Donna Adelson: New Filing! New Snitch!

A new filing has dropped from Donna Adelson’s defense team. In this new filing, we learn of a new jailhouse snitch who has talked to law enforcement in April of 2025. Donna Adelson’s defense team deposed this new snitch [Patricia Byrd] on July 17, 2025. Donna Adelson’s defense aims to keep out most of this inmate’s testimony save for her remarks about Katherine Magbanua. In addition, this new Motion in Limine aims to throw out both Byrd’s testimony and the testimony of jailhouse snitch Drina Bernhardt. Let’s talk about it!

Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by becoming a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereport
Throw a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglass
Support Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass
Become a channnel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/join

Thank you Patrons!
Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Debra Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yeah, yeah, I don't want to give it to you.
Why I have.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Why would have said of your favorites unders, I have.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
To go win, I have to go. I have to help.
We also know I have to say, please.

Speaker 4 (00:33):
Go to Grady take your back.

Speaker 5 (00:36):
Yeah, you need that way out, Okay say years old.

Speaker 3 (00:41):
You can't.

Speaker 6 (00:42):
I can't, can I can't. I'll don't.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
Seems kind to help him get It's terrible.

Speaker 6 (00:57):
Something we do.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
Please do you have anything?

Speaker 6 (01:08):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:09):
No, you yeah, take it off.

Speaker 7 (01:31):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.

Speaker 6 (01:33):
Glass True Crime Report, putting the true back in true
crime from New York City.

Speaker 5 (01:45):
ROBERTA.

Speaker 6 (01:45):
Glass is now on the record. Ohkay, how is everybody? Hello? Daz, Hello,

(02:19):
Colleen Hello, Dean Walker, Hello, Murna, Hello walk Away, Renee Hello,
hello hello, how is everybody? Donna Aedelson new filing from

(02:39):
the defense That's what I'm going to talk about today.
And they identify a new switch and I always put
this on the thumbnail, but I did it. I'm not
talking about Drina Bernhardt. I'm not talking about this woman.

(02:59):
There's another woman identified in Donna's defense filing, Patricia Bird.
So I believe this is she. I may be wrong,
there may be another Patricia Bird in LeAnn County, and

(03:20):
I may have it wrong, so I can only go
on what I found out just doing a little bit
of research. But they talk about two snitches giving information
to the state. They talk about police officers, and I

(03:43):
assume that's going back to the Florida the DA's office
in Tallahassee State's Attorney's Office is what they call it there,
and they don't want any of They don't want Drina
Bernhardt to testify, and they don't want Patricia Bird to testify.

(04:10):
And we're gonna go through that filing right now, and
a lot of it is redacted. So I assume that
this is the information. Some of this information I can
only assume. I may be wrong, Okay, that some of

(04:31):
this information has to do with what was reported by
Court TV a couple months back that they were tapping
Harvey Adelson's phone, maybe due to these snitches give me
information that she was looking to pay off somehow elicit

(04:56):
favorable testimony. But in that they were particularly so Harvey
would have been the way to pay those people. But
in that they were also saying that Donna Adelson was
intending to harm Okay, I think meaning I took that

(05:18):
to mean fatally harm, because I don't know what good
it means if you're going to blind someone or cut
off a finger or a leg or whatever. One of
those people was her son, Robert Adelson, the other person
was Katie mcbaniwa, and the last person was Drina Bernhardt,

(05:39):
the snitch's mother. You would have known something about these payments.
So they're saying that the state looked into these allegations,
which are all redacted, and they found no evidence of it.
Didn't mean it didn't happen. They just found no evidence
of it by taping Harvey phone. But Daurna Burnhardt and

(06:04):
Patricia Bird are both listed in the state's filing of witnesses.
So what does that mean? Hard to know? I mean
they're leaving a lot of cliffhangers for Donna's trial. So

(06:26):
what we will know we may have to wait till
August past the nineteenth and nineteenth is when just we
start in with finding a jury for Donna. But let
us get into it, well, not the right thing. Let's

(06:48):
share this instead. So here it is the defendant motion
in lemony. So that means, like emotion, you want something
thrown out as someone either it's testimony or some piece
of evidence thrown out. So Donna Aedelson, they say, by

(07:12):
and through her undersigned counsel, and pursue to section nine
to zero four h three and ninety four oh four
Florida Statutes request that this honorable cord exclude and or
limit introduction of evidence from the new investigation in support

(07:36):
thereof states to follow Missus Adelson. I love that they
refer to as Missus Adelson, and I think we're going
to see a lot of that in trial because they
have to play up that this is a married grandmother.
She's seventy five. I mean, come on, married grandmother on

(07:57):
trial for murder. Miss Suzetelsen has been indicted in this
case with one count of first degree murder, one count
of conspiracacy to commit first degree murder, and one count
of solicitation of first degree murder. On April seventh, twenty

(08:18):
twenty five, the state disclosed the existence of a new
investigation that began after a jailhouse informant contacted the state
in December twenty twenty four. The first informants information led
to a second informant. Okay, so for those in the back,

(08:41):
the first informants information led to a second informant. Although
both informants made statements which were consistent on a limited basis,
the vast majority of the first and woman's claims were

(09:01):
either established to be false or could not be corroborated. Okay.
So they're saying, they're full out. I don't know how
you establish something to be false what you asked Donna
where they couldn't find any evidence of it, I don't
know or could not be corroborated. By this motion, Missus

(09:26):
Adelson moves to exclude evidence from the new investigation during
her interviews, and it's all blanked out or otherwise should
be inadmissible, okay, So that should be something we don't
know about, should be an admissible that's been redacted from
the public. Alternatively, should the court find any of the

(09:49):
allegations to be admissible under nine four oh Missus Adelson
requests the court limit admission of evidence to that which
satisfied the balancing tests required by section nine oh four
ninety four oh three Florida Statutes. So they're saying, even

(10:11):
if you did find evidence, we want to throw it
out anyway, even if you do admit it. So Miss
Bernhardt was interviewed on December twentieth, twenty twenty four, January thirteenth,
twenty twenty five, January twenty ninth, twenty twenty five, and

(10:37):
February eleventh, twenty twenty five, for example, all redacted the
transcripts of our interviews. Here's a footnote of her interviews
with be identified by date, page, line, and in the

(10:58):
following format. Okay, the new investigation failed to produce any
evidence to corroborate these claims. The new investigation failed to
uncover any evidence to corroborate this claim. All redacted. The
new investigation failed to undercover any evidence to corroborate this claim.

(11:19):
So this is kind of bad news for us If
this is true. This means we won't hear about Donna's
hit list a trial if it's true. But then what
are they testifying to. It may be just that she
was trying to buy favorable testimony somehow, and when I
say bye, I could mean barter in the ways that

(11:43):
she could be offering commissary something that Harvey could handle.
Donna may have gotten wind of this before had the
new investigation failed to undercover any evidence to cooperate this claim.
So all this retacted stuff and it's the same sentence
underneath it. On April second, twenty twenty five, this is

(12:09):
when Patricia Bird comes in was interviewed by law enforcement.
During this interview, Bird made numerous claims about Missus Adelson,
the undersigned, so meeting her lawyers then deposed Patricia Bird
on July seventeenth. So this is a good time to

(12:29):
look into who Patricia Bird is as far as the
information that the Leon County Sheriff's Office has on her.
So she is in for praying on minors, let's put

(12:53):
it that way, and she was convicted of that. She went.
She was also transferred to Wakulla, it looks like in
April twenty twenty four, but before that she was also
in looks like Leon County. She's also been convicted or

(13:18):
accused or convicted of human trafficking or commercial trafficking, harassing
telephone calls. She's like a frequent flyer at Leon County.
That's what I'm saying here. Contempt of court. So it
looked like she's she is on a predators list, you know,

(13:45):
the famous predators list, or and due to this, she
was having activity with a sixteen or seventeen year old
she was convicted of. This is just what Leon County
records say, battery touch and then domestic battery.

Speaker 8 (14:08):
She was.

Speaker 6 (14:10):
Convicted or charged of in two thousand and three, two
thousand and five, it was battery touch or strike. So
that'll give you a little of Patricia Bird's background. But
going backwards to this, she was interviewed by law enforcement

(14:33):
on April second, twenty twenty five. During this interview, Bird
made numerous claims about Donna Missus Adelson. This cracks me up.
The undersign disposed. So she's Patricia Bird, not miss Bird,
not missus Bird, but Donna Aedelson is Missus Adelson and

(14:56):
all these defense violence. Okay, here we go. The new
and best litigation failed to undercover any evidence to cooperate
this claim. All blacked out or redacted. Bird confirmed, telling
the investigator. Strangely, what's not blacked out is stuff about
Katie mcbanawa confirmed, telling the investigator mcbanawa was arrogant and manipulative.

(15:23):
So this is their fighting fire with fire. What leaked
out about Robert Aedelson's deposition was that he said that
his mother is like the number number, like the most
self interested person. My word's not his, but she looks
after number one. If anyone's going to look after number one,

(15:45):
it's my mother, Donna Aedelson. So this is Robert Edelson,
Donna Aedelson's oldest son, who removed himself from the family
after Dan Markell's murder when he figured out that he
was very interested in finding out who murdered Dan Markel.
No one else in the family, meaning Wendy Aedelson, Donna Aedelson,

(16:09):
Charlie Aedelson, Harvey Aedelson were interested. The whole kaboodle of
them were not interested in Dan's murder at all. And
he found this very strange, and he concluded that they
were involved, and so Harvey Edelson and Wendy Edelson, Charlie
Edelson's brother and Charlie Edelson's father and Wendy Edelson's father

(16:33):
and Dona Aedelson's husband. Harvey Edelson is an unindicted co
conspirator in this case. DIDDO is Wendy Aedelson. So Charlie
Aedelson's been convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder
and now Donna's face facing a trial for these charges,

(16:57):
but Harvey and Wendy have yet to be arrested and indicted.
For these crimes, but they have been named unindicted co
conspirators in court filings by the state. Bird confirmed telling
the investigators Magbanawah was arrogant, So that's very much like

(17:21):
saying and manipulative, very much like saying what Robert Adolson,
the oldest son who's an iroinosen throat doctor in upstate
New York, said about his mother, that she looks after
number one, that she's not easily fooled. So they're fighting
fire with fire here saying, well, it's really make Banawa
who's arrogant and manipulative, and that she got special benefits

(17:48):
for the from the guards, probably because she was in
jail a long time during two trials and then back
again for Charlie Aedelson's trial. She also said mcbanawa told
the whole pot her boyfriend paid for her boob job. However,
the original investigation failed to prove any evidence to coborate

(18:10):
coroborate that, but suggested mcbanawa paid for the boob job,
at least in part from the money she received on
July eighteenth, twenty and fourteen. So they really they're saying
if that pretty much contradicts each each other. Either she

(18:32):
paid for some of it with Charlie Aedelson and Donnie
Aedelson's blood money. I mean that's our blood money, or
she or she paid for it entirely herself when she
didn't brag about so, and then significantly and then that's redacted.

(18:59):
So a lot of acted material. So this will tell
you why they want this. They don't even want the
public to know about it in filings whatever they're going
to say, and so it goes on about the law

(19:20):
surrounding evidence, and then it goes so they say that
so when such irrelevant evidence is admitted, it's presumed harmful
error because of the danger that a jury will take

(19:40):
the bad character. So they're saying that this is just
bad character, not consciousness of guilt like paying off, trying
to pay off for trying to pay people for favorable testimony.
Evidence is not admissible as consciousness of guilt se where
I think it comes in. It's absolutely and I'm curious

(20:03):
to see what the state's answer to this is, and
I assume it will be just as redacted for this discussion.
There are two separate issues to analyze. Additionally, the undersigned
acknowledge thus, even if bernhardt claims are truthful, that she
was trying to listen favorable testimony absent evidence based on

(20:24):
this discussion are inadmissible. This brings us to the second issue.
The underside concedes that generally speaking, such evidence as admissible. However,
the evidence must be truthful and it's propriate a value
not substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice, so meaning
it's it has more value as evidence than it is prejudicial,

(20:51):
meaning it'll prejudice the jury against the defendant. Confusion of
issues are misleading the jury. It is they undersigned. The
position that the claims made by Bernhardt and Bird are false, Well,
of course they do, because they're defense At journeys, it
is axiomatic that no party is permitted to present false

(21:13):
and perjured evidence. Aside from innocent details. There is no
evidence that corroborates their substantial claims. Well, their testimony is evidence.
And let me say that to jailhouse nitches. They don't

(21:33):
have the best character, right, They're already in jail for
doing horrible things or illegal things, so kind of I
think the state is taking that risk if they present
it and it does show consciousness of guilt. I think
if you're looking for people to make evidence for you,

(21:57):
to lie for you. You're looking to pay them off. I
think it does show consciousness of guilt. Anyway, it goes
on and on for quite some time. The vast majority
of the claims do not survive. It's all these legal arguments.
A ninety four three analysis. The remainder of Bird's testimony

(22:19):
is likely admissible. Okay, so they admit that some of
it is admissible. The same is not true concerning the
varied claims made by Bernhardt during her multiple interviews with
law enforcement. So they want to use her er what
she has to say about Katie mcbanoa, but not about

(22:41):
what she has to say about Donna. She's totally truthful
when it comes to Katie mcmanoa, but she can't be
trusted when it comes to Donna. If she is located
for trial, this is interesting. They might have some trouble
finding Darina Burnhart. Remember that Durina Bernhardt was found was

(23:03):
missing years ago, that the police put out a missing
endangered person claim on her. Let me show you back
when she looked much different woman last seen Friday in
area at tap day. I know you guys had no Ada, Brown,
says nay Is that how pre announce it mean Nay.

(23:28):
The Tallahassee Police Department is seeking information about the location
of Drina Bernard, a thirty eight year old. This was
in twenty eighteen, in July, So she made you know,
we may not hear from Drina bart because we may
not be able to locate her. She was last seen

(23:51):
wearing white tshirt, white pants, and no shoes. She's about
five feet tall. The Tallahassee Police Apartment expresses concern for
her welfare. But that will again show you a little
bit of Oh, Donna's defense is going to be very

(24:14):
much like Charlie Adelson's defense two point zero in that
they plan to say that Katie is like a mastermind
and manipulative. Remember that Donna Adelson was looking to preserve
the testimony of her own jailhouse nitches, Cassidy Conroy and
Britney Purcell, who were going to testify for her. According

(24:39):
to Donna, that Katie mcbanaa made claims that she set
up the Adolson family doesn't even make sense, But okay,
so expect Katie mcbanoa to have a really strong cross
examination from Jackie Fulford, who, by the way, runs In addition,

(25:04):
to being a defense lawyer. She runs a funeral home.
And Josh Zelman she's a disgrace judge. She was thrown
off the bench Jackie Fulford. Go back to my episode
about Donna's lawyer, secrets of Donna Ageles's defense lawyer Jackie

(25:29):
Fulford and Josh D. Zelman. So expect Katie mcbanoa to
have a super hard cross. But again I think she
will hold up. Well, let me just show you before
I get into this, but you can see on here

(26:02):
Charlie Aedelson, Robert Adelson, Wendy Edelson. This is the mended
state's witness list, and you see Drina Bernhardt is there,
and then you see Patricia Byrd is number ten. So

(26:23):
the state, they know the state plans to use them.
They know it's going to be damaging for Donna Edelson
whatever she has to say, and they're trying to limit
the scope of her testimony or throw them out altogether.

(26:45):
You can see here. Let me just share this some
of them we can get into Katie's cross. So the
only statements from Bernhardt which arguably survive a balancing test,

(27:10):
they're just trying to throw out through testimony. I don't
know how does everybody feel about this? I don't know.
Kind of amazing, kind of amazing. So the problem with

(27:33):
Katie mcbania, if they go after Katie mcbania, I just
want to remind you as to what a good witness
she was and if she if she were the only person,
the problem with this case, if she were the only person,
she would have been a less good witness because she

(27:55):
has a history of lying. So if you had to
hang the entire case on Katie mcbania or Luis Rivera,
it would be less it would be a less strong case.
But because to use Dan Rashburn's rounds analogy, all the
puzzle pieces fit together so well in this case, it's

(28:16):
a lot harder to say that she's lying. They certainly
didn't fit when she was defending herself and she said
she didn't know anything about what Charlie Edelsen was talking about.
It was all scenarios. Let's take a listen to Dan
Rashbaund's cross examination of Katie mcbanoa. This is I moved

(28:36):
it to like one end zero point two five speed
just because Dan rash Bound's a little hard to take.
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
Twenty sixteen correct, Yes, sir, almost immediately the state talked
to your lawyers and offered you full it gave up Charlie,
and you couldn't do.

Speaker 7 (28:59):
That because in order to give up Charlie, I had
to give up the create a, the father of my children.

Speaker 3 (29:04):
They talked to your lawyers and offered you full immunity,
get out of jail free card.

Speaker 6 (29:09):
Right.

Speaker 7 (29:09):
I don't know if that was immediately.

Speaker 3 (29:11):
Pretty soon after you got arrested, you were offered to
cooperate against Charlie Edelson and the other Adelson's and you
would get to go home with your kids, right, yes, sir.

Speaker 6 (29:19):
So Again Katie mcbanaa's lawyer denies this, but both Georgia
Kapelman has said it, Katie said it, and christ to
cost is saying no, no, no, they got it wrong.
There's different levels to immunity, but it's pretty clear. Dan

(29:42):
Brashbrownd says full immunity and she says yes. So I'm
inclined to disbelieve. Chris Decost, who was Katie mcbana's lawyer,
with Terra Kawas, they don't want to it makes them
look bad. I mean, you would be baking. Katie mcmhannon

(30:04):
went to take that, yal and you're But instead I
believe they were telling her, you know you can beat it,
blah blah blah. It's in ify case.

Speaker 3 (30:15):
Lawyers told you about that offer, yes, sir, they did.
You also saw an interview on TV while you were
in jail which one of the prosecutors mentioned this immunity offer. Right, yes, sir.
You have two kids who are your world.

Speaker 7 (30:28):
Right, Yes, sir.

Speaker 3 (30:31):
If you took the state's deal, then you would have
been let out of jail immediately. Right, That's what your
lawyers told you.

Speaker 7 (30:38):
If I took their deal, yes, sir, But.

Speaker 3 (30:42):
You didn't take the offer, No, I didn't. Instead, you
stayed in jail for three years before your first trial, right, yes, sir,
You stayed in jail through COVID after your first trial. Hung, Yes, sir,
you still didn't. Still the deal was still open.

Speaker 9 (30:56):
Right.

Speaker 7 (30:57):
The deal was to give up Charlie, and you couldn't
do that because in order to give up Charlie, I
had to give up Si Credo, the father of my children.

Speaker 3 (31:03):
So I couldn't do that. So while you're in jail,
sitting in jail during COVID, you knew there was still
a deal possibility. Open for you. Right, you could still
take a deal. Your lawyers told you.

Speaker 7 (31:15):
That before COVID after my mistrial.

Speaker 3 (31:18):
Yes, I believe so, and you still didn't take the deal.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
Right.

Speaker 6 (31:27):
Here's why I don't think Katie took the deal. Katie
didn't take the deal not because Sigfredo Garcia was the
father of her children. She didn't take the deal because
Charlie Adelson had told them all had communicated with them
that if everyone stayed quiet, they have no case. So

(31:49):
when Katie mcbanawa was arrested, Charlie Adelson put out this
statement through his lawyer. I mean, this is his lawyer's
statement from David oscar Marcus, who was Charlie Aedelson's attorney.
He told the Tallahassee Democrat after Katie mcmanawea was arrested. Quote,
it's sad that the police have arrested Katie when just

(32:12):
last week the prosecution said there was no basis to proceed.
They are trying to pressure a single mom who has
no priors by threatening to make her little kid's orphans.
Let me mean talk about playing on people's art strengths
one more time. They are trying to pressure a single

(32:34):
mom who has no priors by threatening to make her
little kids orphans. That's not how our criminal justice system
is supposed to work. It's smacks of utter desperation. So
that's what he was communicating, probably through her lawyers. It's
smacks of desperation. They don't know anything. They're just trying

(32:56):
to pressure you. They're not going to go ahead with
this execution of you. Charlie Edelson didn't force you to
take and probably her lawyers were agreeing. They wanted the
defense money. Eventually they got two trials worth and two
high profile trials worth the kind of publicity you can't buy.

Speaker 3 (33:21):
Deal not take the deal right.

Speaker 7 (33:22):
No, I had no communication with Charlie.

Speaker 3 (33:24):
He didn't pay for your attorneys.

Speaker 7 (33:26):
He didn't pay for my attorneys, but there there was
word that he was. My brother declined him paying for
my attorneys had anything to do with him.

Speaker 3 (33:34):
I know you have an agenda here, but just answer
my questions. Yes, sir, did Charlie Aedelson pay for your attorneys?

Speaker 7 (33:39):
No, sir, he did not.

Speaker 6 (33:40):
I know you have an agenda here. You know how
I'm allowed to make comments like that. I'm surprised there's
no objection.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
Did anyone in the Aedolson family pay for your attorneys, Sir,
did anyone in the Aedlson family pay any money to
your kids? No, sir, you had nothing to do with
Charlie Aedelson right after the bump?

Speaker 7 (34:05):
No, sorry, do not.

Speaker 3 (34:11):
Now. The real reason you didn't cooperate, and you made
it clear, is because Charlie Aedelson had absolutely nothing to
do with the murder of Professor Markel. Isn't that the case?

Speaker 7 (34:19):
I didn't cooperate because in order to give up Charlie,
I'd have to give up sick Fredo.

Speaker 3 (34:24):
Well, let's talk about the testimony in your first trial,
and don't worry, We're going to get to your propers
as well. Okay, let's talk about the testimony in your
first trial. You were asked, did you get the father
of your children, mister Garcia, to commit a murder on
behalf of mister Charlie Aedelson. Answer no, ma'am. Do you
recall saying that?

Speaker 6 (34:40):
Yes?

Speaker 7 (34:40):
Sir?

Speaker 3 (34:41):
You were asked, can you do you have information that
Charlie Abelson was involved in this? Answer? Do I have information?
I don't have personal information. Do you recall that?

Speaker 8 (34:49):
No?

Speaker 7 (34:49):
Sorry, did not?

Speaker 3 (34:49):
You don't recall saying that in your first trial.

Speaker 7 (34:52):
No, sorry, do not.

Speaker 3 (34:52):
Would you like to see a transcript?

Speaker 10 (35:01):
Gosh, I'll direct your attention to page twenty twenty eight hundred,
applies one through five.

Speaker 7 (35:19):
Please really do so?

Speaker 3 (35:27):
Does that refresh your recollection?

Speaker 6 (35:28):
Yes, yes, sir does Dan rash Bounds insistent walk? Really
it really is, really comes through on sped up just
a little bit. This is only a one point two five,
just sped up just a little bit. But you goll

(35:48):
see his insistent walk. Have to you see that three
shows are the paper?

Speaker 3 (35:57):
Does that refresh your recollection?

Speaker 6 (35:58):
Yes?

Speaker 7 (35:59):
Yes, sir, us.

Speaker 6 (36:03):
See what I mean. It's kind of funny.

Speaker 3 (36:09):
During your second trial, do you recall being asked Charlie
didn't ask you to do anything weird? Answer? No, ma'am,
like get someone to get a hit man to commit
a murder of his ex brother in law? No, ma'am.
Do you recall those questions in that answer?

Speaker 6 (36:25):
You know what I'm wondering. You know, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Charlie
Aedelson's friend, is on the witness list for the state.
So if the state brings up Ryan Fitzpatrick, I wonder
if Donna Aedelson's legal team, they'd be fools not to
use excuse me had a call judy AA Legal focuses

(36:52):
interview with Ryan Fitzpatrick where he gets interrupted with people
looking to steroids from him. Do you guys remember that
they'd be idiots not to use that on Cross. I
so wonder if that interview is going to come in
on cross.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
Because you couldn't implicate Charlie. You went to trial and
the first trial hung. Isn't that the case?

Speaker 7 (37:14):
Yes, sir?

Speaker 3 (37:16):
A few weeks before your second trial, Charlie was arrested.
Is that the case?

Speaker 5 (37:20):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (37:22):
The state waited and waited and waited for you to cooperate,
and then they arrested him on the eve of your
trial when you made it clear you weren't going to cooperate, right, Yes, sir.
So you went to trial the second time, and this
time you were.

Speaker 6 (37:33):
Who asked if Sarah yusef Wendy's friend or Wendy's ex friend?
Is yes, she's number sixty one on the state's witnesses.
Also on this state's witness list amended witness list. Remember
when they were talking about last hearing about finding a
handwriting analysis analyst, It seems as if they've found one.

(38:02):
Let me see if I can I have so many
things open because Kate Butler here, she is from the
Florida Law Enforcement She's a that's what she does. She's
a she analyzes documents, So I assume that those are
Donna's notebooks and things that they found. This is from

(38:24):
the Southern Eastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners. Here she is,
she's a member. Seems she's on the state witness list,
and there's a whole I pulled up a whole article
about her here. It is so sorry, I know I'm

(38:50):
getting a little off track. White Crime Lab analyst Kate
Butler and Bonnie Beale, this is from the Pensacola News Journal,
are the recipients of every piece of questionable document evidence
from the Florida FDL Florida Law Enforcement Department of Law

(39:15):
enforcement cases across the state. They can determine whether rubber
stamp is genuine or if a digital signature originated on
a different document, and they spend painsaking hours piecing together
shredded documents by hand. White describes the latter like starting
a thousand piece puzzle not knowing whether some of the

(39:39):
pieces are missing or belong to another puzzle. Puzzle pieces
with an interesting analogy. So White was named forensic scientists,
so she was just mentioned in this. They do more
than examine handwriting. But I think that they're coming in
for this examined handwriting. They may examine forensic documents. They
may be able to bear ory some of the documents

(40:04):
that Donna Edelson was filling out for her temporary visa,
for her one way ticket to Vietnam, for her stay
in Vietnam, or maybe her notebooks. I don't know, or
maybe all of the above. Hard to know. So that's

(40:24):
something that's coming into this case, new person we haven't
seen before. I don't believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

Speaker 3 (40:34):
We're convicted, and you were convicted of first degree murder
in other charges.

Speaker 8 (40:39):
Right.

Speaker 3 (40:41):
A few weeks after your conviction, you were sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parol, plus another
thirty years. Do you recall that? And you were transferred
from the jail on Leon County to the state prison
where you would spend the rest of your life, right, yes,
away from your family, yes, sir, away from your children, yes.

(41:03):
And you realize that there are only two ways to
get out of that prison, right?

Speaker 7 (41:09):
What are the two ways?

Speaker 3 (41:10):
Well, one way was in a coffin, right, yes, sir.
And the other way was cooperating against Charlie Aylsen Right, no, sir.

Speaker 7 (41:22):
I wanted the truth to finally come out.

Speaker 3 (41:24):
What are the only two ways that you can ever
get out of prison? Miss magnanua my appeal? Oh well,
we get to that too. You have a peel pending
right now, right, yes, that claims that you're innocent. Yes, sir,
Let's just make this clear to the jury. Mick Captleman
has called you as a witness against this man who's
presumed innocent. You've just testified that you did a murder,

(41:49):
and you have an appeal pending right now in this
county claiming your innocence. Isn't that true?

Speaker 9 (41:56):
Yes, sir?

Speaker 6 (42:03):
She's like, what, of course I'm gonna have an appeal.
Was I born yesterday? Of course I'm gonna try to appeal.

Speaker 3 (42:10):
My caves.

Speaker 6 (42:12):
Those were that was the best points he made during
all of this.

Speaker 3 (42:16):
And behold, weeks after you were convicted and.

Speaker 6 (42:23):
She realizes she's been had. Basically also, when she was arrested,
Charlie Edelson was walking around. She didn't know how far
this would go. She realized she'd been had and that

(42:43):
these were a lot stronger cases than Charlie Aedelson. Let on,
remember him talking to her about DNA in a car,
And they can't prove that you were in the car
doing whatever you were doing. This isn't a DNA case.
It's a case of a lot of a lot of

(43:05):
different evidence that all supports one narrative.

Speaker 3 (43:11):
Sentenced to life with no parole. You went in and
met with the state, right You met with them once
but twice, yes, sir, And you met with them for
hours total of around six hours, right, yes, sir. Now
we're going to get into that and all the lies
that Ms Kapplman didn't go through with you, that you

(43:31):
made during those interviews. But let's go back the first
trials first, Okay. In each of those trials, you took
the stand for your own defense, right, and you took
the same oath and look at different jurors the same
way that you look today, right, yes, sir? And in

(43:52):
your second trial, not only did you take an oath
in this room, But isn't true that you tried to
get sik Credo to lie for you?

Speaker 1 (43:59):
Than not?

Speaker 3 (44:01):
Isn't it true that you were caught on a recording
in the prison in which you were going to have
Sigfredo Garcia come into your trial, your second trial, and
say that he did the murder with Charlie Aedelson all
by himself. No, sir, you never were on a recording
of that fact. Your plan at your second trial wasn't
to have Sikfreidal Garcia testify on your behalf. No, sir,
are you aware that your lawyer opened up on that

(44:21):
plan in her opening, Well, did you sit through the trial?
Did you sit through the trial when she said to
the jury you're no.

Speaker 6 (44:31):
Her next hearing isn't isn't till the eighth that's un
down as next hearing.

Speaker 3 (44:37):
Is going to hear from sik Fredo Garcia, who's going
to say that the murder was between him and Charlie
Aedelson and that you're just a victim of having bad
taste in men.

Speaker 7 (44:44):
He never came up.

Speaker 3 (44:46):
He refused to come and testify, right, I.

Speaker 7 (44:48):
Don't know if he refused. He just never was never called.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
Are you aware that you and your lawyer subpoenaed him
to come down to Leon County to testify on your behalf?

Speaker 7 (44:56):
He was subpoenaed, but he just never showed up and
he didn't.

Speaker 3 (44:59):
Chose like this, right, he was subpoenaed by you, correct, Yes, sir,
and you got on the phone with him. You were
caught because you're not supposed to talk to each other, right, Yes, sir,
But you guys talk to each other because what you
do is you call his mom, right, and he calls
his mom. Isn't that what you'd all do at that time?

Speaker 7 (45:14):
Yes, sir.

Speaker 3 (45:15):
Yeah, you call each other so that you could talk
to each other through the mom. And during one of
those calls, you asked him to come testify on your behalf.
Isn't that what you did?

Speaker 6 (45:22):
No?

Speaker 3 (45:23):
I did not ask him, But we'll move on to
some other lives. During your first trial, you were asked
you didn't ask mister Garcia to help this lady get
her kids back in Tallahassee. Answer no, ma'am. You didn't
solicit him to commit a murder of Dan Markel. Answer no, ma'am.

(45:45):
Do you recall those questions and answers?

Speaker 7 (45:47):
Yes, sir.

Speaker 3 (45:49):
You were asked, well, back then, did you know someone
by the name of Dan Markel? Answer no, ma'am. In
twenty fourteen, you learned that Wendy Edelson's divorce was already finalized, right,
I learned that in court. I didn't know it before.
Do you remember those those words? Those were lies? Right?

Speaker 7 (46:05):
Yes, I lied in my trials to save myself.

Speaker 3 (46:08):
We'll keep going. You lied when you said that Charlie
told you that Professor Markel had been in an accident.

Speaker 6 (46:16):
Right, I lie that, say, yeah, same thing, same thing.
I think a jury can understand this. There's another great
moment that Rashbaum had the same kind of thing where
he thinks it's like an epic an epic win one

(46:40):
second and it's not. He thinks that this is an
epic win. What Charlie Edelson says on a wire tap
between him and Donna, check this out. He's having some
problem problems playing the actual the actual tape.

Speaker 3 (47:01):
And while we while we work on.

Speaker 6 (47:05):
This is a great moment. Anything that's going to go
wrong digitally is asked.

Speaker 3 (47:11):
Where I ask a question, go.

Speaker 2 (47:13):
Ahead, make money. They already have their kids.

Speaker 3 (47:19):
Okay, didn't work in the headphones? No, all right, well
I think you can.

Speaker 8 (47:25):
Hear it pretty well. See if we can hear it,
I'm going to play you at twenty.

Speaker 1 (47:35):
Minutes and want to make money.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
They already have their kids.

Speaker 7 (47:43):
I'm not looking to.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
Shepses to those kids.

Speaker 3 (47:48):
Yeah, but she has an opportunity that she would throw
in the garbage and then these kids and.

Speaker 7 (47:54):
Believe me, that's it.

Speaker 5 (47:55):
They're not going to hand up another dad.

Speaker 6 (47:57):
No.

Speaker 3 (47:58):
Well, and it was as I had a dad.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
It's a tragedy what happened.

Speaker 4 (48:05):
So there, twenty minutes and twenty five seconds into the call,
about two minutes after miss Kappelman stopped him.

Speaker 3 (48:17):
Charlie Adelson says, it's a tragedy. What happened to their dad?

Speaker 2 (48:20):
Right?

Speaker 3 (48:21):
Yes, he did, and that was in response to his
mom saying Dave would be a great dad, right, correct,
And Charlie says they already had a dad, and it
was a tragedy what happened to him?

Speaker 2 (48:33):
He did.

Speaker 3 (48:35):
When Charlie Adelson said that on this call that was
stopped before this journey. When he said that on that call,
that's before the bump, I believe it was. Yes, that's
twenty one months after the murder. Correct, He had no
idea whatsoever that he was being recorded.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
Probably disagree with that.

Speaker 3 (49:01):
But the other staff, remember yesterday she brought in other
stuff about Deeve and she asked you those same questions.
She said, this is before the bomb, your call her asking.

Speaker 6 (49:15):
I would probably disagree with that. I would probably disagree
with that. I thought that was pretty funny. He's like,
he said that and he didn't know he was being
he was being he said that, and he didn't know
he was being being taped. I would probably disagree with that.

(49:37):
I would probably disagree with that. Okay, Hey, Wisley loves Octoberfest.

Speaker 11 (49:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (49:44):
No, I'm sick. I'm still sick. I'm just doing these
when I can, when I can. Hopefully I'm going to
the doctor tomorrow, so fully they'll figure out what's going on.

Speaker 3 (49:59):
We'll ask you, do you remember having a conversation with
Charlie Aedelson about his brother in law being in an accident.
Does that sound familiar to you? It sounds familiar. Yeah,
that was a lie, right.

Speaker 7 (50:08):
No, that's what Charlie said.

Speaker 3 (50:09):
He told you that he was in an accident. He'd
tell you that there was a murder.

Speaker 7 (50:12):
No, he told me he was in an accident.

Speaker 3 (50:13):
So you didn't know about the murder of Dan Markel
on July eighteenth. Is that what you're telling the jury?

Speaker 7 (50:17):
No, not at that time.

Speaker 3 (50:19):
When did you find out about the murder of Dan Markel.

Speaker 7 (50:22):
It was later on.

Speaker 3 (50:23):
Oh really, so the money that you bought brought to
the guys that miss Taplman produ on opening the money
you brought up to the guys on July nineteenth was
because Dan Martell was in an accident.

Speaker 7 (50:32):
I didn't know that that was Dan Marquel, like I
didn't know his name. Oh, but there was a murder
that happened.

Speaker 3 (50:37):
Yes, At the March eleventh dinner that you had with
mister Lacosse at Yardbird, dan Markell's name wasn't mentioned. No, sir,
what did it surprise you that mister la Coss has
testified to the opposite of that.

Speaker 7 (50:52):
No, I haven't seen a sessimony.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
At your first trial, you were asked, did Charlie mention
anything to you about a murder out of Tallahassee? So
now it's not Dan Markel, it's just a murder out
of Tallahassee. And your answer was no, ma'am. Question do
you mention anything about his ex brother in law being murdered?
Answer no, ma'am. Do you recall those questions?

Speaker 6 (51:16):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (51:16):
And those were lies? Right?

Speaker 7 (51:18):
Yes, I told you I lied. I lied in my
trials to save myself.

Speaker 3 (51:21):
I understand. Please let me keep going through them. There's
a lot of them, so we'll take our time. Yes, sir,
Now you said you never saw.

Speaker 6 (51:29):
Any What about lying? Don't you understand? What about facing
a life sentence a lie? What about what don't you
understand about defense attorneys in other people's defense attorneys and messages?
Probably this is my view through the ATel sense telling

(51:50):
me I'd sail through this. What about being emboldened by
a hung jury? Apparently? I think it was one woman
on that didn't want to convict Katie mcbanoa, just for
the same reason Charlie Edlson gave through his lawyer David Marcus,

(52:13):
that she didn't want to see your children without a mother.
She thought she'd get away with it. What don't you
understand about that? I mean, Donna Edelson and her lawyers
are acting like a jewelry. Can't comprehend someone lying under oath.

(52:35):
In Europe, specifically Italy, they expect people on trial for
these kind of things to lie. They're expected, Conder, you
have to consider that they would probably lie to save themselves.
That's like considered not here. I just this was just

(52:58):
not the job win. And when you listen to the
jail house calls, this is not the giant win. Rash
Baum and Charlie Aedelson thought it was. This cross examination
of Katie mcbanoa and the Waycourt, TV and Long Crime
set it up was Oh, how stupid of the state
to bring Katie mcbanoa to the stand. You can't trust

(53:20):
anything that came out of her mouth because she's already
lied under oath. Not true, not true. But you know
what I don't think a jury's gonna believe is that
Katie mcbanoa is a mastermind and had Siegfredo Garcia kill
Dan Markel, the person Nagelsen's all lived to hate on

(53:43):
spec so that they could extort him for three thousand dollars.
I mean who told I mean, who told them about
Dan Markell's schedule. I mean, that's a really key part
of this. It had to come from Wendy were Donna.

(54:12):
But you think Donna knows intimately what Dan Markel's schedule
is with the kids? Maybe? Maybe not. And when you
go to Luis Rivera's testimony, he's told that he had
to do it. I mean, let's take a look at that.
So I mean, I just play a little of this

(54:33):
to show you that it's not the win Katie mcbanaua
is not the win that they think it is. I mean,
look at Luis Rivera's testimony.

Speaker 8 (54:45):
Did y'all follow Dan Markel at all during this second trip?
Where did you follow him this time?

Speaker 2 (54:52):
And to the gym?

Speaker 6 (54:55):
And did you have to get it done by a
certain time? I mean he's like, yeah, yeah, he was
going on a trip tomorrow. Wow, who knew that, Wendy
Maybe Donna, definitely Wendy who told him to rent a
Prius that strangely looked a lot like I mean, maybe
that's maybe that's something made up in this case. Maybe

(55:18):
they had no desire to pin it on Jeffrey Lacaz,
But certainly his testimony about Wendy Edelson's last conversation with
him is a very suss that she cared so much
about what she just broke up with him, and she
cares so much about when he travels. If he doesn't

(55:39):
take his trip, why won't he take his trip the
trip that would take him right past the crime scene,
right about the time of the murder. Strange, I don't
know you'd be the judge. Is that paranoia or is
that a bit of paranoia? Is that a bit of truth?

Speaker 8 (56:01):
Was there a reason that the murder had to get
done on the day it did?

Speaker 2 (56:07):
It was just the right thing, the right opportunity.

Speaker 5 (56:09):
I guess did you have any information that the victim
was going to be leaving town the day after the
homicide occurred?

Speaker 6 (56:18):
Very?

Speaker 8 (56:23):
Is the answer? Struck?

Speaker 2 (56:26):
Struck?

Speaker 8 (56:29):
All right?

Speaker 5 (56:29):
So how did you find out that the victim was
leaving town the following day?

Speaker 2 (56:36):
M I can't remember that good?

Speaker 5 (56:41):
Was it from a blog? It's not leading your honor?
Was it from a blog?

Speaker 8 (56:51):
Okay? What blog was that?

Speaker 2 (56:53):
The blog was Wendy?

Speaker 9 (56:55):
No, I was I was.

Speaker 8 (56:56):
Saying from the computer?

Speaker 6 (56:57):
Did you read?

Speaker 8 (57:00):
Okay? So somebody gave you the information?

Speaker 2 (57:03):
A person?

Speaker 8 (57:05):
And how did you actually talk to the person who
talked to the person?

Speaker 2 (57:10):
Garcia?

Speaker 8 (57:11):
Garcia talked to the person.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
Okay.

Speaker 8 (57:14):
So Garcia got the information from Katie? And do we
know where Katie got it from?

Speaker 2 (57:19):
I don't know.

Speaker 8 (57:20):
Okay, were you present.

Speaker 5 (57:21):
When Garcia talked to Katie and found out we got
to do it today?

Speaker 2 (57:28):
He was on the phone. I'm sorry, that was on
the phone speaking.

Speaker 8 (57:34):
He was talking to Katie on the phone, and you
were present for that who was driving the green Prius
on like whenever you were following mister Markel right before
the murder?

Speaker 5 (57:48):
Me did you go to I think you said the daycare?
Where else did you go that day? Have you seen
the videos veillance from the gym.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
In this case, I've seen it now.

Speaker 8 (58:05):
Yeah, where the green Prius is at the gym? Have
you seen that? And is that you driving that?

Speaker 2 (58:10):
PRIs?

Speaker 8 (58:11):
Okay, start seeing the vehicle as well?

Speaker 2 (58:13):
Absolutely all right?

Speaker 5 (58:17):
Did you know whether or not the kids were in
the car at the time you were.

Speaker 6 (58:21):
At the gym?

Speaker 2 (58:22):
Now, he dropped them off. I've seen him when he
dropped them off in the daycare, So.

Speaker 8 (58:25):
You actually saw the kids go into the daycare. So
was it after the daycare that you proceed to the gym?

Speaker 2 (58:36):
Yes?

Speaker 8 (58:37):
And what about after that house? All right? So did
you wait in the car while.

Speaker 5 (58:42):
The victim went into the gym and worked out? And
did y'all know at that time like we're going to
do it when he comes out of the gym or
not necessarily, so you're just following him to see.

Speaker 8 (58:57):
Where he goes and where did you go to his house?
Did you see the bus video that shows the prius
shortly before and shortly after the homicide? And was that
were you driving the vehicle at that time?

Speaker 2 (59:09):
Yes, ma'am.

Speaker 8 (59:12):
Tell us what happened when you got to mister Martell's driveway?

Speaker 2 (59:15):
Well, he had he had turned up.

Speaker 11 (59:19):
Yeah, he turned the block before we kept going, so
we went in front of his house. So when you
pulled in, we pulled them right behind I pulled them
right behind him.

Speaker 8 (59:31):
Is what you're describing.

Speaker 5 (59:33):
You entered his street from two different directions, all right,
and and you met at.

Speaker 8 (59:38):
His Did you meet at his driveway?

Speaker 2 (59:41):
Ma'am?

Speaker 8 (59:41):
Okay, so you pull him behind him? What happens next?

Speaker 2 (59:44):
Christ You had jumped out and shouting how many times? Twice?

Speaker 8 (59:49):
Where was he standing? When he fired the shots?

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Right right in front of the driver's side, right by
the driver.

Speaker 8 (59:57):
Did you see what the victim did during this attack?

Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
He put his hands up.

Speaker 6 (01:00:08):
That's so sad, isn't it? Victim put his hands up.
Let's see it would police riveris scares me? Just the
blank eyes have blank dead eyes.

Speaker 5 (01:00:26):
How was it decided that mister Narcia would end up
being the shooter instead of the original plan, which was
for you to do.

Speaker 11 (01:00:32):
It when I was driving, I ain't had no time.
He jumped out and did it. He had the gun
the whole time.

Speaker 5 (01:00:37):
All right, So either one of you were willing to
do it when whoever wasn't driving when the opportunity.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Arose, maybe, but it was it was really his job,
so he took he did. He did it?

Speaker 3 (01:00:49):
You mean he how?

Speaker 8 (01:00:50):
Why was it his job?

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
He's the one that was getting paid. But he knew
about the whole day.

Speaker 8 (01:00:55):
We were getting paid too, right, so he secured the job, ma'am.

Speaker 5 (01:01:03):
The bus video that we looked at, one of them
shows the passenger side, someone in a white shirt moving
around a lot right after the homicide.

Speaker 8 (01:01:13):
Can you explain to the jury what was going on
in the car.

Speaker 6 (01:01:15):
At that time?

Speaker 8 (01:01:16):
He was trying to hide the gun and that's Garcia?

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Garcia?

Speaker 8 (01:01:20):
Where did you put the gun?

Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
Ran in the front on in the passenger side, right
onto the road?

Speaker 8 (01:01:26):
Okay? What ultimately happened with the gun?

Speaker 5 (01:01:30):
Wherever? On the way back to South Florida? Is that
where you all went when you left Tallahassee? When did
you turn your cell phones back.

Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
On in Potendo? And right away?

Speaker 8 (01:01:48):
I think after leaving Tallahassee, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:01:52):
I remember I really don't remember, but it got turned on.

Speaker 8 (01:01:55):
Sometime after the murder. They got turned back one.

Speaker 5 (01:01:58):
Okay, do you remember what who made the first phone
call out of the two of you.

Speaker 2 (01:02:03):
I didn't make no phone call. He did.

Speaker 8 (01:02:05):
Who did he call?

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
I think called Katie? What do you called Katie? He
called Katie? He called Katie?

Speaker 8 (01:02:12):
He called Katie? And were you able to hear the conversation? Okay?
And what was that conversation?

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
He told everything that's done? She like, I know, and
you know where the money?

Speaker 8 (01:02:23):
Okay? Well me back up just a little bit. How
did she know it was done?

Speaker 2 (01:02:27):
I think she she got a phone call right away
before we.

Speaker 8 (01:02:30):
Did, all right, But somehow she indicated she knew.

Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
Yes, all right?

Speaker 8 (01:02:34):
And what and you asked about the money? Did you
personally ask about the.

Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
Money or was that Garcia's Garcia?

Speaker 8 (01:02:40):
What did she say about the money?

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
You'll get it tomorrow?

Speaker 8 (01:02:43):
Did you get it tomorrow?

Speaker 2 (01:02:44):
Yes, ma'am.

Speaker 8 (01:02:46):
On the way back from.

Speaker 6 (01:02:50):
Tell I mean, he knows way too much. I mean,
what are they going to do with these witnesses? You're
gonna say they're all line? They all did this on
spec Seriously. The blog was Wendy that's my favorite. The
blog was Wendy. I mean, if you're Donna's lawyer, the

(01:03:17):
best thing she has going for her is maybe her
tape where she says I don't know anything. Maybe, but
it's not great, and her age. Maybe they'll get a
juror who doesn't want to put who will hold out,
and then she's got to go through the process all

(01:03:37):
over again. Maybe they'll get a hung jury with one
juror doesn't want to put a grandmother in prison. I mean,
that's your best bet. But I don't think you know
the way that I mean, the way that rich people
use poor people in this case is so disgusting. You know,

(01:04:00):
we'll just buy these people to do our bidding. So
I mean, this fixation on Katie and Katie was manipulative.
Katie got special attention from the guard She'd been there
a while, she was probably pretty well behaved. What are

(01:04:23):
they saying Katie got special attention from the guards because
she's a criminal mastermind? Do criminal masterminds get attention from
the guards? I mean, I don't even know what that means.
As far as evidence for Donna Aedelson, I mean, these
are the cherry picks statements in Don Aedelson's new filing
that Katie mcmanua is manipulative. Yet she's been convicted of murderer,

(01:04:50):
a murder, of being a middle woman, and a murder
essentially murder. Maybe not the best people in the world
you'll find convicted of murder, people who say money is
more important. Sure, charge more important to me than taking

(01:05:13):
away soone's son or daughter or father. That's the thing
that's so mind blowing in this case that I believe
and I heard Vinnie Politan, that disingenuous douche on Court TV. Sorry,
I'm not a fan going on and on about how
Wendy was just she just and I think sts has

(01:05:37):
sort of hyped everybody into doing this murder. For I
don't see it like that. I mean, she could have
complained and nagged, But at some point I believe that
the whole Aedelson family, I've talked about this before in
episodes and episodes before. They're like a multi headed monster,

(01:06:00):
and they all agreed that at some point that this
was the best solution that the kids were young do.
When the kids are young, the kids won't remember their father.
They're too young to remember their father. They will It's
not like they will be searching their whole life and
missing their father for their whole life, which they will.

(01:06:22):
These people don't run deep. Their needs were most important.
Donna Aedelsen's need to control. It's all about power and control.
This case, like so many of the cases I talk about,
is all about power and control, and that's what raising
children is about. I decide. And they consider Dan Markel

(01:06:48):
a zealot. I mean, they considered me essentially a real
danger to the family, and they didn't want to have
their kids be outcasts and only be accepted in this
very orthodox Jewish community. They were very different kind of Jews,

(01:07:13):
like they wanted mainstream, like a more mainstream Jews that
didn't celebrate Shabbat, Javis who didn't eat Kosher, who were

(01:07:37):
really integrated into mainstream Christian society. And that's so much.
I mean Don Aedelson saying, you know, convert to forget
your Judaism, pissed Stan marcel Off, and convert to Catholicism.

(01:07:58):
So that's what I have for If you missed it,
go back to the beginning where I talk about this
new it's all redacted. Unfortunately, this new snitch, Patricia Bird,

(01:08:19):
what is she going to say? On the stand. She's
on the state's witness list with the snitch that we
all know about Drina Bernhardt. What are they going to say?
Something very unkind, not favorable to Donna, something damning to Donna.
That's what we know. I'm going to end this episode
the way I end so many of my episodes about

(01:08:40):
this case reading a victim impact statement. This is from
Charlie Edelson's case. So it's written to Judge Wheeler, but
we know that he wasn't the judge on this case.

(01:09:06):
You know it was Judge Everett. We attended Harvard Law School,
so dear Judge Everett. They mean to say, we attended
Harvard Law School with Dan Markel.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
One second.

Speaker 6 (01:09:23):
Over twenty years ago, and if it were not for him, yes,
if 're not for him, we might not have gotten
married to each other. He brought us back together after
we had a split apart, and we have stayed together
ever since, now blessed with two children. Bringing people together

(01:09:46):
was only one of Dan's many Mitzvah's good deeds, as
we are sure you will be reading about from friends, family,
and colleagues. He regularly called and emailed us and took
the time to visit us in person, even after we
moved cross country to California. His murder was shocking and

(01:10:10):
something we still think about a lot, even after so
many years. He was a most memorable schoolmate and loving friend,
and the least deserving of a deliberate, calculated death. Below
are pictures of the three of us celebrating Ted's twenty
sixth birthday during law school in the fall of two thousand,

(01:10:34):
when Ted was joking about turning sixty two instead of
twenty six. Dan will never enjoy another birthday. In fact,
last year, he also missed his eldest son's Benjamins bar Mitzvah,
a major religious and cultural milestone that would have meant

(01:10:56):
so much to him. As we celebrated our own child's
Bob Mitzvah last year, we thought to ourselves, Dan would
have loved to celebrate our milestone with us too. So
you can see the pictures. They're just photocopies, so Dan.

(01:11:18):
An additional note from Gazelle, I was newly pregnant with
our second child when I heard the news of Dan's
death in July of twenty fourteen. It hit me so
hard that I was shaking and sobbing off and on
for months. I agreed privately so that our older child,

(01:11:40):
then age five, born within months of Dan and Wendy's
older son, Benjamin, would not see me crying because I
knew that I couldn't even begin to explain what had happened.
How do you explain a murder like this to a
five year old? I would hide and cry, hide and cry.

(01:12:00):
I would try not to think about it. Then it
would come back and hit me. I sometimes worried that
the intense grief would cause a miscarriage. I was terribly
sick with nausea during the pregnancy, and to this day,
whenever I think about Dan's death, I am hit by

(01:12:20):
the same waves of nausea. We will never have Dan's loving,
smiling face back, so all we can hope for now
is just as Sincerely Giselle and Ted Chandler. That is

(01:12:44):
what I have for today. Guys, Please hit the thumbs up,
subscribe to the channel, leave me a comment, and I
will be back again with another episode really soon. Have
a great night, everybody.

Speaker 12 (01:13:19):
Dona well A Steach, you're him.

Speaker 9 (01:13:24):
You got it a murder.

Speaker 12 (01:13:26):
Because you wanted to raise your daughter's kids. Tama has
hes just.

Speaker 9 (01:13:33):
To stop on the.

Speaker 12 (01:13:34):
Way to civilization. My heavy is where all the fancy
people are. The TV is about five. You can't get
away from that. Touto tato? Who hope you know the.

Speaker 9 (01:13:53):
Guy you pay me?

Speaker 12 (01:13:55):
Then you can't get away from that? Oh Dona, what
to stitch your head? You thought chill was just for
the little people, but now you're sow blankets with the
locked up proof. Your grandmother is locked down and you'll
run way ride to feed on your blood. Goana, what

(01:14:32):
a stitch your hand?

Speaker 3 (01:14:34):
Your family are.

Speaker 12 (01:14:35):
Exiled from the social circles you swam in. Leonh No,
you never made that banana break your offer to babysit
for dance, but you'll soon be make in license plates
and thinking a babble.

Speaker 9 (01:14:52):
Could have been. Oh Gona, you had to plan a murder.
The don't let go to do to start at the.

Speaker 8 (01:15:21):
The the

Speaker 9 (01:16:04):
A wold