a prosecution witness,
seemed to be there to rehabilitate her. Is that your read? Yeah,
it would actually seem so far thedefense has been more defending of Wendy than
of Charlie, is what it soundedlike to me to this point. To
clarify, you know, Wendy isthere as a state witness. She's also
(05:49):
been named as an unindicted co conspiratorby the state, so her testimony here
confers some limited immunity for anything truthfulthat she says on this Fann. But
yeah, that is an interesting dynamicfor sure. Yeah. I wanted to
get to that for a second becauseone of the things she seemed to be
(06:09):
trapped in, well, I'll bei direct and say she seemed to be
trapped in a lie. There wasa motion out there to keep her mom,
Donna Adelson, from having basically visitationrights with the children without supervision.
That motion was pending when Dan Markelwas murdered. Wendy said that her mom
(06:32):
had no idea about the motion,but Georgia Kappelman promptly showed that not only
did Donna get an email with themotion, but that that motion was emailed
by Wendy to twelve people in total. That seemed to be pretty damning to
Wendy. Sure, I mean,she claimed she claimed to not have discussed
that particular emotion with her mother.The fact that it related to her mother
(06:55):
and she wouldn't have discussed it withher is unbelievable to begin with. You
know, I can't I can't gottenthem explain the importance in our final minutes
here because it's chilling to me.Charlie Adelson joked with Wendy that it would
be cheaper to buy her a newtelevision than to hire a hitman to kill
(07:19):
Dan Markel. It allegedly was ajoke, But this idea of a TV
and a TV repairman being code forthe fact that a murder was coming is
a theme that we heard yesterday.Explain to our listeners what that's about.
Well, so, when Wendy andDan divorce. The storyline goes that her
(07:41):
brother, Charlie, said that itwas cheaper to buy her a television as
a divorce president than to hire ahitman to kill her ex. You know,
after the murder actually happened, welearned that Wendy's alibi for that morning
was a TV repairman at her home, repairing the very televis vision that her
brother had purchased for her. Eventhere there's some confusion. The repairman said
(08:05):
that it wasn't repairable, and thenshe claims to have an eighteen minute conversation
with Charlie after that, debating whetherto repair it or replace it. And
then later when Donna gets bumped bythe undercover FBI agent, she calls Charlie
immediately and says to him, Iwas approached and basically I'm being blackmailed and
this TV will be about five,meaning about five thousand dollars. Interesting was
(08:31):
part of the testimony yesterday that Donnasaid that she reached out to Wendy and
told her that the TV repairman wascoming tomorrow, and that happened to be
the date that Dan was murdered.It's unclear. It sounds like perhaps she
sent Wendy message saying what the windowwas for when the TV repairman would be
(08:52):
there, which was basically the entiremorning of the morning that he would be
murdered. So that's certainly raises eyebrowsconsidering the number of other times that this
TV word was coming up in conversationbetween family members. Well, and the
question was why would Donna Adelson haveanything to say about a repair of her
daughter's TV in Tallahassee right right?And if that's the level of closeness that
(09:20):
they have, can one believe thatWendy would not have shared with her mother
emotion which would have restricted access tothe kids, which, by the way,
hearing Wendy say yesterday that her parentshave always had unfettered access to her
children, and yet the Marquelle parentshave been kept at such a distance that
is just heartbreaking. All Right,we're going to keep following what's happening.
(09:41):
And thanks so much for the time, Karen, thank you so much pressing,
and that's Karen Cipher's with us.I strongly recommend you keep an eye
on this thing because this is aboutreal justice. The low hanging fruit was
Sigfred gar Garcia, Luis Rivera andKatie Makebanawa again. Katie's going to come
(10:07):
to the witness stand. I don'tknow if it's today or next week.
My guess is she's going to testifyas to what was said in a recording
that the judge said could be playedbut no transcript could be provided. I
think she's to tell what was saidand make it very clear to the jurors.
We'll see more to come on TheMorning Show with Preston Scott
Thirty five minutes past the hour ofthe Morning Show with Preston Scott has promised
we will devote time daily until weget a verdict to the trial of Charlie
Aedelson. The first day of thetrial took place yesterday, and joining us
on the program is Karen Ciphers.She is covering the trial for Florida Politics.
(00:29):
Is also a friend of the Markelfamily and has been a guest on
this program. Karen, good morning, How are you? Good morning,
Preston, Thanks so much for havingme back my pleasure. What surprises took
place yesterday? Were there any whoI think that I would say? I
actually had to go back and relisten to the defense opening. It was
(00:50):
probably the most confusing new theory thatwe've heard yet. As anyone who's been
watching this trial knows, there's beenone very consistent state theory of this case
from since twenty sixteen, at leastas far as we've heard, which is
that members of the Adelson family hiredthree people to carry out the execution.
(01:11):
We are now going on the fourthor fifth different defense theory that we've heard
from the various defense teams that havecome up here to try their cases.
What did we hear yesterday that wasnew? Well, I mean, we're
going to say it's new. It'snot true, but it is new.
So the defense is claiming that nomember of the Adelson family hired anybody to
(01:37):
kill Dan Martel. The defense nowwas claiming that Charlie's then girlfriend overheard him
complain about his sister's litigious divorce.She knew he had a lot of money
and got a plan in her head. She somehow masterminded a plan, looped
in her sometimes husband, sometimes thefather of her children to carry out the
(02:05):
act and then extort the family foryears. They claim that the shooter was
motivated to do this because he lovedKatie so much and this was a way
in his mind to get Charlie outof the picture. There's just a lot
of elements. I'm sorry if itsounds confusing, but that's literally what it
is. It is a confusing narrative. And of course, at no point,
(02:30):
big hole in the narrative, didthe Aedelson family do what anyone would
do if they were being wrongly extorted, and that is go to the police.
Correct. In fact, I'm assumingjurors might hear prior jurors have heard
wiretaps in which Charlie says to Katieand says to his mother, well,
if you're being threatened, you goto the police. Very clearly, if
(02:50):
you're being threatened, you go tothe police. Now, this would be
approximately two years after the alleged firstextortion began of him in a family where
he claims that Katie disclosed to himwhat happened and said that if they didn't
get paid within forty eight hours,a member of his family would be next.
So that's clearly a threat. Heclearly did not go to the police,
(03:15):
nor did he go to the policeafter the three alleged bad guys were
put behind bars. For those ofyou just tuning in, Karen Ciphers is
covering the murder trial of Charlie Adelsonfor Florida Politics. Is a friend of
the Markel family and the three convictionsso far, two convictions and a plea
deal. Luis Rivera pled and turnedinto a state's witness in the trial of
(03:38):
Sigfredo Garcia, who is the triggerman that was convicted of murdering Dan Markel,
and there's very little doubt about that. Katie mcbanuwa is the person that
is alleged to be kind of thego between between the family, beginning with
Charlie Aedelson and the two men whocarried out the crime. Wendy Adelson appeared
(04:00):
on the witness stand. Were yousurprised she was called so quickly? I
suppose, as though you know herpart of the story is really setting the
stage for the motive. So Isuppose not. And certainly her testimony did
give clues as to why her familywould want Dan Martel eliminated. It was
(04:23):
interesting to me. Wendy had greatrecall of conversations which support Charlie the family,
dynamic, little meetings, little parties. But boy, she had trouble
recalling much of anything else. That'scorrect. I mean, her recall is
spotty. It varies between different testimonies. We don't know what she would have
(04:46):
said or not said during a defensedeposition many years ago, because she chose
to invoke her at amendment right aboutthree hundred times. So it's hard to
really piece together a consistent thread.There. Get it off your mind,
get it off your chest. Youhave a story you want to share,
write him at Preston at iHeartRadio dotcom. Welcome to the Morning Show with
(05:06):
Preston Scott forty one minutes after thehour, Karen Cipher's with us talking about
the trial of Charlie Aedelson. Dayone. Help me understand is you know,
Wendy is testifying as a witness forthe prosecution, but yet seemed advisarial
(05:28):
the defense, as opposed to atypical cross examination of a prosecution witness,
seemed to be there to rehabilitate her. Is that your read? Yeah,
it would actually seem so far thedefense has been more defending of Wendy than
of Charlie, is what it soundedlike to me to this point. To
clarify, you know, Wendy isthere as a state witness. She's also
(05:49):
been named as an unindicted co conspiratorby the state, so her testimony here
confers some limited immunity for anything truthfulthat she says on this Fann. But
yeah, that is an interesting dynamicfor sure. Yeah. I wanted to
get to that for a second becauseone of the things she seemed to be
(06:09):
trapped in, well, I'll bei direct and say she seemed to be
trapped in a lie. There wasa motion out there to keep her mom,
Donna Adelson, from having basically visitationrights with the children without supervision.
That motion was pending when Dan Markelwas murdered. Wendy said that her mom
(06:32):
had no idea about the motion,but Georgia Kappelman promptly showed that not only
did Donna get an email with themotion, but that that motion was emailed
by Wendy to twelve people in total. That seemed to be pretty damning to
Wendy. Sure, I mean,she claimed she claimed to not have discussed
that particular emotion with her mother.The fact that it related to her mother
(06:55):
and she wouldn't have discussed it withher is unbelievable to begin with. You
know, I can't I can't gottenthem explain the importance in our final minutes
here because it's chilling to me.Charlie Adelson joked with Wendy that it would
be cheaper to buy her a newtelevision than to hire a hitman to kill
(07:19):
Dan Markel. It allegedly was ajoke, But this idea of a TV
and a TV repairman being code forthe fact that a murder was coming is
a theme that we heard yesterday.Explain to our listeners what that's about.
Well, so, when Wendy andDan divorce. The storyline goes that her
(07:41):
brother, Charlie, said that itwas cheaper to buy her a television as
a divorce president than to hire ahitman to kill her ex. You know,
after the murder actually happened, welearned that Wendy's alibi for that morning
was a TV repairman at her home, repairing the very televis vision that her
brother had purchased for her. Eventhere there's some confusion. The repairman said
(08:05):
that it wasn't repairable, and thenshe claims to have an eighteen minute conversation
with Charlie after that, debating whetherto repair it or replace it. And
then later when Donna gets bumped bythe undercover FBI agent, she calls Charlie
immediately and says to him, Iwas approached and basically I'm being blackmailed and
this TV will be about five,meaning about five thousand dollars. Interesting was
(08:31):
part of the testimony yesterday that Donnasaid that she reached out to Wendy and
told her that the TV repairman wascoming tomorrow, and that happened to be
the date that Dan was murdered.It's unclear. It sounds like perhaps she
sent Wendy message saying what the windowwas for when the TV repairman would be
(08:52):
there, which was basically the entiremorning of the morning that he would be
murdered. So that's certainly raises eyebrowsconsidering the number of other times that this
TV word was coming up in conversationbetween family members. Well, and the
question was why would Donna Adelson haveanything to say about a repair of her
daughter's TV in Tallahassee right right?And if that's the level of closeness that
(09:20):
they have, can one believe thatWendy would not have shared with her mother
emotion which would have restricted access tothe kids, which, by the way,
hearing Wendy say yesterday that her parentshave always had unfettered access to her
children, and yet the Marquelle parentshave been kept at such a distance that
is just heartbreaking. All Right,we're going to keep following what's happening.
(09:41):
And thanks so much for the time, Karen, thank you so much pressing,
and that's Karen Cipher's with us.I strongly recommend you keep an eye
on this thing because this is aboutreal justice. The low hanging fruit was
Sigfred gar Garcia, Luis Rivera andKatie Makebanawa again. Katie's going to come
(10:07):
to the witness stand. I don'tknow if it's today or next week.
My guess is she's going to testifyas to what was said in a recording
that the judge said could be playedbut no transcript could be provided. I
think she's to tell what was saidand make it very clear to the jurors.
We'll see more to come on TheMorning Show with Preston Scott
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.