August 7, 2025 • 71 mins
Donna Adelson has her last hearing tomorrow morning ahead of her August 19th, 2025 trial. This is the last chance for Adelson to silence witnesses. Who are these witnesses and why doesn’t Adelson want the jury to hear them?
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.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Donna Agelson from Coral Springs, Florida.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I want to hear all about your Donna.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Let's well, I'm a domestic coordinator.
Speaker 4 (00:11):
A domestic coordinator.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Yes, I'm responsible for the activities, classes and lessons of
my son Robert, who was sixteen, Charlie who was twelve,
Whendy who was ten, my husband.
Speaker 5 (00:21):
Harvey, who's in the audience, and my.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Dog's Sam all right, and how old is SAMs?
Speaker 6 (00:25):
Five?
Speaker 4 (00:26):
Five? Give my best ten?
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Nice to have your hair crop Anders bottles.
Speaker 7 (00:31):
Worked down, consonance of there's.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
A lot of lad to have this again personally as
categories still your turn, letter, beats hell, help, no hell? Donna,
m yes, they're two ms. Let him come up your
five seconds? Person Ellen, okay, yes.
Speaker 7 (00:56):
Kim K Mustard Maker, Yes, there's one age time starts now.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Mm hmm Donna, yes, mister.
Speaker 8 (01:28):
Nice m h.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.
Speaker 7 (01:41):
Glass True Crime Report putting the true back in true crime.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
From New York City.
Speaker 9 (01:53):
ROBERTA. Glass is now on the record.
Speaker 5 (01:59):
M okay, how is everybody?
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Hello?
Speaker 5 (02:20):
Vicki, tater Mia, Debbie Robin, Hello everybody, So it is
the night before or the eve before Tatna Adelson's last
hearing before her trial it starts August nineteenth, for the
(02:46):
murder and conspiracy to commit murder of her former son
in law, Dan Markel. Since Dan Markel was in Florida
State University law professor, he was married to Donna Adelson's daughter,
(03:07):
Wendy Adelson. They had divorced and they were still in
the process of working out their divorce, and it had
gotten very very vicious contentious. What are the words you'd
like to use for it? But I thought i'd talk
(03:33):
about how this is really Donna's last chance to silence
two witnesses in this case that are really like mystery
witnesses because so much of the filings concerning this and
concerning this second investigation, which is almost like a second bump.
(03:55):
So in the opening you saw the first bump. So
before any of the Adolson's got arrested for this crime,
and Katherine mcbanua too, there was a bump. So a
(04:15):
undercover agent handed Donna Adelson a article of the murder
about the murder of Dan Markel with the number five
thousand dollars written on it, and he said that we
know you're taking care of one of the shooters in
the case. Sick Fredo Garcia, we want you to take
(04:39):
care of Tato. And this is the nickname for Luis Rivera.
And it did what it was meant to do, which
was to get all the conspirators talking in this case
and making some very good evidence against themselves. Now that
(05:01):
Donna Edelson was arrested at the airport, fleeing before the
grand jury could indict her in this case, or trying
to flee with a one way ticket to Vietnam, a
non extradition country. She was specifically looking for countries without
(05:22):
extradition treaties and she had chosen Vietnam. So after she
got arrested and she was in jail, we hear rumblings
of a prison snitch for the state. And what has
(05:43):
been reported, and it could all be wrong, is that
let me throw up a picture of her again. I'm
sure everybody's tired of looking at her. But this woman,
Terrina Bernhardt, what's been reported is that she is going
(06:06):
to testify that Donna Adelson was looking through and using
Harvey to do it, looking to was soliciting favorable testimony
and offering was it money? Hasn't really been said, was
it commissary but enticements to give her favorable testimony in
(06:29):
her trial. Also, so this is one of the witnesses
she wants to silence. And they say there's no truth
to any of this investigation. They refer to it as
an investigation. There's huge passages in the filings in these
motions that refers to the investigation and it's all blacked out.
(06:51):
Also another witness is someone else who was in Leon County.
So Drina, if I didn't make this clear, was in
Leon County jail with Donna Adelson and word has been
this is what's been reported was that they got very close.
(07:15):
And on the evidence list is a painting I assume
by Donna Aedelson given to Drena Bernhardt. That is a
piece of evidence in this case to show a relationship.
But also in Leon County and then Wakola County looks
(07:37):
like with Donna Aedelson, but I think this is a
better time. In Leon County is this woman Patricia Bird,
who was in there for violating her offender sex offender status.
(08:07):
She didn't notify them that she was when she moved
within twenty four hours, so she was doing some time
on that. So they desperately want those people not to talk.
And it's going to be very compelling tomorrow testimony to watch,
our argument to watch, but more than testimony, argument to watch.
(08:29):
Excuse me from Donna Aedelson's defense team of Jackie Fulford
and Josh Zelman, how are they going to talk about
this investigation and this motion and lemonye to really throw
out the lion's share of their testimony and they're saying
none of it's true. There was also reported that Donna
(08:52):
Adelson threw Harvey Aedelson and her lawyers was looking to
cause harm to people including Grena Bernhardt's mother, her your
own son, Robert Adelson, who's set to testify in this
(09:12):
case and will be a devastating witness at he testify.
He's the doctor who's ear nose and throat doctor of
State New York who exiled himself from the family after
coming to the conclusion that the family was behind the
murderer of Dan Markel, meaning Harvey Aedolson on a son
(09:38):
who's been convicted and given a life sentence, Wendy Edelson,
who benefited the most from this murder and remains an
unindicted co conspirator, and her husband Harvey who's remains an
unindicted co conspirator, so that the Adelson family and Robert
(10:03):
Aedelson concluded his family is fine. It should he he's
been deposed by the defense, should he doc very damaging
for Dona. Of course they want to silence him too.
So I've been over. I mean, I can pull it
up and we can look at it together. But here
(10:25):
is their motion and lemony, which is like motion to
throw out, says missus. Adelson has been indicted in this
case for murder, murder and conspiracy, one count of conspiracy
to commit first degree murder and one count of solicitation
of first degree murder. The state disclosed in on October seventh,
(10:48):
twenty twenty five, the existence of a new investigation that
began after a jailhouse informant contacted the state in December
twenty twenty four. So this sounds like Drina Bernhardt may
not be the first informants information led to a second informant,
(11:11):
although both informants made statements which were consisted on a
limited basis, so they're saying their statements were strangely consistent.
The vast majority of the first informants claims were either
established to be false or could not be corroborated by
this motion, Missus Adelson moves to exclude evidence from the
(11:33):
new investigation. So and it goes on. I mean, you
can see the black marks on the end. But if
you go to page two in this document, you can
see how much is redacted. I mean you can see
when Miss Bernhardt was interviewed December twentieth, January thirteenth, January
(11:57):
twenty ninth, and February eleventh. I mean, and it just
goes on. I mean, look, I mean it's hard to
know what all this is about. And I mean it's
gonna be a real bombshell if it's not really disclosed
(12:19):
in argument tomorrow and the first time we hear about
it is at trial. Could be So that was one
of the things that they're trying to remove. The other
is they desperately don't want Jason Newland an investigator in
(12:43):
this case. And Pat Sandford I should have really played
the arrest opening of don Agilson, but you see him
arresting her at the airport. He's the FBI officer involved
in this case. They want any of his Hindians out
of this case. And I thought we could look together
(13:05):
at his testimony, and look at how little of it
is really opinions. So let me just show you the
filing one minute so opinion testimony of Jason Newlan and
(13:37):
Patrick Sandford defended Donna eelsen Oh's They were deposed on
July ninth. Jason Newlan was deposed by Donna's defense team
and on July sixteenth, Patrick Sandford was disposed, And during
(14:00):
their respective depositions, both Newlyn and Sandford expressed opinions on
the new investigation. So again, it's this new investigation. They
want this totally thrown out much to be hugely damaging
for Donna. Whatever it is, they claim there's no truth
to it. I mean, if there's no truth to it,
(14:21):
I don't even think it would qualify as evidence. But okay,
the opinions expressed by Newlyn and Sandford do not concern distance, time, size, weight, form,
or identity. Rather, they concern the truthfulness of allegations raised
during the new investigation, allegations the vast majority of our
(14:43):
which were not corroborated by evidence. So then they should
have nothing to worry about about this new investigation. There's
no evidence to prove it, but testimony is evidence. They're
looking for physical evidence. I don't know. Sounds like they
wired tapped Harvey and didn't sound like too much came
(15:05):
out of it. I don't know. We'll see, we'll see.
It's hard to know what's going on with these filings,
so many of them are so retacted. But I thought
today we'd look at Pat Sandford's testimony from Charlie Edelson's trial,
(15:27):
and the FBI, by the way, was behind this new
investigation too, so and just take a look at some
of this evidence will come into play. A lot of
it will come into play for Donna, if not all
of it. Take a listen.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Please say your name and spell your name, Patrick Sandford.
I'm a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Speaker 9 (16:00):
How long have you been with the FBI?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Approximately? Live over twenty four years, two of which I
was here in Tallahassee.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
What are your duties there?
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I'm a special agent. I investigate cases and protect national security.
Speaker 9 (16:22):
And were you assigned to investigate a murder case involving
the murder of Dan Mark Hell?
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (16:27):
I was.
Speaker 9 (16:28):
Were you the lead investigator on that case?
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Correct?
Speaker 9 (16:31):
Did you assist the Tallhassee Police Department in that case?
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Yes? I did.
Speaker 9 (16:35):
Why was the FBI included in that particular investigation.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
At the beginning, they had several leads, like interviews, things
that they need to track down that were outside of
the city.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
By the way, I just want to apologize to Wesley
Love's October fest who sent me a super yesterday. I'm
so sorry I just missed it. Wesley. I appreciate it
so much. Thank you for the super jet. Sorry I
missed it. Dean Walker, thank you for the supersticker. I
(17:11):
appreciate your support. Okay, back to that'd say e Bird.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
City of Tallahassee that we have agents, you know, all
over the country, so we're able to facilitate some of
those leads and track down certain aspects of the case.
Speaker 9 (17:31):
And were some of those leads in the Miami area,
I guess they were? And were you assisted by Miami
authorities as well in the investigation?
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Correct?
Speaker 9 (17:41):
As part of the investigation where the people that were
considered to be closest to the victim interviewed, Yes, they were,
And would that include the ex wife Wendy Adelson? Yes,
what did you learn in the investigation about the relationship
between the victim and his ex wife Wendy Adelson?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
They had gone to a through a very contentious divorce,
which even after the divorce is finalized, they still had
several issues that they dealt with through the court system.
Speaker 9 (18:09):
I'm going to product with what I marked as states exited.
Do you recognize this exhibit?
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Yes?
Speaker 9 (18:22):
I do. You had an opportunity to look at that
exhibit before?
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Yes, I have.
Speaker 9 (18:26):
Okay, is that a fair and apporite copy of Lindy
agels And and Dan Martell's divorce file?
Speaker 4 (18:32):
That's correct from the third Office here.
Speaker 9 (18:34):
In Leon County.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Correct, Judge, At this time I asked to move.
Speaker 9 (18:38):
Into evidence states Exhibit fifty six. At this time, did
you review this divorce file as part of your investigation
in this case?
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Yes, I did not.
Speaker 9 (18:55):
How many pages are in.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
That around five hundred and seventy six, I believe, And.
Speaker 9 (19:02):
I want to draw your attention to a couple things specifically,
like on page eighty two.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
That file is just so outrageous the size of if
you're listening on podcasts, the folder could not be any bigger.
It just is. They bring out a giant folder, thousands
of thousand plus pages. It looks like maybe four or
(19:33):
five books at least of that consist of Dan Markel
and Wendy Edelson's legal filings concerning the divorce.
Speaker 9 (19:47):
Paragraph thirteen, they were arguing over everything, right, all the
belongings correct, down to a tennis racket.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
That's correct, okay.
Speaker 9 (20:02):
As part of these proceedings, did Wendy Adelson seek to
relocate with her children from Tallahassee to Miami, Florida.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Yes, she did, right?
Speaker 9 (20:11):
And why did she want to relocate to South Florida?
According to the filings.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
The filing stated that she had a job offer in
South Florida that was more lucrative than her current job,
all right.
Speaker 9 (20:24):
And did mister Markel object to her petition to relocate
with the children?
Speaker 4 (20:29):
He did, right?
Speaker 9 (20:30):
Did he file quite a lengthy and emphatic objection to that,
Yes he did. And in his motion, and that's going
to be on page eighty two. Why did he indicate
he believed was the sole reason that miss Adelson wanted
to move to South Florida?
Speaker 2 (20:50):
He says that he stated that the sole reason would
was because she could relocate with the party's minor children
to be near her parents.
Speaker 9 (21:00):
Pearance, and was the relocation petition that Wendy filed was.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
That ruled on I guess it was all right?
Speaker 9 (21:09):
So what did the court say about that?
Speaker 2 (21:11):
The court ruled against that and ruled against her, saying
she had to stay in Tallassie with the children.
Speaker 9 (21:16):
And if I said that was June twentieth, twentieth of
twenty thirteen, does that sound right?
Speaker 4 (21:22):
That's correct?
Speaker 5 (21:23):
Okay?
Speaker 9 (21:24):
When was the divorce made final? And for that, I'll
direct you to page four fifty seven and four fifty eight.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
I believe it was made final in July thirty first
of twenty thirteen, I believe, all right.
Speaker 9 (21:36):
And did that conclude the issues between the legal issues
between miss Adelson and professor.
Speaker 5 (22:10):
One of the things that would have been hugely upsetting
to Donna Edelson is to have only supervised visits with
her grandchildren. And Pat Sanford's going to talk about it
in a second. That was what Dan Markel was asking for.
(22:30):
And am I muted, tater? Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 10 (22:37):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (22:38):
No, I guess you can hear me. Okay, thank you.
So she would have found that hugely, hugely infuriating, and
anything to that would have marred her public persona, her
(22:58):
perfect public person sona, really her phony public persona. She
would have found hugely humiliating to have to tell her
friends that she would have to have or if it
got around that she could only see her grandchildren with
a supervisor because of her own behavior. That I think
(23:21):
is one of the things that really lit a match
and created a lot of a lot of anger towards
Stan Marcel. But if you're Dan Marcel, how how are
you going to put up with your former mother in
(23:44):
law telling your children that you're stupid, that you're this,
that you're that. I mean, they claim it never happened.
Charlie Edelson said. Children can't repeat things like that. I
beg to differ. They can't remember and repeat things like
(24:04):
Grandma says you're stupid. I think they can. Strangely, it's
Donna Aedelson's favorite insults, stupid and the kids got it correct?
Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.
Speaker 9 (24:18):
Markel, No, it did not, all right, So they continue
to file quite a lot of filings after that, Is
that right?
Speaker 4 (24:24):
That's correct?
Speaker 9 (24:26):
In fact, there's over two hundred and fifty more pages
of stuff after the divorce.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
Was final, So correct, correct? Okat.
Speaker 9 (24:33):
I want to direct your attention to March twenty sixth
of twenty fourteen, did mister Markel file emotion seeking some
relief related to the grandmother Donna Adelson? Yes, he did,
And what specifically was he seeking in reference to Donna Adelson.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
He was seeking to limit her visitation rights onto where
they had to be had to be monitored, supervised, supervised
by another adult, that's correct.
Speaker 9 (25:04):
And why in the pleading did mister Markel indicate that
this supervision was needed?
Speaker 2 (25:11):
I'm sorry, do you mean could you refresh the uh
PA look at for fifty?
Speaker 4 (25:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (25:20):
Four fifty.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Mister Markel stated that he that did children inform him
that grandma says you're stupid and that she says you're
trying to take your son Shines away.
Speaker 9 (25:50):
The grandma meaning Donna Hadelson, that's correct, was saying that
Dan Mark telling the kids that Dan Markel was stupid.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
That's correct.
Speaker 9 (26:00):
Did you also come into possession of some emails that
were exchanged between Wendy Aedelson and Donna Ailson?
Speaker 2 (26:07):
We did?
Speaker 9 (26:07):
All right, I'm going to show you what I've marked
as States Exhibit fifty seven. Have you ever had an
opportunity to review those emails? Yes, I have, prior to today,
you can't find Have you had a chance to review
those before today.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
I have.
Speaker 9 (26:24):
Anything in those emails that goes to a motive and
your investigation.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
Yes there is.
Speaker 9 (26:29):
What is that.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
She was being very assertives missus Adlson Donald Ailson was
being very assertive with Wendy Aedelson, trying to influence her
to do different things to mister Markel to get him
to agree to let her and the children to move
to South Florida.
Speaker 9 (26:47):
And what was the thing that was expressly stated asssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
(30:59):
es as the most important part of Wendy's whole divorce
and litigation.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
He was relocation in South Florida to be close to
the family, all right?
Speaker 9 (31:09):
And was there mention in those emails of a bribe
that was to be off.
Speaker 5 (31:14):
So if you go through these emails, I mean so
much of them are just about like just a total
psychological warfare against Dan Markel. I mean, she says in them,
oh boy, she says, let's just go okay, she says,
(31:49):
they we don't want Danny to continue his religious influence
over these children anymore than what he's already done. If
he keeps us up and they don't want to eat
in your non kosher home, and if they see you
don't want to attend their shool functions, you will be
the outsider. As they get older and more involved under
Jibber's religious influence, they will be able to request which
(32:10):
parent they want to live with. Don't allow Gibbers to
have this power and control over them. In reality, he's
going to have to have the same control over you.
Dad and I have changed our lives. This is year
to support and assist you and the boys in every
way possible. Charlie has accepted the loss in the office
business income for us to do this because he loves
(32:30):
you and wants only the best possible future for you.
So there's a motive for murder right there, for Charlie
to be involved in this murder right there. And it's
time for you to show us that you can put
on the performance of your life for the next few weeks.
And she says, take control from him, get him psychologically.
(32:53):
You cannot tell anyone this is an act. Somehow it
will get back to him. She uses the demeaning nickname.
You've been Now you have one final opportunity to make
him angry. We want him ticked off so he realizes
that he could lose control over his kids. I mean,
(33:13):
power and control is what this case is all about.
It's what so many of these cases are all about.
With this, these psychopaths that are that I talk about
in these true crime cases. We plan to make a
financial offered him to allow this relocation. Say they weren't
expecting this to work. It's like change the kid's religion
(33:36):
and this would work. It was just to get him,
sort of begging, get him in a just gain power
and control over him through this psychological war, the warfare
that they were going to do. You need to work
this plan and will help you through it so that
(33:59):
it may have affect how much we will and it
may affect how much we will offer him. Maybe he'd
be willing to let you relocate if he knew his
children would attend a private Hebrew academy like Donna Klein
in Boca, or perhaps he'd liked them to invite him
to a Christmas party or their other Sunday school. I mean,
(34:20):
why would he think that Wendy would if he really
believed Wendy's act, she couldn't tell anyone that dressing the
kids up and taking, you know, taking pictures of them
in front of a Catholic church and putting it up
on social media, saying New Beginnings wasn't really a real
(34:40):
conversion to Catholicism. If he didn't, if he believed it
was a real conversion, what would make him think that
Wendy would just drop Catholicism as soon as soon as
she went to Miami. It was just about scaring, scaring
(35:01):
him and getting and getting and punishing him psychologically, and
that really seems to be the real aim. In another email,
she writes, Okay, can I hold on one second? She writes, Okay,
(35:37):
you need to see whatever he Oh, it's ridiculous that
he can depose you and you can't depose him. Just
seems ridiculous for him to be able to pose you,
but for you and Kristen not to give him the
same crap he's pulling on you. It's time to give
it to him. I mean, just just be as cruel
(36:04):
as you can be to this guy. Don't tone it down,
just turn it up.
Speaker 9 (36:11):
Or to Dan Markel to potentially facilitate this relocation, there
was who was going to pay for the prime.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
There was gonna be a three way payment between Donna
and Harvey Adelson. We're going to pay thirty three percent
of it, Charlie Adelson would pay thirty three percent, and
then Wendy would pay the other thirty three percent.
Speaker 9 (36:30):
All right? And what was the total amount of this
potential prime?
Speaker 2 (36:34):
One million dollars?
Speaker 9 (36:43):
All right? Was there any financial benefit to Wendy Adelson
that occurred as a result of Dan Markhill's death?
Speaker 4 (36:52):
There was?
Speaker 9 (36:53):
What were those finite that benefit or benefits?
Speaker 2 (36:56):
There was at least I believe, a couple of life
insurance policies, one of which was around two million dollars.
There was Social Security benefits to the kids that were
provided I believe like forty eight hundred dollars a month.
There was a four one K that he left behind
in some other some other accounts.
Speaker 9 (37:18):
Pension as well.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
Yes, there was a pension, okay, and.
Speaker 9 (37:22):
In some deferred comp two hundred and seventeen thousand dollars there,
that's correct. You mentioned the four one K. Do you
recall how much money was in that.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
I'd done off the top of my head.
Speaker 9 (37:34):
Right, Is there something that could refresh your memory on
that possibly there was one hundred thousand dollars sound right, Yes,
it does all right. As part of the investigation in
this case, you looked at sort of the people closest
(37:55):
to Dan. Did you've also investigated the day of the
homicide in his routine or activities that day?
Speaker 4 (38:01):
We did?
Speaker 9 (38:02):
And what did you learn about his schedule that day?
Speaker 4 (38:05):
That morning?
Speaker 2 (38:06):
He had custody of the kids that day, his two
children and his two boys. He took them to daycare
over off of West Arp Street, dropped them off around
eight fifty am, and then drove back across town and
went to Premiere Gym right off of Clay Boulevard Thomasville Road,
Capital Circle area.
Speaker 9 (38:25):
Was there any surveillance images captured outside the gym that
showed the vehicles coming and going from there?
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Yes, there was some exterior cameras on the gym itself,
on the roof of the gym.
Speaker 9 (38:37):
And did that surveillance were you able to identify from
that surveillance which video, I mean, which video which vehicle
was Dan Markell's vehicle arriving at the gym?
Speaker 2 (38:47):
Yes, we were okay.
Speaker 9 (38:49):
And was there another vehicle that appeared to be a
suspect vehicle captured in this video, that's correct. And why
did you describe or why am I describing this other
vehicle as suspect vehicle.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
We did obtain multiple pieces of footage video footage around
town also showing that appeared a light green Prius was
following mister Markle wherever he went that morning.
Speaker 9 (39:15):
And was that description of a vehicle consistent with the
description that mister geiber gave us of the vehicle that
he saw leaving the crime scene.
Speaker 5 (39:24):
That's correct, Charlie. Charlie Adelson looks so sick, doesn't any
He looks like he's going to throw up through most
of his trial, the nervous blinking, the pale pallor to
his skin. So he goes through just the amazing lengths
(39:47):
they went to get evidence in this case, all the
and he could basically monitor almost every every aspect of
the killers. And here comes his cross examination by Dan Crashbaund,
Charlie Adolson's lawyer. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
I don't know if I can speak to that.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Well, let me see if I can help you. You
went through miss Adelson's emails as well in your investigation.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
I did not, the team did.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
Sorry, I'm a little ahead here, Let's get back a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Word of monitoring her in late twenty fifteen, probably November,
based on electronic surveillance on her residence. Plus we also
had we're monitoring her phone on location service on her
phone historically and.
Speaker 9 (40:41):
Respectively too, And how long was that the case? How
long was your name?
Speaker 5 (40:46):
So this is I believe they're talking about Donna being monitored,
and Donna's gonna has her own experts and forensics and
digital forensics, and she's to call into question the evidence
against her, every piece of evidence basically against her. It
sounds like in this forthcoming trial, honor, what period of time.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
On electronic video surveillance was from November of fifteen until
until she no longer lived at that apartment?
Speaker 9 (41:19):
Right through any of those means that you described, were
you able to deduce what it was she was doing
for the Ailsen Institute in person? Orderly?
Speaker 2 (41:27):
No, not at all.
Speaker 5 (41:30):
Oh no, he's talking about Katie. But still anything that
any way that they surveiled Donna, the tapes that they
have against her, Donna is going to refute it with
her own experts, all right, and.
Speaker 9 (41:46):
We're going to hear We heard an opening that there
was a wire tap in this case. Any anything on
the wire tap that indicated.
Speaker 5 (41:56):
What that that's part of the recording. It's not me. That
horrible high pitch sound.
Speaker 9 (42:05):
She was doing for that business.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
There's a couple of references about cleaning up on the weekends.
Speaker 9 (42:12):
That was about it, though, okay, and again any we
would have known if she'd gone there to clean up
on the weekends, right, at least during the time frame
she described.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
That's correct, and that didn't happen.
Speaker 4 (42:22):
He did not, Okay, one man.
Speaker 5 (42:29):
Dun yeah, Lollie perfectly said, you can't use the evidence,
(42:50):
this evidence against me. It makes me lookful.
Speaker 10 (42:54):
There's a couple of man, if you can move the left,
turn slightly over the left, and it's not.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
I think so.
Speaker 10 (43:07):
Trying up to jockey with the microphones that might be
causing something beating bot Okay.
Speaker 2 (43:16):
M m.
Speaker 11 (43:21):
H kah, good afternoon, yeah, ok yeah, h h.
Speaker 9 (43:45):
Kay.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Let's actually start where we left off. The checks okay, okay, Uh.
Speaker 3 (43:53):
The checks began two months after the date that Professor
Markel was murdered, give or take.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
That's what the date on the checks were for that employment, correct.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
And the checks were in batches, right, often.
Speaker 2 (44:09):
They seem to be the sequence of the check numbers
were in batches.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Correct, So.
Speaker 5 (44:16):
Examining talking about the checks ways in which Katie was
paid by Donna, also damning evidence against Donna that's coming
into trial A day says Donna will be going back
to civilization soon in prison. That's what. I don't know
if you guys saw the thumbnail, but it says shortstop
on the way to prison. I mean, that's what this
(44:40):
trial is. Really. It seems inevitable. I'd be so shocked
or she didn't get convicted, but you never know which
way jury's going to go.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
So everyone understands what that means. You would see a
check for check number one, two, three, and four, for instance,
and you would see those checks even though they were
the next checks in the book. They'd be for payments
every two weeks essentially.
Speaker 4 (45:10):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (45:10):
What I observed was a few checks in sequence, and
at the bottom it would give date ranges of when
they were four and they would be for two week segments,
and then the very next check was for another two
week segment later on. And then there was other checks
in the system that were dated and dated out of range.
Speaker 3 (45:29):
Those so it looked like Miss mc bannawell was given
a stack of checks at a time for instance.
Speaker 4 (45:36):
Fair, fair assumption? Sometimes?
Speaker 12 (45:38):
Yes, those checks when you added them up, they were
about one thousand dollars a month, right.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
I believe so.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
Yeah, it was like four to sixty a month or
something like that, or every two weeks, I mean.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
Four sixty every two weeks, correct, which is not great
at MAC And there's taxes, a little bit of taxes
taken out, right, So about one thousand dollars a month, correct?
Speaker 9 (46:12):
Now.
Speaker 4 (46:13):
I think you.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
Testified that the state's theory of why this murder occurred
was partially a murder because of the desire of Miss
Adelson to relocate. I think that's what you testified on direct.
Is that fair to say that's fair? You're aware that
(46:45):
the relocation motion was denied in June of twenty thirteen, right, correct,
And that's more than a full year before the murder.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
Right, the was in June of thirteen.
Speaker 3 (47:02):
Yes, murder was in middle of July of twenty fourteen.
Speaker 4 (47:06):
Right, right.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
As part of your investigation, did you learn that no
one really thought the relocation motion was going to be successful.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
I don't know about no one, but there was some
indication they thought it might not be successful.
Speaker 4 (47:28):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
Did you try to speak to miss Adelson's lawyer.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
I did not know.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Tallassi Police apartment did at one point.
Speaker 3 (47:36):
And did they learn that the motion was, as she
says in an email, a.
Speaker 2 (47:41):
Moonshot, I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (47:46):
Now you discussed in your direct examination, you talked about
some of these emails.
Speaker 4 (47:54):
Do you recall that, yes, actually.
Speaker 3 (48:03):
Before we get there, no actual stated those emails you
reviewed them.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
I reviewed some of them, not all of them.
Speaker 4 (48:12):
The team did, Okay, I are the ones that you reviewed.
Speaker 3 (48:15):
Anything in those emails about murder?
Speaker 2 (48:17):
About murder?
Speaker 3 (48:19):
No anything in those emails about violence, not that I
saw no anything in those emails about any type of
illegal activity at all.
Speaker 5 (48:32):
Strange that they didn't want to divulge every bit of
the details of their murder planning, which hadn't started. I
don't believe at that point in these emails.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
Not that I recall, the bride itself wouldn't be illegal.
Speaker 4 (48:51):
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (48:52):
In fact, in regard to the one million dollar email,
I think it's the one that you're referred to. Did
you see emails where they were consulting lawyers about whether
that million dollar offer was legal. I did so fair
to say, as crazy as the emails were, we breathe
are crazy, right, Yes, there was at least some sanity
to make sure what they were doing.
Speaker 2 (49:11):
Was legal, right, one portion of it.
Speaker 3 (49:14):
Yes, Now those emails. Did you see any emails were
any of these ideas were coming from Charlie Aedelson.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
I saw some emails where they were discussed with him.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Apparently, but anytime where he was actually coming up with
the ideas as opposed to being copied on the email
where he says okay, sounds good.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
I think there was some reference of her saying she
discussed it with him, but I did not see an
emails from him.
Speaker 3 (49:37):
Meaning Donna discussing correct correct the one million dollar email.
Speaker 5 (49:44):
Yeah, it doesn't make your client look great. And Charlie
Adelson bemoans this after his conviction on the jailhouse calls
to his mother, Donna Adelson that he was convicted because
of these crazy emails. Your crazy emails got me convicted.
But never says like he's on there being like great idea,
(50:05):
good go and mom dress the kids up in Hitler
youth outfits, convert to Catholicism. Torture Dan Markel essentially psychologically
get to him psychologically, because if they thought any of
that would work, they wouldn't be looking to bribe him.
Speaker 4 (50:27):
I mean.
Speaker 5 (50:29):
Means under the guise of you know, this is a
goal for relocation, but it's really just Donna getting out
her anger, you know, her hatred the whole family. As
Jeffrey Lecas said there, it was like the whole family
pastime my words, not is was hating Dan Markel.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
I think we'll talk about this later in more detail
when you're back, but let's just tie it up here
a little bit. You've listened to mister Edelson on the
phone a lot, right I did. Is it fair to
say he's a big talker?
Speaker 4 (51:06):
That's fair?
Speaker 3 (51:07):
Is it fair to say he repeats himself a lot?
Speaker 4 (51:10):
That is very fair?
Speaker 3 (51:11):
Through your investigation? Are you aware that this one million.
Speaker 5 (51:14):
Dollar that is very fair? Someone who's listened to these
jailhouse tapes, Oh boy, I mean they're all he just
goes over and over the same subject matter, from day
to day to day, over and over, saying the same
things over and over again. But there's some fascinating little
(51:34):
nuggets in there too. Hey, Lolly seventy seven, thanks for
the supersticker. Appreciate your support. Myrna Sultana, thanks for the supersticker.
Appreciate you supporting the channel.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
Idea where mister Edelson was going to lend a third
of a million dollars that he talks to a lot
of people about that idea.
Speaker 4 (51:58):
Are you aware of that for your investigation?
Speaker 2 (52:00):
I am not aware of that.
Speaker 3 (52:09):
Now back to the divorce. Are you aware that the
divorce between Professor Markel and miss Adelson was finalized in
July of twenty and thirteen.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
That's an understanding.
Speaker 3 (52:23):
Yes, correct again, that's about a year before the murder.
Speaker 4 (52:28):
Correct, correct, And.
Speaker 3 (52:33):
After miss Adelson's relocation motion was denied. Are you aware
that she was determined to make a life for herself
in Tallahassee.
Speaker 2 (52:43):
I don't know if I can speak to that.
Speaker 3 (52:44):
Well, let me see if I can help you. You
went through miss Adelson's emails as well in your investigation?
Speaker 2 (52:50):
I did not the team did.
Speaker 3 (52:51):
Did anyone from the team talk to you about those emails?
Speaker 2 (52:54):
Some of them? All?
Speaker 3 (52:55):
Right? Well, let's see if you're aware of some of these.
Are you aware that she was looking to buy property
in Tall.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
No, it was not.
Speaker 3 (53:01):
You didn't see any emails to that effect.
Speaker 4 (53:03):
I did not personally know.
Speaker 3 (53:04):
Are you aware that she was looking to enroll her
kids in schools a new school in Tallahassee for the
fall of twenty fourteen, in other words, after the time
when mister Markel was ready.
Speaker 2 (53:14):
I know there was discussions about that with mister Markle.
I'm aware of that.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
Are you aware that she was scheduling plans with friends
in Tallahassee for August of twenty fourteen and for the
four fall of thirteen, all of which would have occurred
after the murder. Are you aware of that? No, you
didn't see those in any emails that you review.
Speaker 4 (53:30):
I did not see those.
Speaker 2 (53:31):
No.
Speaker 3 (53:32):
Are you aware that she was scheduling business meetings for
late July twenty fourteen.
Speaker 5 (53:40):
Well, it would be awfully weird if she had no
plans after from July eighteenth, two thousand and fourteen on,
it would be awfully weird, looking point the figure, redditor, Sorry,
I can't schedule that business meeting because unfortunately, my ex
(54:04):
husband's gonna get murdered and I won't be in Tallahassee.
Or just saying I won't be in Dallahassee, everybody would
be running into the police office and figuring Wendy the emails.
Speaker 4 (54:17):
I did not see that.
Speaker 3 (54:18):
Now, are you aware that she purchased plane tickets leaving
for Tallahassee to go to a wedding out of state?
There's plane tickets were purchased in June, but they were
purchased for an October wedding. She bought plane tickets to
leave from Tallahassee.
Speaker 4 (54:31):
Are you aware of that?
Speaker 3 (54:33):
Are you aware that her family, including mister Adelson, it
was planning to come up to Tallahassee in August twenty
fourteen when Miss Adelson was going to be honored at FSU. No,
you didn't see any emails on that either, did you?
Speaker 4 (54:47):
I didn't, But.
Speaker 3 (54:54):
You're aware that the state subpoenaed miss Adelson's emails right.
Speaker 4 (55:01):
Now?
Speaker 3 (55:03):
You also mentioned this. I like to call it the
grandmother motion.
Speaker 4 (55:07):
Can we call it that?
Speaker 2 (55:08):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (55:09):
In March of twenty and fourteen, there's these It actually
starts earlier.
Speaker 4 (55:14):
It starts that.
Speaker 2 (55:16):
Big binder in this February Yeah, all right, Well that
it's okay.
Speaker 3 (55:21):
Somewhere in that big binder there's a bunch of litigation
back and forth with Miss Adolson and Professor Markel regarding
money yes. And at some point in the course of
a motion that Wendy Edolson filed, Professor Markel files a
(55:41):
motion back, and that's when he he seeks to have
only supervised visits of the kids with with Donna Adelson.
That's the motion you were talking about with miss Capital correct. Correct,
And that occurs in early twenty fourteen, right, it does.
Now the motion doesn't get heard because Miss Adelson's lawyer
(56:03):
has to recuse herself, right, I believe so.
Speaker 4 (56:06):
And she has to.
Speaker 3 (56:06):
Recuse herself because Professor Markel makes allegations against that lawyer
as well.
Speaker 2 (56:11):
I'm not aware of that, but okay, And.
Speaker 3 (56:13):
So that's part of the reason of the delay of
why the motion's not heard.
Speaker 4 (56:17):
Are you aware of that?
Speaker 2 (56:18):
I am correct.
Speaker 3 (56:20):
Are you aware that is the course of this litigation
in that binder? I don't want to find the page
I will be able to that the court chastised was
critical of Professor Markel on this motion.
Speaker 2 (56:36):
No, I'm not aware of that.
Speaker 3 (56:37):
Are you aware that the court highlighted that the promotion
probably wouldn't be granted?
Speaker 2 (56:42):
No, I did not did not see that jurious at it.
Speaker 3 (56:49):
Are you aware that on July eleventh, twenty fourteen. This
is months after that motion.
Speaker 4 (57:00):
Let me better.
Speaker 3 (57:02):
When you study this case, is it fair to say
that with all the litigation there were good times, good
periods of times after the divorce between Professor Markel and
miss Adelson as well.
Speaker 2 (57:13):
Right, I can't speak to that. My partner did most
of that research, so I was not very familiar with it.
Speaker 3 (57:18):
Fair enough, while you were aware that on July eleventh,
twenty fourteen, so this is several months after the grandmother
motion that Professor Markel asked Donna and Harvey Aedelson to
watch the kids.
Speaker 2 (57:32):
For him, I am not aware of that.
Speaker 4 (57:34):
Are you aware that he.
Speaker 3 (57:35):
Had a function to go to and Miss Adolson had
another function to go to, and he didn't have childcare
for them, and he asked them to watch the kids
for him.
Speaker 4 (57:45):
No? Seven?
Speaker 5 (57:47):
Right, is this Wendy Edelson's testimony. This is the last
time Donna Adelson's song that he was asked to watch
the kids and Donna made him banana bread that he
could need because it was not kosher. There non kosher
of him.
Speaker 3 (58:04):
Do you feel for the murder?
Speaker 4 (58:06):
I'm aware of it.
Speaker 5 (58:11):
No one believes that story. I mean, he's throwing that
out like there's some kind of proof for that.
Speaker 3 (58:30):
Comm Ms Kapelman on direct asked you about a life
insurance policy.
Speaker 4 (58:44):
Do you remember that? Yes, And she asked you.
Speaker 3 (58:48):
She made it seem like, well, let me be clear.
Was it your position that Wendy Eedelson gained two million
dollars from that life insurance policy?
Speaker 2 (58:56):
I believe there is a I believe that mister Markel's
sister had custody of that and is supposed to distribute
to I don't know all the ins and outut it,
but don't believe distribute to the children as needed.
Speaker 3 (59:05):
So let me be clear so the jury's not confused.
Are you aware that Professor Markel had a life insurance
policy in March of twenty twelve.
Speaker 2 (59:15):
I'm not sure the dates, but I knew we had one.
Speaker 3 (59:17):
And that originally Wendy Aedelson was the beneficiary.
Speaker 4 (59:20):
Of that policy. That sounds right.
Speaker 3 (59:22):
But in October of twenty twelve, two years before his murdered,
he signed the policy over making his sister the beneficiary
and the custodian for his boys.
Speaker 4 (59:35):
Are you aware of that?
Speaker 2 (59:36):
I wouldn't shure the date, but yes, I'm aware of that.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
So Wendy Edelson isn't permitted to get any money from
that policy without Professor Markel's sister.
Speaker 4 (59:43):
Correct, Yes, without her sister. Yes.
Speaker 3 (59:45):
I just want to me sure that's clear, especially if
you've been a fbig for almost twenty five years.
Speaker 4 (59:58):
Correct, mostly in Miami, right.
Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
No, in here in Tallahassee, in Tallahassee.
Speaker 3 (01:00:02):
Okay, apologies, you've investigated, fair to say, maybe more than
a dozen murders.
Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
Fair to say, how many murders for hire have you
done recently in your life? Over my lifetime, probably half
a dozen, but in the past two years too.
Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
So putting this case aside, which I know you believe
is a murder for high. Putting this case aside in
those cases.
Speaker 5 (01:00:29):
That you've done that were I know you think it's
a murder for hire, but really it's a extortion case
where a murder was done on spec and then they
extorted someone on a payment plan and gave them a
payment plan. Specifically, the Latin Kings gave Charlie Edelson the
payment plan where he could pay it off. Very reasonable.
(01:00:55):
What was it, three thousand dollars a month, very reasonable
payment plan. Those Latin Kings are known for. Okay, so
that'll give you an idea some of the evidence Donna
Edelson wants thrown out. I will be live tomorrow morning
(01:01:15):
before her nine am Eastern Time hearing. It's the final
hearing in Donna Edelson's case before she goes to trial,
so I will be streaming it live. Meet me there.
I think. I say, I'm gonna start at eight forty five.
(01:01:35):
I might start a little earlier than that. I might
start at eight thirty. So look for me tomorrow morning.
But before I go, I'm in this episode the way
I end so many of these episodes about the murder
(01:01:57):
of Dan Marcel by reading a victim impact letter. In
this case, so this was from Sigfredo Garcia's trial and
Katherine mcbannala's trial. Actually it looks like more like twenty nineteen,
(01:02:23):
so Katherine mcbanner was second trial. Maybe it was, okay.
I met an episode from September twenty third, twenty nineteen.
I met Dan Danny Marcel in the fall of nineteen
ninety six. I'll make it a little bit bigger for you.
(01:02:47):
We were both graduate students in the UK, with us
both being from Toronto and having fairly similar backgrounds. Conversation
and friendship came easily to us. I'm writing this letter
to share with you how deeply impacted I was by
the senseless murder of my dear friend. I knew Dan
(01:03:10):
as a college friend, young lawyer, just starting out with
an eye for down the road to a career in
an ivy league academic environment, as a man in love
with the most amazing and beautiful woman in the world
quote unquote, and finally, as a caring and loving father
(01:03:30):
to his two boys. Those boys meant the universe and
beyond to him. He would do anything for them and
often did so. I was sad and when one summer
while Dan and his spouse and boys were visiting with
me and my husband at our home in Toronto, his
(01:03:53):
spouse revealed to me privately that she believed she had
quote married. Then, later that evening, after Dan and his
family had departed, I shared Wendy's confession to my husband,
and we both said to one another something like, how
(01:04:13):
Sad will probably end up being a single dad at
some point, despite him being still madly in love with Wendy.
How I wish that Dan were a single dad today.
With his huge circle of friends, colleagues, family members, and
loved ones met, any of whom came to see Dan
(01:04:36):
almost as though he were family, myself included. I just
know his life would have continued to be full of joy, love, generosity, humor, kindness,
and warmth. His spirit was too indefagtable, his heart too
full of love, He was too resilient to he brought
(01:05:00):
love for long. Dan was murdered during a time of
personal upheaval in his life, at a moment in time
when he was indeed feeling low, and yet whenever we
would speak during those anguish filled months, he would start
by saying, how's Haley, how are you doing? That was
(01:05:23):
just Dan. Before closing, I'd like to share one story
with you that says everything to my mind about how
Dan envisioned how his marriage would be if he found
the right partner. Many years before he and Wendy met,
while we were still in grad school, he told me
that when he married, he hoped to find a woman
(01:05:46):
who might feel exactly as he did. That when, for instance,
upon visiting a doctor for this or that ailment, one
of them would say, while the other nodded in agreement,
doctor were here today because we're feeling pretty lousy about
my husband wife's ailment. Can you help us? Losing Dan
(01:06:10):
meant losing upright and sparkly light in my life, a
source of happiness and joy, a warm and loving friend
who always looked out for those whom he loved. It
is my deepest hope that justice is served through this
and forthcoming trials. Sincerely, Hazley Meslin, PhD, Toronto, Canada. That
(01:06:45):
is the end of this episode. Please hit the like
button on your way out support the channel. There are
links you can find in the description of this episode
way so you can support the channel. You can send
me a Venmo, buy me a coffee, become a Patreon,
(01:07:06):
and get access to content you won't find anywhere else.
Eva says, thank you for all your past dreams catching up.
Thank you Eva for listening. I will see you all
tomorrow morning for this hearing, so I'll be live starting
(01:07:26):
latest at eight forty five am, maybe a little earlier.
Look for me, maybe a little earlier. Donna's last hearing
before her trial. We'll watch it together. Starts at nine
am Eastern, but if you want to hang out beforehand,
come come to the channel a little earlier. Thanks so much.
(01:07:48):
Have a great night, everybody.
Speaker 6 (01:08:07):
Ohna, what a steech your head. You got it a
murder because you wanted to raise your daughter's kids.
Speaker 5 (01:08:20):
Tama has he It's just.
Speaker 6 (01:08:22):
To stop on the way to civilization. In Miami is
where all the fancy people are. The TV is about five.
You can't get away from that. Toutoe tato who hope
you know the guy you pay? Then you can't get
(01:08:45):
away from that.
Speaker 13 (01:08:47):
Oh Hodna, what a stech your head.
Speaker 6 (01:08:52):
You thought chill was just for the little people, but
now you're so blankets with the locked up proof. You're
a Gama is locked down and you'll one way ride to.
Speaker 4 (01:09:04):
Feed on your blood.
Speaker 6 (01:09:18):
Gona, what a stitch your head. Your family exiled from
the social circles you swam in. We all know you
never made that banana break your offer to babysit for dare,
But you'll soon be nke in license plates and thinking
(01:09:41):
Baba could have been.
Speaker 13 (01:09:42):
Oh Gona, you had to plan a murder.
Speaker 14 (01:10:00):
The dump under them, start at them at the punt,
the down
Speaker 10 (01:11:01):
Three
Donna Agelson from Coral Springs, Florida.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I want to hear all about your Donna.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Let's well, I'm a domestic coordinator.
Speaker 4 (00:11):
A domestic coordinator.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Yes, I'm responsible for the activities, classes and lessons of
my son Robert, who was sixteen, Charlie who was twelve,
Whendy who was ten, my husband.
Speaker 5 (00:21):
Harvey, who's in the audience, and my.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Dog's Sam all right, and how old is SAMs?
Speaker 6 (00:25):
Five?
Speaker 4 (00:26):
Five? Give my best ten?
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Nice to have your hair crop Anders bottles.
Speaker 7 (00:31):
Worked down, consonance of there's.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
A lot of lad to have this again personally as
categories still your turn, letter, beats hell, help, no hell? Donna,
m yes, they're two ms. Let him come up your
five seconds? Person Ellen, okay, yes.
Speaker 7 (00:56):
Kim K Mustard Maker, Yes, there's one age time starts now.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Mm hmm Donna, yes, mister.
Speaker 8 (01:28):
Nice m h.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
You are listening to the ROBERTA.
Speaker 7 (01:41):
Glass True Crime Report putting the true back in true crime.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
From New York City.
Speaker 9 (01:53):
ROBERTA. Glass is now on the record.
Speaker 5 (01:59):
M okay, how is everybody?
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Hello?
Speaker 5 (02:20):
Vicki, tater Mia, Debbie Robin, Hello everybody, So it is
the night before or the eve before Tatna Adelson's last
hearing before her trial it starts August nineteenth, for the
(02:46):
murder and conspiracy to commit murder of her former son
in law, Dan Markel. Since Dan Markel was in Florida
State University law professor, he was married to Donna Adelson's daughter,
(03:07):
Wendy Adelson. They had divorced and they were still in
the process of working out their divorce, and it had
gotten very very vicious contentious. What are the words you'd
like to use for it? But I thought i'd talk
(03:33):
about how this is really Donna's last chance to silence
two witnesses in this case that are really like mystery
witnesses because so much of the filings concerning this and
concerning this second investigation, which is almost like a second bump.
(03:55):
So in the opening you saw the first bump. So
before any of the Adolson's got arrested for this crime,
and Katherine mcbanua too, there was a bump. So a
(04:15):
undercover agent handed Donna Adelson a article of the murder
about the murder of Dan Markel with the number five
thousand dollars written on it, and he said that we
know you're taking care of one of the shooters in
the case. Sick Fredo Garcia, we want you to take
(04:39):
care of Tato. And this is the nickname for Luis Rivera.
And it did what it was meant to do, which
was to get all the conspirators talking in this case
and making some very good evidence against themselves. Now that
(05:01):
Donna Edelson was arrested at the airport, fleeing before the
grand jury could indict her in this case, or trying
to flee with a one way ticket to Vietnam, a
non extradition country. She was specifically looking for countries without
(05:22):
extradition treaties and she had chosen Vietnam. So after she
got arrested and she was in jail, we hear rumblings
of a prison snitch for the state. And what has
(05:43):
been reported, and it could all be wrong, is that
let me throw up a picture of her again. I'm
sure everybody's tired of looking at her. But this woman,
Terrina Bernhardt, what's been reported is that she is going
(06:06):
to testify that Donna Adelson was looking through and using
Harvey to do it, looking to was soliciting favorable testimony
and offering was it money? Hasn't really been said, was
it commissary but enticements to give her favorable testimony in
(06:29):
her trial. Also, so this is one of the witnesses
she wants to silence. And they say there's no truth
to any of this investigation. They refer to it as
an investigation. There's huge passages in the filings in these
motions that refers to the investigation and it's all blacked out.
(06:51):
Also another witness is someone else who was in Leon County.
So Drina, if I didn't make this clear, was in
Leon County jail with Donna Adelson and word has been
this is what's been reported was that they got very close.
(07:15):
And on the evidence list is a painting I assume
by Donna Aedelson given to Drena Bernhardt. That is a
piece of evidence in this case to show a relationship.
But also in Leon County and then Wakola County looks
(07:37):
like with Donna Aedelson, but I think this is a
better time. In Leon County is this woman Patricia Bird,
who was in there for violating her offender sex offender status.
(08:07):
She didn't notify them that she was when she moved
within twenty four hours, so she was doing some time
on that. So they desperately want those people not to talk.
And it's going to be very compelling tomorrow testimony to watch,
our argument to watch, but more than testimony, argument to watch.
(08:29):
Excuse me from Donna Aedelson's defense team of Jackie Fulford
and Josh Zelman, how are they going to talk about
this investigation and this motion and lemonye to really throw
out the lion's share of their testimony and they're saying
none of it's true. There was also reported that Donna
(08:52):
Adelson threw Harvey Aedelson and her lawyers was looking to
cause harm to people including Grena Bernhardt's mother, her your
own son, Robert Adelson, who's set to testify in this
(09:12):
case and will be a devastating witness at he testify.
He's the doctor who's ear nose and throat doctor of
State New York who exiled himself from the family after
coming to the conclusion that the family was behind the
murderer of Dan Markel, meaning Harvey Aedolson on a son
(09:38):
who's been convicted and given a life sentence, Wendy Edelson,
who benefited the most from this murder and remains an
unindicted co conspirator, and her husband Harvey who's remains an
unindicted co conspirator, so that the Adelson family and Robert
(10:03):
Aedelson concluded his family is fine. It should he he's
been deposed by the defense, should he doc very damaging
for Dona. Of course they want to silence him too.
So I've been over. I mean, I can pull it
up and we can look at it together. But here
(10:25):
is their motion and lemony, which is like motion to
throw out, says missus. Adelson has been indicted in this
case for murder, murder and conspiracy, one count of conspiracy
to commit first degree murder and one count of solicitation
of first degree murder. The state disclosed in on October seventh,
(10:48):
twenty twenty five, the existence of a new investigation that
began after a jailhouse informant contacted the state in December
twenty twenty four. So this sounds like Drina Bernhardt may
not be the first informants information led to a second informant,
(11:11):
although both informants made statements which were consisted on a
limited basis, so they're saying their statements were strangely consistent.
The vast majority of the first informants claims were either
established to be false or could not be corroborated by
this motion, Missus Adelson moves to exclude evidence from the
(11:33):
new investigation. So and it goes on. I mean, you
can see the black marks on the end. But if
you go to page two in this document, you can
see how much is redacted. I mean you can see
when Miss Bernhardt was interviewed December twentieth, January thirteenth, January
(11:57):
twenty ninth, and February eleventh. I mean, and it just
goes on. I mean, look, I mean it's hard to
know what all this is about. And I mean it's
gonna be a real bombshell if it's not really disclosed
(12:19):
in argument tomorrow and the first time we hear about
it is at trial. Could be So that was one
of the things that they're trying to remove. The other
is they desperately don't want Jason Newland an investigator in
(12:43):
this case. And Pat Sandford I should have really played
the arrest opening of don Agilson, but you see him
arresting her at the airport. He's the FBI officer involved
in this case. They want any of his Hindians out
of this case. And I thought we could look together
(13:05):
at his testimony, and look at how little of it
is really opinions. So let me just show you the
filing one minute so opinion testimony of Jason Newlan and
(13:37):
Patrick Sandford defended Donna eelsen Oh's They were deposed on
July ninth. Jason Newlan was deposed by Donna's defense team
and on July sixteenth, Patrick Sandford was disposed, And during
(14:00):
their respective depositions, both Newlyn and Sandford expressed opinions on
the new investigation. So again, it's this new investigation. They
want this totally thrown out much to be hugely damaging
for Donna. Whatever it is, they claim there's no truth
to it. I mean, if there's no truth to it,
(14:21):
I don't even think it would qualify as evidence. But okay,
the opinions expressed by Newlyn and Sandford do not concern distance, time, size, weight, form,
or identity. Rather, they concern the truthfulness of allegations raised
during the new investigation, allegations the vast majority of our
(14:43):
which were not corroborated by evidence. So then they should
have nothing to worry about about this new investigation. There's
no evidence to prove it, but testimony is evidence. They're
looking for physical evidence. I don't know. Sounds like they
wired tapped Harvey and didn't sound like too much came
(15:05):
out of it. I don't know. We'll see, we'll see.
It's hard to know what's going on with these filings,
so many of them are so retacted. But I thought
today we'd look at Pat Sandford's testimony from Charlie Edelson's trial,
(15:27):
and the FBI, by the way, was behind this new
investigation too, so and just take a look at some
of this evidence will come into play. A lot of
it will come into play for Donna, if not all
of it. Take a listen.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Please say your name and spell your name, Patrick Sandford.
I'm a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Speaker 9 (16:00):
How long have you been with the FBI?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Approximately? Live over twenty four years, two of which I
was here in Tallahassee.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
What are your duties there?
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I'm a special agent. I investigate cases and protect national security.
Speaker 9 (16:22):
And were you assigned to investigate a murder case involving
the murder of Dan Mark Hell?
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (16:27):
I was.
Speaker 9 (16:28):
Were you the lead investigator on that case?
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Correct?
Speaker 9 (16:31):
Did you assist the Tallhassee Police Department in that case?
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Yes? I did.
Speaker 9 (16:35):
Why was the FBI included in that particular investigation.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
At the beginning, they had several leads, like interviews, things
that they need to track down that were outside of
the city.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
By the way, I just want to apologize to Wesley
Love's October fest who sent me a super yesterday. I'm
so sorry I just missed it. Wesley. I appreciate it
so much. Thank you for the super jet. Sorry I
missed it. Dean Walker, thank you for the supersticker. I
(17:11):
appreciate your support. Okay, back to that'd say e Bird.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
City of Tallahassee that we have agents, you know, all
over the country, so we're able to facilitate some of
those leads and track down certain aspects of the case.
Speaker 9 (17:31):
And were some of those leads in the Miami area,
I guess they were? And were you assisted by Miami
authorities as well in the investigation?
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Correct?
Speaker 9 (17:41):
As part of the investigation where the people that were
considered to be closest to the victim interviewed, Yes, they were,
And would that include the ex wife Wendy Adelson? Yes,
what did you learn in the investigation about the relationship
between the victim and his ex wife Wendy Adelson?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
They had gone to a through a very contentious divorce,
which even after the divorce is finalized, they still had
several issues that they dealt with through the court system.
Speaker 9 (18:09):
I'm going to product with what I marked as states exited.
Do you recognize this exhibit?
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Yes?
Speaker 9 (18:22):
I do. You had an opportunity to look at that
exhibit before?
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Yes, I have.
Speaker 9 (18:26):
Okay, is that a fair and apporite copy of Lindy
agels And and Dan Martell's divorce file?
Speaker 4 (18:32):
That's correct from the third Office here.
Speaker 9 (18:34):
In Leon County.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Correct, Judge, At this time I asked to move.
Speaker 9 (18:38):
Into evidence states Exhibit fifty six. At this time, did
you review this divorce file as part of your investigation
in this case?
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Yes, I did not.
Speaker 9 (18:55):
How many pages are in.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
That around five hundred and seventy six, I believe, And.
Speaker 9 (19:02):
I want to draw your attention to a couple things specifically,
like on page eighty two.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
That file is just so outrageous the size of if
you're listening on podcasts, the folder could not be any bigger.
It just is. They bring out a giant folder, thousands
of thousand plus pages. It looks like maybe four or
(19:33):
five books at least of that consist of Dan Markel
and Wendy Edelson's legal filings concerning the divorce.
Speaker 9 (19:47):
Paragraph thirteen, they were arguing over everything, right, all the
belongings correct, down to a tennis racket.
Speaker 4 (19:59):
That's correct, okay.
Speaker 9 (20:02):
As part of these proceedings, did Wendy Adelson seek to
relocate with her children from Tallahassee to Miami, Florida.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Yes, she did, right?
Speaker 9 (20:11):
And why did she want to relocate to South Florida?
According to the filings.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
The filing stated that she had a job offer in
South Florida that was more lucrative than her current job,
all right.
Speaker 9 (20:24):
And did mister Markel object to her petition to relocate
with the children?
Speaker 4 (20:29):
He did, right?
Speaker 9 (20:30):
Did he file quite a lengthy and emphatic objection to that,
Yes he did. And in his motion, and that's going
to be on page eighty two. Why did he indicate
he believed was the sole reason that miss Adelson wanted
to move to South Florida?
Speaker 2 (20:50):
He says that he stated that the sole reason would
was because she could relocate with the party's minor children
to be near her parents.
Speaker 9 (21:00):
Pearance, and was the relocation petition that Wendy filed was.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
That ruled on I guess it was all right?
Speaker 9 (21:09):
So what did the court say about that?
Speaker 2 (21:11):
The court ruled against that and ruled against her, saying
she had to stay in Tallassie with the children.
Speaker 9 (21:16):
And if I said that was June twentieth, twentieth of
twenty thirteen, does that sound right?
Speaker 4 (21:22):
That's correct?
Speaker 5 (21:23):
Okay?
Speaker 9 (21:24):
When was the divorce made final? And for that, I'll
direct you to page four fifty seven and four fifty eight.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
I believe it was made final in July thirty first
of twenty thirteen, I believe, all right.
Speaker 9 (21:36):
And did that conclude the issues between the legal issues
between miss Adelson and professor.
Speaker 5 (22:10):
One of the things that would have been hugely upsetting
to Donna Edelson is to have only supervised visits with
her grandchildren. And Pat Sanford's going to talk about it
in a second. That was what Dan Markel was asking for.
(22:30):
And am I muted, tater? Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 10 (22:37):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (22:38):
No, I guess you can hear me. Okay, thank you.
So she would have found that hugely, hugely infuriating, and
anything to that would have marred her public persona, her
(22:58):
perfect public person sona, really her phony public persona. She
would have found hugely humiliating to have to tell her
friends that she would have to have or if it
got around that she could only see her grandchildren with
a supervisor because of her own behavior. That I think
(23:21):
is one of the things that really lit a match
and created a lot of a lot of anger towards
Stan Marcel. But if you're Dan Marcel, how how are
you going to put up with your former mother in
(23:44):
law telling your children that you're stupid, that you're this,
that you're that. I mean, they claim it never happened.
Charlie Edelson said. Children can't repeat things like that. I
beg to differ. They can't remember and repeat things like
(24:04):
Grandma says you're stupid. I think they can. Strangely, it's
Donna Aedelson's favorite insults, stupid and the kids got it correct?
Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.
Speaker 9 (24:18):
Markel, No, it did not, all right, So they continue
to file quite a lot of filings after that, Is
that right?
Speaker 4 (24:24):
That's correct?
Speaker 9 (24:26):
In fact, there's over two hundred and fifty more pages
of stuff after the divorce.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
Was final, So correct, correct? Okat.
Speaker 9 (24:33):
I want to direct your attention to March twenty sixth
of twenty fourteen, did mister Markel file emotion seeking some
relief related to the grandmother Donna Adelson? Yes, he did,
And what specifically was he seeking in reference to Donna Adelson.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
He was seeking to limit her visitation rights onto where
they had to be had to be monitored, supervised, supervised
by another adult, that's correct.
Speaker 9 (25:04):
And why in the pleading did mister Markel indicate that
this supervision was needed?
Speaker 2 (25:11):
I'm sorry, do you mean could you refresh the uh
PA look at for fifty?
Speaker 4 (25:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (25:20):
Four fifty.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Mister Markel stated that he that did children inform him
that grandma says you're stupid and that she says you're
trying to take your son Shines away.
Speaker 9 (25:50):
The grandma meaning Donna Hadelson, that's correct, was saying that
Dan Mark telling the kids that Dan Markel was stupid.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
That's correct.
Speaker 9 (26:00):
Did you also come into possession of some emails that
were exchanged between Wendy Aedelson and Donna Ailson?
Speaker 2 (26:07):
We did?
Speaker 9 (26:07):
All right, I'm going to show you what I've marked
as States Exhibit fifty seven. Have you ever had an
opportunity to review those emails? Yes, I have, prior to today,
you can't find Have you had a chance to review
those before today.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
I have.
Speaker 9 (26:24):
Anything in those emails that goes to a motive and
your investigation.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
Yes there is.
Speaker 9 (26:29):
What is that.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
She was being very assertives missus Adlson Donald Ailson was
being very assertive with Wendy Aedelson, trying to influence her
to do different things to mister Markel to get him
to agree to let her and the children to move
to South Florida.
Speaker 9 (26:47):
And what was the thing that was expressly stated asssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
(30:59):
es as the most important part of Wendy's whole divorce
and litigation.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
He was relocation in South Florida to be close to
the family, all right?
Speaker 9 (31:09):
And was there mention in those emails of a bribe
that was to be off.
Speaker 5 (31:14):
So if you go through these emails, I mean so
much of them are just about like just a total
psychological warfare against Dan Markel. I mean, she says in them,
oh boy, she says, let's just go okay, she says,
(31:49):
they we don't want Danny to continue his religious influence
over these children anymore than what he's already done. If
he keeps us up and they don't want to eat
in your non kosher home, and if they see you
don't want to attend their shool functions, you will be
the outsider. As they get older and more involved under
Jibber's religious influence, they will be able to request which
(32:10):
parent they want to live with. Don't allow Gibbers to
have this power and control over them. In reality, he's
going to have to have the same control over you.
Dad and I have changed our lives. This is year
to support and assist you and the boys in every
way possible. Charlie has accepted the loss in the office
business income for us to do this because he loves
(32:30):
you and wants only the best possible future for you.
So there's a motive for murder right there, for Charlie
to be involved in this murder right there. And it's
time for you to show us that you can put
on the performance of your life for the next few weeks.
And she says, take control from him, get him psychologically.
(32:53):
You cannot tell anyone this is an act. Somehow it
will get back to him. She uses the demeaning nickname.
You've been Now you have one final opportunity to make
him angry. We want him ticked off so he realizes
that he could lose control over his kids. I mean,
(33:13):
power and control is what this case is all about.
It's what so many of these cases are all about.
With this, these psychopaths that are that I talk about
in these true crime cases. We plan to make a
financial offered him to allow this relocation. Say they weren't
expecting this to work. It's like change the kid's religion
(33:36):
and this would work. It was just to get him,
sort of begging, get him in a just gain power
and control over him through this psychological war, the warfare
that they were going to do. You need to work
this plan and will help you through it so that
(33:59):
it may have affect how much we will and it
may affect how much we will offer him. Maybe he'd
be willing to let you relocate if he knew his
children would attend a private Hebrew academy like Donna Klein
in Boca, or perhaps he'd liked them to invite him
to a Christmas party or their other Sunday school. I mean,
(34:20):
why would he think that Wendy would if he really
believed Wendy's act, she couldn't tell anyone that dressing the
kids up and taking, you know, taking pictures of them
in front of a Catholic church and putting it up
on social media, saying New Beginnings wasn't really a real
(34:40):
conversion to Catholicism. If he didn't, if he believed it
was a real conversion, what would make him think that
Wendy would just drop Catholicism as soon as soon as
she went to Miami. It was just about scaring, scaring
(35:01):
him and getting and getting and punishing him psychologically, and
that really seems to be the real aim. In another email,
she writes, Okay, can I hold on one second? She writes, Okay,
(35:37):
you need to see whatever he Oh, it's ridiculous that
he can depose you and you can't depose him. Just
seems ridiculous for him to be able to pose you,
but for you and Kristen not to give him the
same crap he's pulling on you. It's time to give
it to him. I mean, just just be as cruel
(36:04):
as you can be to this guy. Don't tone it down,
just turn it up.
Speaker 9 (36:11):
Or to Dan Markel to potentially facilitate this relocation, there
was who was going to pay for the prime.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
There was gonna be a three way payment between Donna
and Harvey Adelson. We're going to pay thirty three percent
of it, Charlie Adelson would pay thirty three percent, and
then Wendy would pay the other thirty three percent.
Speaker 9 (36:30):
All right? And what was the total amount of this
potential prime?
Speaker 2 (36:34):
One million dollars?
Speaker 9 (36:43):
All right? Was there any financial benefit to Wendy Adelson
that occurred as a result of Dan Markhill's death?
Speaker 4 (36:52):
There was?
Speaker 9 (36:53):
What were those finite that benefit or benefits?
Speaker 2 (36:56):
There was at least I believe, a couple of life
insurance policies, one of which was around two million dollars.
There was Social Security benefits to the kids that were
provided I believe like forty eight hundred dollars a month.
There was a four one K that he left behind
in some other some other accounts.
Speaker 9 (37:18):
Pension as well.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
Yes, there was a pension, okay, and.
Speaker 9 (37:22):
In some deferred comp two hundred and seventeen thousand dollars there,
that's correct. You mentioned the four one K. Do you
recall how much money was in that.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
I'd done off the top of my head.
Speaker 9 (37:34):
Right, Is there something that could refresh your memory on
that possibly there was one hundred thousand dollars sound right, Yes,
it does all right. As part of the investigation in
this case, you looked at sort of the people closest
(37:55):
to Dan. Did you've also investigated the day of the
homicide in his routine or activities that day?
Speaker 4 (38:01):
We did?
Speaker 9 (38:02):
And what did you learn about his schedule that day?
Speaker 4 (38:05):
That morning?
Speaker 2 (38:06):
He had custody of the kids that day, his two
children and his two boys. He took them to daycare
over off of West Arp Street, dropped them off around
eight fifty am, and then drove back across town and
went to Premiere Gym right off of Clay Boulevard Thomasville Road,
Capital Circle area.
Speaker 9 (38:25):
Was there any surveillance images captured outside the gym that
showed the vehicles coming and going from there?
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Yes, there was some exterior cameras on the gym itself,
on the roof of the gym.
Speaker 9 (38:37):
And did that surveillance were you able to identify from
that surveillance which video, I mean, which video which vehicle
was Dan Markell's vehicle arriving at the gym?
Speaker 2 (38:47):
Yes, we were okay.
Speaker 9 (38:49):
And was there another vehicle that appeared to be a
suspect vehicle captured in this video, that's correct. And why
did you describe or why am I describing this other
vehicle as suspect vehicle.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
We did obtain multiple pieces of footage video footage around
town also showing that appeared a light green Prius was
following mister Markle wherever he went that morning.
Speaker 9 (39:15):
And was that description of a vehicle consistent with the
description that mister geiber gave us of the vehicle that
he saw leaving the crime scene.
Speaker 5 (39:24):
That's correct, Charlie. Charlie Adelson looks so sick, doesn't any
He looks like he's going to throw up through most
of his trial, the nervous blinking, the pale pallor to
his skin. So he goes through just the amazing lengths
(39:47):
they went to get evidence in this case, all the
and he could basically monitor almost every every aspect of
the killers. And here comes his cross examination by Dan Crashbaund,
Charlie Adolson's lawyer. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
I don't know if I can speak to that.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Well, let me see if I can help you. You
went through miss Adelson's emails as well in your investigation.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
I did not, the team did.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
Sorry, I'm a little ahead here, Let's get back a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Word of monitoring her in late twenty fifteen, probably November,
based on electronic surveillance on her residence. Plus we also
had we're monitoring her phone on location service on her
phone historically and.
Speaker 9 (40:41):
Respectively too, And how long was that the case? How
long was your name?
Speaker 5 (40:46):
So this is I believe they're talking about Donna being monitored,
and Donna's gonna has her own experts and forensics and
digital forensics, and she's to call into question the evidence
against her, every piece of evidence basically against her. It
sounds like in this forthcoming trial, honor, what period of time.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
On electronic video surveillance was from November of fifteen until
until she no longer lived at that apartment?
Speaker 9 (41:19):
Right through any of those means that you described, were
you able to deduce what it was she was doing
for the Ailsen Institute in person? Orderly?
Speaker 2 (41:27):
No, not at all.
Speaker 5 (41:30):
Oh no, he's talking about Katie. But still anything that
any way that they surveiled Donna, the tapes that they
have against her, Donna is going to refute it with
her own experts, all right, and.
Speaker 9 (41:46):
We're going to hear We heard an opening that there
was a wire tap in this case. Any anything on
the wire tap that indicated.
Speaker 5 (41:56):
What that that's part of the recording. It's not me. That
horrible high pitch sound.
Speaker 9 (42:05):
She was doing for that business.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
There's a couple of references about cleaning up on the weekends.
Speaker 9 (42:12):
That was about it, though, okay, and again any we
would have known if she'd gone there to clean up
on the weekends, right, at least during the time frame
she described.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
That's correct, and that didn't happen.
Speaker 4 (42:22):
He did not, Okay, one man.
Speaker 5 (42:29):
Dun yeah, Lollie perfectly said, you can't use the evidence,
(42:50):
this evidence against me. It makes me lookful.
Speaker 10 (42:54):
There's a couple of man, if you can move the left,
turn slightly over the left, and it's not.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
I think so.
Speaker 10 (43:07):
Trying up to jockey with the microphones that might be
causing something beating bot Okay.
Speaker 2 (43:16):
M m.
Speaker 11 (43:21):
H kah, good afternoon, yeah, ok yeah, h h.
Speaker 9 (43:45):
Kay.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Let's actually start where we left off. The checks okay, okay, Uh.
Speaker 3 (43:53):
The checks began two months after the date that Professor
Markel was murdered, give or take.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
That's what the date on the checks were for that employment, correct.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
And the checks were in batches, right, often.
Speaker 2 (44:09):
They seem to be the sequence of the check numbers
were in batches.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Correct, So.
Speaker 5 (44:16):
Examining talking about the checks ways in which Katie was
paid by Donna, also damning evidence against Donna that's coming
into trial A day says Donna will be going back
to civilization soon in prison. That's what. I don't know
if you guys saw the thumbnail, but it says shortstop
on the way to prison. I mean, that's what this
(44:40):
trial is. Really. It seems inevitable. I'd be so shocked
or she didn't get convicted, but you never know which
way jury's going to go.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
So everyone understands what that means. You would see a
check for check number one, two, three, and four, for instance,
and you would see those checks even though they were
the next checks in the book. They'd be for payments
every two weeks essentially.
Speaker 4 (45:10):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (45:10):
What I observed was a few checks in sequence, and
at the bottom it would give date ranges of when
they were four and they would be for two week segments,
and then the very next check was for another two
week segment later on. And then there was other checks
in the system that were dated and dated out of range.
Speaker 3 (45:29):
Those so it looked like Miss mc bannawell was given
a stack of checks at a time for instance.
Speaker 4 (45:36):
Fair, fair assumption? Sometimes?
Speaker 12 (45:38):
Yes, those checks when you added them up, they were
about one thousand dollars a month, right.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
I believe so.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
Yeah, it was like four to sixty a month or
something like that, or every two weeks, I mean.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
Four sixty every two weeks, correct, which is not great
at MAC And there's taxes, a little bit of taxes
taken out, right, So about one thousand dollars a month, correct?
Speaker 9 (46:12):
Now.
Speaker 4 (46:13):
I think you.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
Testified that the state's theory of why this murder occurred
was partially a murder because of the desire of Miss
Adelson to relocate. I think that's what you testified on direct.
Is that fair to say that's fair? You're aware that
(46:45):
the relocation motion was denied in June of twenty thirteen, right, correct,
And that's more than a full year before the murder.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
Right, the was in June of thirteen.
Speaker 3 (47:02):
Yes, murder was in middle of July of twenty fourteen.
Speaker 4 (47:06):
Right, right.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
As part of your investigation, did you learn that no
one really thought the relocation motion was going to be successful.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
I don't know about no one, but there was some
indication they thought it might not be successful.
Speaker 4 (47:28):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
Did you try to speak to miss Adelson's lawyer.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
I did not know.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Tallassi Police apartment did at one point.
Speaker 3 (47:36):
And did they learn that the motion was, as she
says in an email, a.
Speaker 2 (47:41):
Moonshot, I don't know that.
Speaker 3 (47:46):
Now you discussed in your direct examination, you talked about
some of these emails.
Speaker 4 (47:54):
Do you recall that, yes, actually.
Speaker 3 (48:03):
Before we get there, no actual stated those emails you
reviewed them.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
I reviewed some of them, not all of them.
Speaker 4 (48:12):
The team did, Okay, I are the ones that you reviewed.
Speaker 3 (48:15):
Anything in those emails about murder?
Speaker 2 (48:17):
About murder?
Speaker 3 (48:19):
No anything in those emails about violence, not that I
saw no anything in those emails about any type of
illegal activity at all.
Speaker 5 (48:32):
Strange that they didn't want to divulge every bit of
the details of their murder planning, which hadn't started. I
don't believe at that point in these emails.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
Not that I recall, the bride itself wouldn't be illegal.
Speaker 4 (48:51):
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (48:52):
In fact, in regard to the one million dollar email,
I think it's the one that you're referred to. Did
you see emails where they were consulting lawyers about whether
that million dollar offer was legal. I did so fair
to say, as crazy as the emails were, we breathe
are crazy, right, Yes, there was at least some sanity
to make sure what they were doing.
Speaker 2 (49:11):
Was legal, right, one portion of it.
Speaker 3 (49:14):
Yes, Now those emails. Did you see any emails were
any of these ideas were coming from Charlie Aedelson.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
I saw some emails where they were discussed with him.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Apparently, but anytime where he was actually coming up with
the ideas as opposed to being copied on the email
where he says okay, sounds good.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
I think there was some reference of her saying she
discussed it with him, but I did not see an
emails from him.
Speaker 3 (49:37):
Meaning Donna discussing correct correct the one million dollar email.
Speaker 5 (49:44):
Yeah, it doesn't make your client look great. And Charlie
Adelson bemoans this after his conviction on the jailhouse calls
to his mother, Donna Adelson that he was convicted because
of these crazy emails. Your crazy emails got me convicted.
But never says like he's on there being like great idea,
(50:05):
good go and mom dress the kids up in Hitler
youth outfits, convert to Catholicism. Torture Dan Markel essentially psychologically
get to him psychologically, because if they thought any of
that would work, they wouldn't be looking to bribe him.
Speaker 4 (50:27):
I mean.
Speaker 5 (50:29):
Means under the guise of you know, this is a
goal for relocation, but it's really just Donna getting out
her anger, you know, her hatred the whole family. As
Jeffrey Lecas said there, it was like the whole family
pastime my words, not is was hating Dan Markel.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
I think we'll talk about this later in more detail
when you're back, but let's just tie it up here
a little bit. You've listened to mister Edelson on the
phone a lot, right I did. Is it fair to
say he's a big talker?
Speaker 4 (51:06):
That's fair?
Speaker 3 (51:07):
Is it fair to say he repeats himself a lot?
Speaker 4 (51:10):
That is very fair?
Speaker 3 (51:11):
Through your investigation? Are you aware that this one million.
Speaker 5 (51:14):
Dollar that is very fair? Someone who's listened to these
jailhouse tapes, Oh boy, I mean they're all he just
goes over and over the same subject matter, from day
to day to day, over and over, saying the same
things over and over again. But there's some fascinating little
(51:34):
nuggets in there too. Hey, Lolly seventy seven, thanks for
the supersticker. Appreciate your support. Myrna Sultana, thanks for the supersticker.
Appreciate you supporting the channel.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
Idea where mister Edelson was going to lend a third
of a million dollars that he talks to a lot
of people about that idea.
Speaker 4 (51:58):
Are you aware of that for your investigation?
Speaker 2 (52:00):
I am not aware of that.
Speaker 3 (52:09):
Now back to the divorce. Are you aware that the
divorce between Professor Markel and miss Adelson was finalized in
July of twenty and thirteen.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
That's an understanding.
Speaker 3 (52:23):
Yes, correct again, that's about a year before the murder.
Speaker 4 (52:28):
Correct, correct, And.
Speaker 3 (52:33):
After miss Adelson's relocation motion was denied. Are you aware
that she was determined to make a life for herself
in Tallahassee.
Speaker 2 (52:43):
I don't know if I can speak to that.
Speaker 3 (52:44):
Well, let me see if I can help you. You
went through miss Adelson's emails as well in your investigation?
Speaker 2 (52:50):
I did not the team did.
Speaker 3 (52:51):
Did anyone from the team talk to you about those emails?
Speaker 2 (52:54):
Some of them? All?
Speaker 3 (52:55):
Right? Well, let's see if you're aware of some of these.
Are you aware that she was looking to buy property
in Tall.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
No, it was not.
Speaker 3 (53:01):
You didn't see any emails to that effect.
Speaker 4 (53:03):
I did not personally know.
Speaker 3 (53:04):
Are you aware that she was looking to enroll her
kids in schools a new school in Tallahassee for the
fall of twenty fourteen, in other words, after the time
when mister Markel was ready.
Speaker 2 (53:14):
I know there was discussions about that with mister Markle.
I'm aware of that.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
Are you aware that she was scheduling plans with friends
in Tallahassee for August of twenty fourteen and for the
four fall of thirteen, all of which would have occurred
after the murder. Are you aware of that? No, you
didn't see those in any emails that you review.
Speaker 4 (53:30):
I did not see those.
Speaker 2 (53:31):
No.
Speaker 3 (53:32):
Are you aware that she was scheduling business meetings for
late July twenty fourteen.
Speaker 5 (53:40):
Well, it would be awfully weird if she had no
plans after from July eighteenth, two thousand and fourteen on,
it would be awfully weird, looking point the figure, redditor, Sorry,
I can't schedule that business meeting because unfortunately, my ex
(54:04):
husband's gonna get murdered and I won't be in Tallahassee.
Or just saying I won't be in Dallahassee, everybody would
be running into the police office and figuring Wendy the emails.
Speaker 4 (54:17):
I did not see that.
Speaker 3 (54:18):
Now, are you aware that she purchased plane tickets leaving
for Tallahassee to go to a wedding out of state?
There's plane tickets were purchased in June, but they were
purchased for an October wedding. She bought plane tickets to
leave from Tallahassee.
Speaker 4 (54:31):
Are you aware of that?
Speaker 3 (54:33):
Are you aware that her family, including mister Adelson, it
was planning to come up to Tallahassee in August twenty
fourteen when Miss Adelson was going to be honored at FSU. No,
you didn't see any emails on that either, did you?
Speaker 4 (54:47):
I didn't, But.
Speaker 3 (54:54):
You're aware that the state subpoenaed miss Adelson's emails right.
Speaker 4 (55:01):
Now?
Speaker 3 (55:03):
You also mentioned this. I like to call it the
grandmother motion.
Speaker 4 (55:07):
Can we call it that?
Speaker 2 (55:08):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (55:09):
In March of twenty and fourteen, there's these It actually
starts earlier.
Speaker 4 (55:14):
It starts that.
Speaker 2 (55:16):
Big binder in this February Yeah, all right, Well that
it's okay.
Speaker 3 (55:21):
Somewhere in that big binder there's a bunch of litigation
back and forth with Miss Adolson and Professor Markel regarding
money yes. And at some point in the course of
a motion that Wendy Edolson filed, Professor Markel files a
(55:41):
motion back, and that's when he he seeks to have
only supervised visits of the kids with with Donna Adelson.
That's the motion you were talking about with miss Capital correct. Correct,
And that occurs in early twenty fourteen, right, it does.
Now the motion doesn't get heard because Miss Adelson's lawyer
(56:03):
has to recuse herself, right, I believe so.
Speaker 4 (56:06):
And she has to.
Speaker 3 (56:06):
Recuse herself because Professor Markel makes allegations against that lawyer
as well.
Speaker 2 (56:11):
I'm not aware of that, but okay, And.
Speaker 3 (56:13):
So that's part of the reason of the delay of
why the motion's not heard.
Speaker 4 (56:17):
Are you aware of that?
Speaker 2 (56:18):
I am correct.
Speaker 3 (56:20):
Are you aware that is the course of this litigation
in that binder? I don't want to find the page
I will be able to that the court chastised was
critical of Professor Markel on this motion.
Speaker 2 (56:36):
No, I'm not aware of that.
Speaker 3 (56:37):
Are you aware that the court highlighted that the promotion
probably wouldn't be granted?
Speaker 2 (56:42):
No, I did not did not see that jurious at it.
Speaker 3 (56:49):
Are you aware that on July eleventh, twenty fourteen. This
is months after that motion.
Speaker 4 (57:00):
Let me better.
Speaker 3 (57:02):
When you study this case, is it fair to say
that with all the litigation there were good times, good
periods of times after the divorce between Professor Markel and
miss Adelson as well.
Speaker 2 (57:13):
Right, I can't speak to that. My partner did most
of that research, so I was not very familiar with it.
Speaker 3 (57:18):
Fair enough, while you were aware that on July eleventh,
twenty fourteen, so this is several months after the grandmother
motion that Professor Markel asked Donna and Harvey Aedelson to
watch the kids.
Speaker 2 (57:32):
For him, I am not aware of that.
Speaker 4 (57:34):
Are you aware that he.
Speaker 3 (57:35):
Had a function to go to and Miss Adolson had
another function to go to, and he didn't have childcare
for them, and he asked them to watch the kids
for him.
Speaker 4 (57:45):
No? Seven?
Speaker 5 (57:47):
Right, is this Wendy Edelson's testimony. This is the last
time Donna Adelson's song that he was asked to watch
the kids and Donna made him banana bread that he
could need because it was not kosher. There non kosher
of him.
Speaker 3 (58:04):
Do you feel for the murder?
Speaker 4 (58:06):
I'm aware of it.
Speaker 5 (58:11):
No one believes that story. I mean, he's throwing that
out like there's some kind of proof for that.
Speaker 3 (58:30):
Comm Ms Kapelman on direct asked you about a life
insurance policy.
Speaker 4 (58:44):
Do you remember that? Yes, And she asked you.
Speaker 3 (58:48):
She made it seem like, well, let me be clear.
Was it your position that Wendy Eedelson gained two million
dollars from that life insurance policy?
Speaker 2 (58:56):
I believe there is a I believe that mister Markel's
sister had custody of that and is supposed to distribute
to I don't know all the ins and outut it,
but don't believe distribute to the children as needed.
Speaker 3 (59:05):
So let me be clear so the jury's not confused.
Are you aware that Professor Markel had a life insurance
policy in March of twenty twelve.
Speaker 2 (59:15):
I'm not sure the dates, but I knew we had one.
Speaker 3 (59:17):
And that originally Wendy Aedelson was the beneficiary.
Speaker 4 (59:20):
Of that policy. That sounds right.
Speaker 3 (59:22):
But in October of twenty twelve, two years before his murdered,
he signed the policy over making his sister the beneficiary
and the custodian for his boys.
Speaker 4 (59:35):
Are you aware of that?
Speaker 2 (59:36):
I wouldn't shure the date, but yes, I'm aware of that.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
So Wendy Edelson isn't permitted to get any money from
that policy without Professor Markel's sister.
Speaker 4 (59:43):
Correct, Yes, without her sister. Yes.
Speaker 3 (59:45):
I just want to me sure that's clear, especially if
you've been a fbig for almost twenty five years.
Speaker 4 (59:58):
Correct, mostly in Miami, right.
Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
No, in here in Tallahassee, in Tallahassee.
Speaker 3 (01:00:02):
Okay, apologies, you've investigated, fair to say, maybe more than
a dozen murders.
Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
Fair to say, how many murders for hire have you
done recently in your life? Over my lifetime, probably half
a dozen, but in the past two years too.
Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
So putting this case aside, which I know you believe
is a murder for high. Putting this case aside in
those cases.
Speaker 5 (01:00:29):
That you've done that were I know you think it's
a murder for hire, but really it's a extortion case
where a murder was done on spec and then they
extorted someone on a payment plan and gave them a
payment plan. Specifically, the Latin Kings gave Charlie Edelson the
payment plan where he could pay it off. Very reasonable.
(01:00:55):
What was it, three thousand dollars a month, very reasonable
payment plan. Those Latin Kings are known for. Okay, so
that'll give you an idea some of the evidence Donna
Edelson wants thrown out. I will be live tomorrow morning
(01:01:15):
before her nine am Eastern Time hearing. It's the final
hearing in Donna Edelson's case before she goes to trial,
so I will be streaming it live. Meet me there.
I think. I say, I'm gonna start at eight forty five.
(01:01:35):
I might start a little earlier than that. I might
start at eight thirty. So look for me tomorrow morning.
But before I go, I'm in this episode the way
I end so many of these episodes about the murder
(01:01:57):
of Dan Marcel by reading a victim impact letter. In
this case, so this was from Sigfredo Garcia's trial and
Katherine mcbannala's trial. Actually it looks like more like twenty nineteen,
(01:02:23):
so Katherine mcbanner was second trial. Maybe it was, okay.
I met an episode from September twenty third, twenty nineteen.
I met Dan Danny Marcel in the fall of nineteen
ninety six. I'll make it a little bit bigger for you.
(01:02:47):
We were both graduate students in the UK, with us
both being from Toronto and having fairly similar backgrounds. Conversation
and friendship came easily to us. I'm writing this letter
to share with you how deeply impacted I was by
the senseless murder of my dear friend. I knew Dan
(01:03:10):
as a college friend, young lawyer, just starting out with
an eye for down the road to a career in
an ivy league academic environment, as a man in love
with the most amazing and beautiful woman in the world
quote unquote, and finally, as a caring and loving father
(01:03:30):
to his two boys. Those boys meant the universe and
beyond to him. He would do anything for them and
often did so. I was sad and when one summer
while Dan and his spouse and boys were visiting with
me and my husband at our home in Toronto, his
(01:03:53):
spouse revealed to me privately that she believed she had
quote married. Then, later that evening, after Dan and his
family had departed, I shared Wendy's confession to my husband,
and we both said to one another something like, how
(01:04:13):
Sad will probably end up being a single dad at
some point, despite him being still madly in love with Wendy.
How I wish that Dan were a single dad today.
With his huge circle of friends, colleagues, family members, and
loved ones met, any of whom came to see Dan
(01:04:36):
almost as though he were family, myself included. I just
know his life would have continued to be full of joy, love, generosity, humor, kindness,
and warmth. His spirit was too indefagtable, his heart too
full of love, He was too resilient to he brought
(01:05:00):
love for long. Dan was murdered during a time of
personal upheaval in his life, at a moment in time
when he was indeed feeling low, and yet whenever we
would speak during those anguish filled months, he would start
by saying, how's Haley, how are you doing? That was
(01:05:23):
just Dan. Before closing, I'd like to share one story
with you that says everything to my mind about how
Dan envisioned how his marriage would be if he found
the right partner. Many years before he and Wendy met,
while we were still in grad school, he told me
that when he married, he hoped to find a woman
(01:05:46):
who might feel exactly as he did. That when, for instance,
upon visiting a doctor for this or that ailment, one
of them would say, while the other nodded in agreement,
doctor were here today because we're feeling pretty lousy about
my husband wife's ailment. Can you help us? Losing Dan
(01:06:10):
meant losing upright and sparkly light in my life, a
source of happiness and joy, a warm and loving friend
who always looked out for those whom he loved. It
is my deepest hope that justice is served through this
and forthcoming trials. Sincerely, Hazley Meslin, PhD, Toronto, Canada. That
(01:06:45):
is the end of this episode. Please hit the like
button on your way out support the channel. There are
links you can find in the description of this episode
way so you can support the channel. You can send
me a Venmo, buy me a coffee, become a Patreon,
(01:07:06):
and get access to content you won't find anywhere else.
Eva says, thank you for all your past dreams catching up.
Thank you Eva for listening. I will see you all
tomorrow morning for this hearing, so I'll be live starting
(01:07:26):
latest at eight forty five am, maybe a little earlier.
Look for me, maybe a little earlier. Donna's last hearing
before her trial. We'll watch it together. Starts at nine
am Eastern, but if you want to hang out beforehand,
come come to the channel a little earlier. Thanks so much.
(01:07:48):
Have a great night, everybody.
Speaker 6 (01:08:07):
Ohna, what a steech your head. You got it a
murder because you wanted to raise your daughter's kids.
Speaker 5 (01:08:20):
Tama has he It's just.
Speaker 6 (01:08:22):
To stop on the way to civilization. In Miami is
where all the fancy people are. The TV is about five.
You can't get away from that. Toutoe tato who hope
you know the guy you pay? Then you can't get
(01:08:45):
away from that.
Speaker 13 (01:08:47):
Oh Hodna, what a stech your head.
Speaker 6 (01:08:52):
You thought chill was just for the little people, but
now you're so blankets with the locked up proof. You're
a Gama is locked down and you'll one way ride to.
Speaker 4 (01:09:04):
Feed on your blood.
Speaker 6 (01:09:18):
Gona, what a stitch your head. Your family exiled from
the social circles you swam in. We all know you
never made that banana break your offer to babysit for dare,
But you'll soon be nke in license plates and thinking
(01:09:41):
Baba could have been.
Speaker 13 (01:09:42):
Oh Gona, you had to plan a murder.
Speaker 14 (01:10:00):
The dump under them, start at them at the punt,
the down
Speaker 10 (01:11:01):
Three
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!