The Struggle Between Wendi Adelson & Donna Adelson Just Got Real!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Donna Agelson from Coral Springs, Florida. I want to hear
all about you, Donna. Let's go well, I'm a domestic coordinator,
a domestic coordinator.

Speaker 2 (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 3 (00:22):
Harvey, who's in the audience, and my dog Sam.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
All right, and how old is SAMs?

Speaker 4 (00:26):
Five?

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Five? Cold? Give my best?

Speaker 5 (00:28):
Nice to have your hair, crop, Anders, bottles, work, don
consonance are gonna be worth So I'm lighting on this
again personally as categories still your return letter, beats hell, help,
no hell, Donna, m yes there are two ms.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
Let him come up your five seconds person Ella kay yes, Kim.

Speaker 6 (01:00):
Kah mustard maker, Yes, there's one age time starts now,
mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yes, mister.

Speaker 3 (01:28):
Nice h You are listening to the ROBERTA. Glass True
Crime Report, putting the true back in true crime from

(01:52):
New York City. ROBERTA. Glass is now on the record.

Speaker 7 (01:59):
H Okay, how is everyone?

Speaker 8 (02:18):
Hello Tatter, Hello, Kitty's nineteen ninety three Dark Side of
the Moon, your latex spouse, the real deal? Hello everyone,
New filing in Donna Aedelson's trial from Wendy Aedelson, and
it's very much like we've seen hate to spoiler alert,

(02:42):
it's very much like we've seen Wendy wants her immunity blanket,
her special safety immunity blanket to hold titoo. The woman
that describes herself as innocent and having nothing to do
with this case is very concerned about testifying, not for

(03:05):
the prosecution of which she has limited you so immunity,
but she does not want to answer Donna Aedelson's lawyers questions.
Where you have the filing, the whole filing. By the way,
if you're going to put up a legal filing on Twitter,

(03:27):
put up the whole thing. Okay, put up the whole thing.
So if you're a lawyer, or if you have some
kind of connections to getting the filings earlier than Florida,
puts them out, like just as soon as they're filed,
put out the whole thing. So a lot of people

(03:48):
are putting up the first page of this. We're going
we have the whole thing, We're gonna go through it.
But boy does that irritate me. I wouldn't read the
whole thing. I don't know about anybody else. So it's
very similar to what we've seen in other cases, like

(04:09):
Katherine mcmanaa's Charlie Adelson's case. She wants to she doesn't.
She only she wants to limit what Donna's defense can
ask her, and usually she gets it.

Speaker 1 (04:27):
So I have some.

Speaker 8 (04:31):
Video of what this looks like in court, what she's describing,
and we can get into it. Let me get into
the so so here it is. I'll just make it
State of Florida versus Donna Adelson introduction, non party. Wendy

(04:55):
Adelson is the daughter of defendant Donna Adelson and is
expected to be one of the first witnesses called by
the state in Donna Aedelson's trial. So it's usually how
it works. She's usually one of the first witnesses. They
are going to start it off with a bang. I
think the really interesting testimony is going to come from

(05:17):
Robert Adelson. We know what to expect from Wendy Aedelson.
These kind of whopper, unbelievable statements would I describe as
whopper lies on the stand where your jaw kind of drops.
And we know her demeanor, the wide eyed, head to
the side all demeanor. But Robert Adelson. We've heard very

(05:41):
little from only in the Over My Dead Body podcast,
and I think he's going to be an excellent witness.
I think he's got a lot to get out of
his chest. I think it's going to be very illuminating.
And why I think that is because the defense has
really worked so hard to limit his testimony. Both the

(06:06):
state and the defendant issued trial subpoenas to Wendy Aedelson.
By law, the state subpoena confers immunity on Wendy Aedelson,
so the state's giving her limited use immunity, but the
defender subpoena does not give her that immunity. So does
everybody see why she doesn't want to answer the defense's

(06:30):
questions beyond the scope of cross examination of what's already
been asked. Accordingly, Wendy Aedelson respectively moved for permission to
place a statement on the record regarding the State of
Florida's trial subpoena and to quash the trial subpoena issued
by defendant Donna Aedelson, known as the defense quote unquote

(06:54):
the defense subpoena, and they attached it in support of
this motion, Wendy Adelson states as follows, Donna Aedelson is
charged by indictment with first degree murder, alleging she participated
in the conspiracy to murder Dan Markel, Wendy Adelson's ex husband.
On July eighteenh two thousand and fourteen, other alleged members

(07:18):
of the conspiracy were charged and convicted, including Catherine mcbanawa.
In the mcbanawa trial, both the state and the defendant
subpoenaed Whinnie Adelson to testify. In response, Wendy Adelson filed
emotion like the instant motion to place a statement on
the record and to quash the defense subpoena on May thirteenth,

(07:42):
twenty twenty two. Thus, the two trial subpoenas by each
party in this case present the same issue the court
dealt with in a previous trial. The state subpoena affords
Wendy Adelson use and derivative use immunity for her testimony
in an instance when she would otherwise invoke her Fifth

(08:03):
Amendment rights, while the defense subpoena provides no such protection.
So is Wendy Adelson saying that she would take the
Fifth The Fifth I made kind of does everybody know

(08:34):
what I'm talking about? Kind of strange right for someone
with nothing to hide, okay for her okay, she would
otherwise invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, while the defense apoena
provides no such protection. In the Mfbanawa trial, the court
watched the defense apoena and granted Wendy Adelson's attorney an
opportunity to place a statement on the record. We request

(08:58):
request the court grant the same relief in the relating
hearing before the court. This is the footnote in the
related hearing before the court. In the mcbanawah trial, Mcbanoa's
council argued that it would be reversible error for mcbanoa's
cross examination to be limited because the state can tailor

(09:20):
their direct examination to prohibit mcmanua from going into areas
that could potentially be relevant based on dicta by the
First District Court of Appeal Banoha's appeal of the prior
protective order prohibiting the deposition of Wendy Aedelson. In that opinion,

(09:44):
the First DCA did acknowledge that Mcbaniwa would be given
little latitude in her cross examination of Adolson because their
questions would be limited to the narrow categories of information
the state elicits at trial. However, the First DCA did
not grant mcbanaha's requested relief in that appeal, and recognize

(10:05):
that where the Fifth Amendment guarantee collides with the Sixth Amendment,
in circumstances such as these, the Sixth Amendment must yield,
because to require one to incriminate himself in order to
afford to help another would be both unwise and unrealistic,

(10:26):
And just this past month, the first DCA again addressed
these arguments by mcmanoa. The First DCA found no error
in the court's handling of Wendy Adelson's trial testimony, favorably
cited Wendy Edelson's council's statement on the record, and concluded
the trial court properly ruled that she could not be
called as a defense witness in the mcmanawa trial. The

(10:51):
Court scheduled the hearing related to this requested relief just
prior to Wendy Edelson's testimony. Wendy Aedelson respectfully requests the
courts a similar hearing on this motion outside the presence
of the jury, prior to her testimony, or at such
time determined appropriate by the Court. Wendy Aedelson will testify

(11:13):
persuat to the state subpoena, but without such a subpoena,
she would invoke her rights under the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Article one, Section nine of
the Florida Constitution. As a result, Wendy Aedelson requests that
once the state calls her as a witness, her council
should be allowed to place on the record a statement

(11:35):
outside the presence of the jury that one Wendy Aedelson
intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment in Section nine, rights
to Wendy Aedelson's testimony is entitled to use and derivative
use immunity persuant to Florida State Statue nine fourteen point
oh four and Jenny versus State, and use and derivative

(11:58):
use immunity extends to any testimony given during Donna Aedelson's
cross examination of Wendy Aedelson Perez versus State, and then
the Chambers versus State. They also cite, given the state's
theory of the case, there is no question that Wendy
Aedelson has a real and substantial interest in asserting her

(12:18):
rights against compelled testimony in these proceedings. And they cite
a whole bunch of case law that I'm not going
to get into in these proceedings, Wendy Aedelson has made
a complete invocation of her rights under the US and
Florida constitutions. To ensure full protection of Wendy Aedelson's rights,

(12:40):
she respectfully requests the opportunity to the state on the
record her entitlement to these important constitutional and statutory rights.
Although Donna Aedelson will have full and fair opportunity to
cross examine Wendy Aedelson at trial, and despite knowing that
she would otherwise as her Fifth Amendment rights, Donna Adelson's

(13:02):
council issued the defense pa. Unlike the state subpoena, the
defense subpoena confers no such immunity and just go okay
and discussed in Jenny is limited to cases where this
okay goes into the law is well settled. Florida law
is equally clear. It would be improper for a party

(13:25):
to call a witness for that witness to invoke her
rights before the jury. Calling a witness to invoke Fifth
Amendment protections in front of a jury creates a dramatic
moment causing irrepairable damage and injury to the eyes of
the jury. Thus there is this is so this is
very similar to why they didn't call Donna and Harvey Adelson,

(13:47):
although the state wanted them too. At Charlie Aedelson's trial,
they said they would take the first first, and they
would take the fifth. Take the first, they would take
the fifth, and Abby. That causes irreparable damage and injury
into the eyes of the jury. Yeah, it makes you
look guilty, and it makes the defendant look guilty. Thus,

(14:10):
there is no proper purpose for the defense subpoena, and
it should therefore be quashed to ensure the integrity of
the trial process and to protect Wendy Aedelsen from unnecessary
harassment and abuse. Wendy Aedelson has to be protected from
unnecessary harassment and abuse guys. Under these circumstances, the defense

(14:35):
subpoena should therefore be quashed. In conclusion, for the court's convenience,
we attach relevant pages. Wherefore, Wendy Adelson respectfully requests the
court grant her motion and allow her to place a
statement on the record as set for in and So.
Here's exhibit one is the subpoena from Donna.

Speaker 9 (15:03):
A.

Speaker 8 (15:03):
Twenty one through nine oh five. And then they show
the subpoena care of her lawyer, John Laura, who was
Trump's lawyer Josh Zelman. You're commanded to appear again. So

(15:24):
what was the first one? Oh, this is from Georgia Kapelman.
And then this is from the defense, and this is
from Katie mcbanala's trial. This is the We don't have

(15:48):
to go through it because I can share some of
what happened there if you're interested. Has everybody doing checking
in as everybody bored by that? I don't know if
everyone is as much of a Is Georgia going to
be grilling Wendy? I don't know. She tends to keep

(16:09):
to the same We're going to look at some of
Wendy's testimony in Charlie's trial today. Also, I think what
makes this more interesting then Charlie's testimony is that we

(16:30):
know that Donna is pretty peeved at Wendy and your
brother protected you for years. Now you're not guilty. Your
lawyer took good care of you. So this is a

(16:50):
statement that Donna sent to Wendy, which would be if
I had Wendy on the stand, and if I had
Donna on the stand, I would certainly ask her about this.
What do you mean that now Wendy is not guilty?
What was she before? What was she before that. I mean,
the fact that you put the word now in there

(17:12):
means that there's been a change before you admitted your guilt.
Now you're not admitting your guilt privately. That's what it
sounds like to me. Your lawyer took good care of you.
We know that from a wiretap where Donna reads it out.

(17:34):
We can listen to it if you're interested. But I
thought we'd just start with I mean, I have I mean,
this is sort of what it looked like. This is
what it looked like in I mean, just going back
to this, what it looks.

Speaker 9 (17:51):
Like when.

Speaker 8 (17:59):
Wendy's lawyer, John Laura puts a statement on the record.
Let's take a look at it.

Speaker 10 (18:19):
Kay, it is mister Laura at present.

Speaker 11 (18:26):
I'll go shout out in Hawaii, m.

Speaker 3 (18:35):
Than I could put me in.

Speaker 9 (18:41):
Good afternoon, your honor.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
Very briefly, we filed emotion to put on the record
that this.

Speaker 12 (18:52):
You seen her interviews community on that. But for that Succoa,
she gets serty with FIS and you. Prodition is necessary
just to make sure the record is sperience very well.
I discussed this with the parties yesterday. I believe not
in the state or defense. You had no position in
starting this is correct. I'm sorry you had no position.

Speaker 3 (19:16):
Concerning all right, mister Laura, in considering the.

Speaker 11 (19:23):
Solution, I will allow you to make your statement. I
believe the state.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
Has confirmed that the testimony will occur pursuing to a
random immunity.

Speaker 10 (19:33):
They cannot pull the rug out from under your client's feet,
but allow you to make your.

Speaker 13 (19:38):
Statement and might have that there's sniffing further I need
to do since I put it on the record, if
what's happening, very well, Thank you, sir. Do we have
anything else to address concerning?

Speaker 8 (19:54):
Wow, what a heavy foot he has? Did anybody else
here is? Maybe it's because I'm listening with headphones, but
every footstep is like pound pound pound pound heavy foot
for such a small it's like a dominion of small guy.

Speaker 11 (20:12):
Before we resumed the test about him, No, sir, I
just wanted to have a recess.

Speaker 3 (20:16):
I'm sleeping.

Speaker 11 (20:17):
Do anything about the feedback.

Speaker 9 (20:18):
That that's a good idea.

Speaker 10 (20:22):
We'll take about a ten minute break and resume at
free ten judge, Yes, sir, Can we invote the rule
at this point in time?

Speaker 3 (20:29):
That's fine, thank you.

Speaker 9 (20:31):
The rule of sequestration is going to be invoked.

Speaker 10 (20:34):
I believe except for investigator Newly and anyone else who
will testify in this matter needs a step out of
the courtroom. Do not discuss your testimony with anyone else
until you're called.

Speaker 8 (20:49):
Hey, Mike, okay, so I'm gonna skip past this. Kiddies
nineteen ninety three. Good to see you. Thanks for digging,
stirring up. Great discussion and all of the refreshers on
testimony ahead of the trial. Yeah, trial starts Thursday, a Tuesday, Thursday, Tuesday,

(21:10):
one of those tea days, Tuesday. I hope that they're
going to be doing jury selection. Last time with Charlie's trial,
my memory serves me that they didn't show anything until.

Speaker 14 (21:27):
After.

Speaker 8 (21:29):
Am I right about this? Let me know in the
comments may be wrong, after after he was convicted. Great shows,
robertam yeaw oh, I'm glad you're enjoying them. Kitties. Thank
you so much for supporting the channel. Appreciate it. There

(22:00):
she is, there, she is in the next to Morgan honeycut.
I mean, it's just ridiculous that she needs a support
person to testify seriously and sitting right in front of
Phil Markel. To imagine you imagine knowing that or thinking

(22:29):
that this woman was involved, could be the mastermind in
your son's murder, and has to sit in front of you,
still walking the streets with the grandchildren that you can
for session I'm not allowed to see, and that she renamed.

Speaker 9 (22:50):
What do you do?

Speaker 8 (22:51):
I mean? This is I mean just I guess what
I've had is like a long meditation on our court
system and how they really I understand why they're set
up this way, And what I find is I'm always
at an emotional I have a human emotional reaction to

(23:15):
what I'm looking at. So when I see that Wendy
Agelsen is gonna evoke her, you know, gets all these
protections and the victim's family get no such protections. As
she walks in with a you know, an advocate, It's

(23:35):
just makes me, you know, enraged, and the I understand
why we have them on an intellectual level, but I
find that there's a conflict between when I understand intellectually
and and how I feel as a human being living
on planet Earth and how it works out practically.

Speaker 9 (24:03):
Micro will get on the microphone, okay.

Speaker 8 (24:09):
All right, right, so they're bringing the jury, right, I

(24:38):
mean that she's getting the same protections that that real victims.
It's just crazy. You get to come in with an
advocate if you're victim in a case, or you get
a support person. At least in New York federal trials,
it works that way. M and so people have been saying, well,

(25:05):
don't we have son of Sam laws? No, not really anymore.
We do have them, but they're never enforced. I mean,
what we have on the books, and as far as
victims rights, and just the whole way that the that
our true crime media is geared towards minimizing victims, ghosting

(25:29):
victims family members. I didn't. I don't know if it's
we've always had innocence fraud. I don't know about. You know,
before I was alive, it seemed like when I was younger,
we'd see a lot more interviews with victims family members
than we do now. Just the way that our our

(25:53):
reporters are so willing to push the fraud, the innocence
fraud of guilty killers, it's disturbing to me. Let's move forward,
shall we. He does look like a maestro, though, doesn't he.

(26:13):
That's what I when every time I look at Charlie Agelson.
I think you know what he does look like he's
someone who would who may be leading an orchestra, especially
that blue tie, that really blue tie would.

Speaker 1 (26:29):
Not right.

Speaker 8 (26:30):
Let's move forward and okay, here she is.

Speaker 9 (26:41):
Everyone can be seated. State please call.

Speaker 8 (26:47):
So this is when I mean, I guess it's for
another day. But when Wendy's in the gallery, it would
be an interesting study to look at Charlie Aedelson who
says that he was flirting with a girl, and then
he this is what he tells his mother. I think
it's a made up story, and I think Donna knows
it is too. He's flirting with a girl and it

(27:09):
turns out to be Wendy. He says, that's your sister.

Speaker 9 (27:14):
What is that?

Speaker 8 (27:14):
What do other people think of that story? Do you
know the story I'm referring to? Or he tells Donna
and then I'm flirting in a girl and she has
a nice smile. And I hadn't seen Wendy in so long.
I thought it was some girl was interested in me.

Speaker 9 (27:26):
Your next witness, do you swear for.

Speaker 3 (27:57):
Ma'am? Please say and spell your name. Wendy Edelson W
E N D I A D E L S o N.
Where are you from, miss Adelson.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
I'm originally from Coral Springs, Florida.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
And where do you live now?

Speaker 2 (28:12):
I currently live in Miami.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
How are you employed now? Kind of part time?

Speaker 2 (28:19):
I do asylum work and a fundraise for nonprofit organizations.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
Are you an attorney by training?

Speaker 15 (28:27):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (28:28):
Okay? How long have you been a member of the
Florida Bar.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
Since I graduated and took the bar in two thousand
and six?

Speaker 3 (28:38):
And are you here today personuant to a subpoena? Yes,
ma'am all right, And that subpoena confers use and derivative
use immunity too, So nothing you say could be used
against you in the future, that is correct. That doesn't
mean you have full immunity from prosecution. But nothing you
say here and nothing derived from it could be used

(29:01):
in that prosecution. Is that you're understanding? That is my understanding.
Did you know Daniel Markel?

Speaker 8 (29:08):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (29:09):
How did you know him? We were married. When did
you meet mister Markel? We met in the.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Fall of my second year of law school, so fall
of two thousand and four.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
And where did you meet?

Speaker 2 (29:25):
We met in Washington, d C. He was working there
and I was looking into a summer job in Washington.
When did you get married in February of two thousand
and six?

Speaker 3 (29:39):
And when did you live here in Tallahassee.

Speaker 8 (29:43):
That's so she didn't meet him that way. She meet
him on Jay Date, so she may have officially met him,
but that's that's not how she I mean, I guess
if you're gonna twist words and say, well, how did
she meet him? Well, when I was in d C,

(30:04):
I met him on Jay Day, but I was doing this,
But how she met him is through Usually it's how
you meet someone like I met them through a friend,
I met them at church, I met them at blah
blah blah through how you found each other. And how
they found each other was on Jay date, which is
so ironic when you get into all the problems they

(30:27):
had over his devout Judaism, conservative Judaism, wanting to abide
by Kosher law, et cetera, et cetera. But apparently that
that became more serious. But if you don't want to
meet a serious Jew, you don't meet them on Jay Day.

(30:52):
We lived in Tallahassee and Donna helped pick him out. Apparently,
ironic came so hated by the Agelson family.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
My third year of law school, so from August of
two thousand and five until I think around maybe May
or June of two thousand and six, and then we
moved to Miami for a year because Danny was interested
in working at the University of Miami. He did not

(31:24):
get the job at University of Miami, and so we
moved back here in two thousand and seven and lived
here until twenty fourteen.

Speaker 3 (31:33):
And where were the two of your you employed during
the time you lived here in Tallahassee.

Speaker 2 (31:37):
I was employed at the FSU Center for Human Rights
and Danny was employed at FSU Law School.

Speaker 3 (31:45):
Were you both professors at FSU College of Law?

Speaker 9 (31:48):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (31:49):
And were you living on Truscott Drive at that time
when we were married, we lived I think we rented
a house before that, but at some point, maybe in
two thousand and eight, we moved to Trustcott Drive. And
is that the home that he was still living in

(32:10):
at the time that he was killed? That is correct, Oka,
And you were no longer living there? Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (32:15):
I was no longer living there all right?

Speaker 3 (32:17):
At the time he was killed. You two had children together, yes? Yes?
And how many children did you have? We have two children?
And what are their ages now?

Speaker 2 (32:25):
They are thirteen and fourteen?

Speaker 3 (32:27):
What about at the time of their dad's death.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
At the time of their dad's death, they.

Speaker 8 (32:32):
Were We don't have anything, Dan Markel doesn't have anything
now because your family and I believe you were part
of it, murdered him. She thinks that makes her sound good.
We both have two boys. He is no longer living, Wendy,

(32:56):
and you noticed George's question. Let's just go back a
little bit. There is to bring up his murder right
right away, right after that response that we have two boys.

Speaker 3 (33:08):
Okay, and you were no longer living there? Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
I was no longer living there, all right?

Speaker 3 (33:13):
At the time he was killed, you two had children together? Yes?

Speaker 9 (33:16):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (33:16):
And how many children did you have? We have two children?
And what are their ages now? They are thirteen?

Speaker 8 (33:23):
Not we had two children, she says, we have two
children and fourteen.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
What about at the time of their dad's death.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
At the time of their dad's death, they were four
and three.

Speaker 3 (33:39):
When did you separate from Professor.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Markel in the fall of twenty twelve.

Speaker 3 (33:46):
Whose decision was it to separate?

Speaker 2 (33:49):
It was my decision and was part of the.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
Reason for the separation. The two of you having differing
views on how to raise your kids as far as
within the Jewish faith.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
It was a small part, but it was part of it, okay.

Speaker 3 (34:02):
That seemed to be something that came up a lot
in your communications. So that's why I ask about it.
What was the difference of opinion on that?

Speaker 2 (34:11):
I mean when we first mad and started dating, Danny
wasn't as observant or as religion as religious as he
became over time, and so the difference in our perspective
on raising kids was about dietary choices and attendance at
synagogue things like that.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
So in general you wanted he wanted to raise the
children more strictly in terms of the faith than you.
That is correct. Did you move out of the marital
home while mister Markel was away on a business trip?
I did, yes, all right? And did he know that
you were moving out when he left for the business trip? No?

(34:52):
He did not. Where did you go when you left
the marital home?

Speaker 2 (34:57):
I rented a home in Tallahassee.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
Where was that? Do you remember the address?

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Aqua Ridge Way thirty three oh three?

Speaker 3 (35:06):
Sound right? That's right, okay? And what was the custody
arrangement once you moved out of the marital home.

Speaker 2 (35:13):
I mean, in the beginning, until we had a formal
custody arrangement, we were just finding ways to share custody.
I remember that first weekend his parents came, so I
made sure he had the children all weekend while his
parents were visiting from Canada. But eventually we had a
fifty to fifty shared custody arrangement.

Speaker 3 (35:33):
All right, And do you remember exactly what that looked like?
Was it week on, week off or something more complicated?

Speaker 2 (35:38):
It was something more complicated. In the summertime, it was
week on, week off. During the weeks, it was it
was I think what they called like a tow two split,
with Wednesday night being an overnight and then the weekends
being every other weekend.

Speaker 3 (35:57):
All right, but raughly fifty to fifty fifty, but that
was the split. And I want to show you what's
been introduced into evidence, State's Exhibit fifty six. No, you've
had a chance to take a look at this before,
but it was kind of through it. Tell me if

(36:18):
you recognize it, sure, kay, do you recognize the exhibit?

(37:10):
I do set a fair and accurate copy of your
divorce file, it looks like it, yes, all right, And
is it fair to say this was a contentious litigation
process that you had with your ex. It was, and
I want to ask you about a specific filing in there.

Speaker 8 (37:29):
So as far as the just religion playing a small part, again,
we are just going to read from Donna Adelson's one
of her emails. We don't want Danny to continue his
religious influence over these children anymore than what he's already done.

(37:49):
If he keeps this up and they, he keeps this up,
and they and then there's a typo here, and then
they will want to eat in your non kosher home.
And if they see you don't want to attend their
shole functions, you will be the outsider. As they get
older and more involved under Dan Markel's demeaning nicknames religious influence,

(38:17):
they will be able to request which parent they want
to live with. Don't allow again Dan Markel's demeaning nickname
to have this power and control over them. In reality,
he's going to have to have the same control over you.

Speaker 7 (38:36):
So yeah, it was a little bit.

Speaker 8 (38:38):
It was a little bit. We had a little problem.
It was a massive problem. Donna Edelson referred him as
the religious zealot massive problem, Massive problem.

Speaker 3 (38:50):
It's on page begins, on page forty three, and it's
in reference to a filing on January fourteenth of twenty
five thirteen where you were looking to relocate with the
minor children. Do you recall that particular filing?

Speaker 2 (39:09):
I recall the filing you said, forty three a month?
Sureom oh, okay, ma'am.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
On the bottom there should be page numbers for you.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
Yes, yes, I recognize it.

Speaker 3 (39:28):
Okay, And that's the filing in reference to your motion
for relocation. Yes, okay.

Speaker 15 (39:33):
And did you file this motion with the intent to
not be successful? I'm sorry, I don't suggested that you
never thought that was going to be successful, did you?

Speaker 2 (39:45):
I think there, I thought there was a small chance
that it would be successful, but not very likely.

Speaker 3 (39:50):
Not okay. And weren't you thinking, well, maybe not very likely.

Speaker 8 (39:57):
No, that's why she he just had to leave dinner
when it came down when it was rejected. That's the
filing that I'm thinking of, the one where Jeffery has
says she left dinner she was so upset that it
got rejected. They all get into these delusions that atosn's

(40:17):
getting into this delusional echo chamber. And I think they're
used to getting their way, and when they don't get
their way, they get very upset. They think they're entitled
to give up nothing to get their way one hundred

(40:37):
percent of the time.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
Danny would be happy working somewhere else because he's mentioned
applying elsewhere, so maybe he'll allow the relocation.

Speaker 2 (40:46):
Well, me and I talked about the relocation, So when
we talked about it, he thought, well, if I can
live nearby in Miami, that might work, and then I
could commute to FSU. I didn't mean for him to
leave FSU, but he wanted to leave FSU at some point,
so that was just a matter of time.

Speaker 3 (41:02):
So you thought it might be successful?

Speaker 2 (41:05):
Sure, I mean I thought it was possible, but not likely,
all right.

Speaker 3 (41:08):
And page of forty six of that document, paragraph E
references the job offer. The wife also desires to relocate
to South Florida in order to provide a better quality
of life for the children by increasing their access to
close family and providing more stability and consistency. Who is

(41:31):
the close family in South Florida?

Speaker 2 (41:34):
The close family would have been my mom and my
dad and my brother.

Speaker 3 (41:38):
And which brother is that? My brother that's here today,
Charlie Adelson, that's correct. Okay, what's your mom's name.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
My mom's name is Donna Donna Adelson, Yes, I let
him name.

Speaker 3 (41:50):
What about your dad?

Speaker 2 (41:51):
My dad's name is Harvey.

Speaker 3 (41:54):
And where did Donna and Harvey live back in the
time frame between twenty twelve and twenty sixteen.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
They lived at the home I grew up in in
Coral Springs.

Speaker 3 (42:03):
And how far do they live away from you?

Speaker 8 (42:07):
Thanks The Real Deal for being a member for two
months Channel member. That's another great way to support the channel.
Become a channel member, get access to early content emojis.
Has everybody checked out my short? I thought it was
so good. I really did. I was really pleased with

(42:30):
the way it came out On the Adelson On, Charlie
Adelson saying he was warned during the time of the bump.
No offense, The Real Deal says, but I think Donna
Aedelson should get ELWOP no offense taken. I agree with you.

(42:53):
I'm not offended. Actually pretty hard to offend. No offense.
The air out on this.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
Channel currently as we sit here today, currently depends on
Miami traffic, but anywhere between fifteen minutes in an hour, right, And.

Speaker 3 (43:13):
What kind of a relationship do you have with your
parents as we sit here today.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
I have a good relationship with my parents.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
And has that always been the case? I would say, so,
can you describe the relationship that your mom has with
your boys?

Speaker 2 (43:27):
I think it's very loving. I think she's a very
dedicated grandmother.

Speaker 3 (43:31):
She spends a lot of time with them, doesn't she
She does. Yeah, And when they were little, and you
first moved there after Danny's death, how much time was
she spending with them.

Speaker 2 (43:40):
When I moved there after Danny's death in twenty fourteen,
how much time is she.

Speaker 8 (43:45):
She's very loving as long as she has control over you.
Would be so curious to know how Donna's Adelson's relationship
with her the grandchildren changed as they got went into adoless.
Apparently Wendy didn't need her as a babysitter anymore. Pretty hurtful, Okay,

(44:08):
pretty hurtful, Okay. I'm just curious when Donna takes the stand,
how is she going to deal with this statement? How
is she gonna deal with I mean, there's a lot
of the evidence against her is cemented by the things

(44:28):
that came out of our own mount So it's I
thought it was a compelling question yesterday to ask did
they keep their mouth shut? In some ways?

Speaker 9 (44:41):
Yes?

Speaker 8 (44:43):
But not enough, not enough a lot of ways. Know,
if they had just waited on some of those calls
soil they met in person, no problem, although there have
been some cases where the they've they've gotten warrants to,

(45:05):
you know, put a wire inside your own home.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
Your mom spending with the boys, I mean we were
all living together at that point, so, I mean we
were spending every day together.

Speaker 3 (45:16):
How were your parents imploy? Are they retired?

Speaker 2 (45:18):
Now they're retired?

Speaker 3 (45:19):
Now what are they retired from?

Speaker 2 (45:23):
My dad was a dentist, and my mom used to coordinate,
kind of be like an office administrator at his practice.

Speaker 3 (45:32):
And did she write the checks at the practice? Paychecks?

Speaker 2 (45:35):
She handled all the book keeping.

Speaker 3 (45:36):
What was the name of the practice?

Speaker 2 (45:39):
The name changed over the years, but probably the name
when they retired was the Adelson Institute.

Speaker 3 (45:47):
And were your parents wealthy at the time that your
husband was murdered?

Speaker 2 (45:52):
I mean, my parents worked their whole lives to support us, right,
so I think the business did well for a period
of time.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
About two million dollars in profit each year between twenty
thirteen and twenty sixteen seven.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
Or talked to me about money, so I have no
idea how much the business need at any given point.

Speaker 3 (46:11):
Did you discuss your marital problems with your mom at all?

Speaker 9 (46:15):
I did?

Speaker 8 (46:16):
Yeah, okay?

Speaker 3 (46:16):
What about the resulting legal issues? Was your mom read
in on those things?

Speaker 2 (46:21):
I mean I definitely updated her about the results of
the relocation when that petition got denied, but not kind
of the ins and outs at every part of our divorce.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
What about your dad? Was he invested in your divorce?

Speaker 2 (46:36):
I mean that is I think the same as my mom,
just worried about me and worried about the boys.

Speaker 3 (46:43):
What about your brother? Did he take an interest in
the ins and outs of your divorce?

Speaker 9 (46:47):
No?

Speaker 3 (46:47):
Not really. Did he need to protect you from Dan Markel?

Speaker 6 (46:53):
No?

Speaker 2 (46:53):
I mean I don't think I need protection.

Speaker 3 (46:55):
Were you physically in danger from Dan Markel? No? I
wasn't in danger. Did the litigation revolving around the divorce
and the subsequent issues that arose, did that impact your
family back in South Florida?

Speaker 2 (47:12):
I mean only to the extent that I think they
felt bad for what I was going through.

Speaker 3 (47:16):
But I want to show you an exhibit.

Speaker 8 (47:20):
All right, Before Georgia Capelman shows the exhibit, above Ground
says miss so many lives. Leader of the replay crew.
I love my replay crew. Thank you, Roberta, thank you
above Ground. I appreciate the support. All right, now back

(47:43):
to Georgia Capelman showing an exhibit. I think they were
having tough time of what it were going through. Apparently
when you read Dan Markel's victim impact letters, so many
of Dan Markel's friends and love ones relatives talk about
him having a really hard time going through this divorce too,

(48:06):
So it was not easy for Dan markl either.

Speaker 3 (48:10):
But that I've marked as states exhibit fifty nine, sorry
fifty seven, your honor, I seen this before as well.

Speaker 11 (48:24):
Is that a lot familiar?

Speaker 2 (48:27):
I don't remember it, to be honest, it's from ten
years ago.

Speaker 8 (48:32):
To look through it, sure, I think she does remember it.
These are the kind of things that you don't forget.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
Good one. When you're done, I'll let a posing council
take a look at it, but go ahead and let
us know when you're done reviewing it.

Speaker 8 (49:19):
Apparently this is going to get through every page of this.

Speaker 9 (50:04):
All right?

Speaker 3 (50:05):
Are those emails between you and your mother?

Speaker 2 (50:11):
I don't think, I responded. I think they're just emails
from my mom to me.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Okay, nicely, all from your mom? Yeah, okay, And the
email address says I think it's something like Wendy Harvey.
Can you tell from the content that it's your mom
type thing rather than your dad? Yeah.

Speaker 2 (50:26):
The email's DAWNA. Harvey, my two parents' names, so they've
been married over fifty years, so they have a joint
email address, so it's from both of them.

Speaker 3 (50:34):
Okay, So what I want to draw your attention to
is page two of that exhibit, that first paragraph there
above the word response, Did you have an opportunity to
read that? I read it real fastest I can. And
what I want to draw your attention to is specifically

(50:58):
the part that reads, your father has made numerous trips
by plane for weekends and changing the patient schedules around
so he can continue to spend significant time with the children.
Did you I just didn't heart editors judge at this time,
I'd asked me of this exhibit into evidence. Okay, it's

(51:23):
fifty seven, thank you. So that paragraph isn't that paragraph
going into detail about how the issues surrounding your divorce
and litigation is financially impacting in a negative way your
parents' business.

Speaker 2 (51:41):
That's what my mom says here, Yes, okay.

Speaker 3 (51:44):
And it also says additionally, this loss of income affects
my family because my older brother, also a dentist, purchased
the practice from my father in mid July twenty twelve.
He has a monthly payment to make to my father
based on the sale of the practice. It isn't fair
to him to have decreasing monthly income statements from the

(52:05):
practice due to my parents spending so much time here
in Tallahassee. So this is an argument that your mom
is proposing right to help you give you an idea
of what might persuade the courts to allow the relocation.
Do you agree with that?

Speaker 2 (52:21):
Yes, that's what she was doing.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
Yes, okay. And she's indicating that both your parents as
well as your brother have suffered financially as a result
of you not being able to relocate. Yes, okay. And
on page do you have page numbers in the bottom
right corner of your exhibit.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
I have them in the top so I can see.

Speaker 3 (52:43):
Okay, So five of Well, let me give me a moment,
so it'll be the second email in your packet one
of three. Okay, do you see that?

Speaker 2 (53:06):
I see that page?

Speaker 3 (53:07):
Okay, And there's a rest of your life highlighted or
underlined in the center and in bold. Do you see that?

Speaker 8 (53:13):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (53:14):
Okay? Right before that it reads, however, the rest of
your life and consequently Dad's mine, and yes, even Charlie's
will be affected by how well you can perform slash
act before July thirty. First, you need to be a
good actress when you or you can be a good
actress when you want to. I've seen you in action.

(53:36):
You need to put on the performance of your life.
Gibbers hasn't beaten the Adelson family yet. Who's Gibbers Gibbers
she's referring.

Speaker 8 (53:46):
So, of course, what the jury's thinking is, are we
seeing act now? Is this one of Wendy's great acts?
Did she come on the standard to be an actress?
And certainly her demeanor and whole style of answering questions
is stilted. It seems very performative. I can see the

(54:09):
light bulbs probably going off in the jurors' heads right
at that moment. And there's a reason Georgia Kapulman read it.

Speaker 3 (54:16):
Oh, Danny and what is was Gribber's name he went
by or to something you called him behind his back.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
Tibbers was a silly nickname that I gave him during
the divorce proceedings when he was being pretty scary and threatening,
and it kind of made me fee less scared of him.

Speaker 3 (54:31):
Okay, So not something you called him to his face. No,
but that was a word that was all I used
to describe him. Yes, it was a nickname. Okay.

Speaker 9 (54:40):
So in this.

Speaker 3 (54:42):
Again, your mom is referencing how everyone's life is being
affected by this relocation, including your brother, Charlie, do you
agree with that that is what she said?

Speaker 9 (54:52):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (54:52):
All right? Is your mom overprotective of you? Yes? All right?
And is a fair Decation's you know a little on
the controlling side.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
I don't think she's controlling, but she's definitely overprotective.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
Did she ever try to micromanage your life? Maybe?

Speaker 9 (55:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (55:15):
Did she have an interest in who you were dating
and who you weren't dating and who you should be dating?

Speaker 2 (55:20):
When you were saying she was usually disappointed that I
wasn't dating more?

Speaker 3 (55:24):
Okay? For example, isn't it true that she would not
let you drive to and from tallahassee to South Florida.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
Well, I used to drive before I had the boys,
but they were young, and she preferred to come with
me and give me some extra support.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
So what would that look like if you were going
to take a trip to South Florida. Would they come
up here and get you or no?

Speaker 2 (55:49):
Sometimes I would go myself with the kids, but I
was breastfeeding both of them, so it usually looked like
me breastfeeding a child while I entertained the other in
the Oklahomka rus stop.

Speaker 3 (56:00):
So it was pretty it was a lot. It was
helpful to have some backup, all right. And so that
time frame you'd be referencing as like the twenty thirteen
time frame, because not around the time of Danny's death,
you wouldn't have still been breastfeeding, would you.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
If Lincoln was three, No, I would have stopped maybe
the year before.

Speaker 3 (56:18):
Okay, So.

Speaker 8 (56:21):
Yeah, this is just bewildering to me, these needing support
for drives with your kids, or how about leave the
kids with see your parents alone, but they had to
see the grand kids. Would the parents come to you?

(56:43):
I mean, just this whole idea. Apparently she was afraid
to fly. That's the word on the street. But she
was flying, which I don't understand because she's flying on
all these trips with her boy friends. So I don't
understand it. I don't understand how you would need you

(57:06):
would need your parents as an adult, even with two kids,
to as a backup. This is kind of parenting. It's
so foreign to me.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
It wasn't twenty twelve, twenty thirteen, okay?

Speaker 3 (57:22):
And wasn't it true that around the time of the death,
they were still doing this practice where they would prefer
to drive you to him from South Florida?

Speaker 2 (57:30):
I mean not every time, but sometimes, okay.

Speaker 3 (57:33):
And would your mom sometimes enlist your brother Charlie to
convince you to do certain things in your personal life?

Speaker 2 (57:41):
I can't really think of an example of that.

Speaker 3 (57:44):
Well, dating Dave was a big one on some of
the materials I had. Yeah, people liked Dave, Hi, and
your mom really liked Dave. Yeah, everyone liked Dave, but
we were just friends. Okay. Did she try so she
would try to get Charlie to convince you to date
a certain person.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
I don't think she was getting Charlie to convince me
to do Dave. I think everyone liked Dave all right?

Speaker 3 (58:08):
And would she try to get Charlie to convince you
to do certain things as far as your professional life,
what jobs to take. No, I don't think so that
would you try to get Charlie to do certain things
like advise you on investment decisions?

Speaker 8 (58:25):
She fly So are you from Tallahassee? It's super expensive
to fly out of Hasse. Our airport is so tiny.
We only have two or three airlines that flying in
it you're out. She could afford it. They could afford
it certainly better than murdering someone.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
Whether or not you were going to buy a house,
for example, I don't think so. I don't remember that
Danny and I made that decision together.

Speaker 3 (59:01):
Once you had left Dan and you were living separately,
did you look into purchasing a home here in Tallahassee?
I did, yeah. And did your brother Charlie convince you
not to do that.

Speaker 2 (59:15):
I don't remember him convincing me not to the only
reason why I didn't was because I was waiting on
the money from Danny from the settlement and he didn't
pay it, so I couldn't afford the house.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
And your mom didn't want you to buy the house,
did she. That's not true.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
My parents were looking to buy a house in Tallahassee
as well.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
Okay, did you have strike? Generally speaking, does your mom
manipulate the personal lives of her children?

Speaker 11 (59:41):
No?

Speaker 3 (59:42):
Is your mom like if she's really upset about something
or worked up about something. Is that something that your brother,
Charlie is going to hear.

Speaker 8 (59:50):
A lot about looking to buy a house as an investment,
as a rental maybe, But the Adelson's would never lower
themselves to live in Tallahassee. This has had to be
before they all decided to murder Dan Markel. If they

(01:00:13):
were looking to buy a house, maybe they could rent it.
I don't know. Certainly, housing properties since twenty fourteen have
soared since Dan Markell's murder.

Speaker 3 (01:00:26):
Who's gonna hear more of it, Charlie.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
Well, if my mom's upset with me, probably Charlie. And
if she's upset with Charlie, probably me.

Speaker 3 (01:00:35):
Okay, So do you get a lot of that? Do
you hear a lot about let's go back, let's go
to before the murder. Did you get a lot of
Donna just giving you an earful about what Charlie needs
to be doing?

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
Probably at some point, what was Charlie doing with his
personal life. What did his personal life look like at
what point before the murder? I mean, at what period
of time all of them?

Speaker 3 (01:00:59):
Wasn't it just a revolving door of girlfriends?

Speaker 9 (01:01:03):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
But my mom didn't complain to me about that.

Speaker 3 (01:01:05):
She didn't mind that with him. I don't understand the question.
She didn't mind if he went from girl to girl
to girl, that was acceptable. Did you see this?

Speaker 8 (01:01:14):
Did you guys see Charlie Adelson's reaction here. So he's
expecting Wendy to say, oh, no, he didn't have a
revolving cast of girlfriends here, and he's getting really annoyed
by the and then Wendy doesn't and you can see
him getting ticked off. Watch it. Let's watch this part again.

(01:01:36):
You know, late text us, I'm not sure if we
need Georgia to go hard on Wendy. I prefer Wendy
to be indicted and then she can go as hard
on Wendy as she wants within the confines of you know,
it's been very complicated by this limited use immunity that
she's been given. They have to prove that they didn't
use anything that she said in testimony to start investigat

(01:02:00):
eating anything or up to convict her for the house.

Speaker 3 (01:02:06):
And your mom didn't want you to buy the house,
did she?

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
That's not true. My parents were looking to buy a
house in Tallahassee as well.

Speaker 3 (01:02:12):
Okay, did you have strike? Generally speaking, does your mom
manipulate the personal lives of her children?

Speaker 9 (01:02:23):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
Is your mom like, if she's really upset about something
or worked up about something, is that something that your
brother Charlie's gonna hear a lot about. Who's gonna hear
more of it? Charlie?

Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
Well, if my mom's upset with me, probably Charlie. And
if she's upset with Charlie, probably me.

Speaker 3 (01:02:43):
Okay, So do you get a lot of that? Do
you hear a lot about Let's go back, let's go
to before the murder. Did you get a lot of
Donna just giving you an earful about what Charlie needs
to be doing?

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
Probably at some point, What was Charlie doing with this
personal life? What did his personal life look like at
what point before the murder? I mean, at what period
of time all of them?

Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
Wasn't it just a revolving door of girlfriends?

Speaker 9 (01:03:11):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
But my mom didn't complain to me about that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:13):
She didn't mind that with him. They don't understand the question.
She didn't mind if he went from girl to girl
to girl that was acceptable.

Speaker 8 (01:03:21):
Hi, IQ, Wendy doesn't understand that question. That Donna didn't
mind that Charlie's allowed to just go from girlfriend to
girlfriend girlfriend being a guy and getting into his late
thirties and still not being married and producing no grandkids

(01:03:43):
and then, you know, to produce a grandkid after, you know,
without marriage didn't seem to bother Donna. I don't know,
but Wendy, I guess she had higher standards for Again,
it's the double standards of the sexes, and.

Speaker 3 (01:04:01):
She didn't really weigh in on it. No, who talked
to her more? You are Charlie, Charlie a lot more right. Yeah,
at the time of Dan Markell's murder, were your parents
extremely angry with Dan at that point? Now they were
in a much better place. I want to direct your

(01:04:22):
attention to an er.

Speaker 8 (01:04:24):
Yeah, Latex, what I mean is I prefer for Wendy
to be indicted, then she can go as hard on
Weddy as she was Georgia Gad. I mean, we've seen
what Wendy does when she's gone hard on, you know,
to a certain extent from the Cost who was mcbanna
was christ to Cost mcbanna's lawyer. And she can get frazzled,

(01:04:50):
she can get but she just gets defiant. You know,
she's not gonna She'll never break down and said she
did this. Ever, it's not not because she's convinced herself
she knows what she did. It's just that, like all
the Adelson's minus Robert, they don't have a problem with lying,

(01:05:13):
and they think anyone would lie to protect themselves. They
think everyone lies as much as they do, and takes
the oath as you know, it's a silly oath by
a silly little Tallahassee court. That's the way they look
at it. I mean, it's all beneath them. I mean,

(01:05:37):
if you listen to Charlie A. Edelson talk about the
people of Tallahassee, they're poor, they're working class. I mean,
the snobbism of this family, oh, off the charts. We're
all just the you know, unwashed masses to them.

Speaker 3 (01:05:53):
Was conducted on I think this was your law enforcement interview,
so July eighteenth, twenty fourteen, and I'm specifically for court
and counsel. Looking at page twenty seven lines eleven and twelve.

Speaker 11 (01:06:23):
I got it open to the page that you're can
flip around.

Speaker 3 (01:06:25):
You need to familiarize yourself.

Speaker 2 (01:06:29):
And I'll take that exhit it you want. M hm,
do you want me to flip through or just look
at this one page?

Speaker 3 (01:06:44):
If you'll just look at that one page, that what
you said? Okay, let me get to where you are.

(01:07:05):
So page twenty seven there, linees eleven and twelve, and
I've got it highlighted for you. It says Ms. Adelson,
you know my parents are you know, very angry toward him?
Is that true? Was that not what you said? Your
parents were very angry toward Dan? Can I read the

(01:07:25):
rest of the sentence? Sure?

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
So I say, you know, my parents are very angry
towards him, but even when they're around my kids, they
would never say a bad word about my kid's father.

Speaker 3 (01:07:36):
And then on page two hundred and eighty eight, mine
twenty four through page two hundred and eighty nine, line one,
and that's going to be Yeah, didn't you say, you know,

(01:08:03):
it's like my parents have more reason to dislike Danny
than almost anyone else. Is that what you said? That
is what I said? And that's because he hurt you, right, And.

Speaker 2 (01:08:16):
I was saying that in the context of talking to
law enforcement for hours and hours and trying to help
them figure out who might be responsible.

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
Right, And who did you tell them might be responsible?

Speaker 9 (01:08:27):
Well?

Speaker 2 (01:08:27):
I told them many, many people. But are you asking
about this particular moment right here?

Speaker 3 (01:08:32):
You told them your family might be responsible.

Speaker 2 (01:08:35):
Or potentially someone to do with a former student or
his current girlfriend. I mentioned lots of people that I
thought could be responsible.

Speaker 3 (01:08:43):
Okay, And of the lots of people that could have
been responsible, your family as well.

Speaker 8 (01:08:50):
Your family was one of them.

Speaker 16 (01:08:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:08:52):
I honed in on Amy Adler, who was hugely jealous
of or being the sister of Johnathan Adler, being very
very beautiful. It accomplished. I thought she might be a
great suspect to throw under the bus for the police

(01:09:13):
to look into every aspect of our life.

Speaker 3 (01:09:16):
Yep. And they might have done this thinking it would
help you.

Speaker 11 (01:09:21):
That's what happened, right.

Speaker 3 (01:09:24):
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Your family had
your ex husband killed to try to help you, didn't
they know? That's completely untrue.

Speaker 9 (01:09:36):
And back to the.

Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
Divorce the petition, where Danny is responding to your petition
for the motion to relocate. Are you familiar with that
filing or do you need to take a look at it.

Speaker 2 (01:09:47):
I need to take a look at it, all right.

Speaker 3 (01:09:49):
It's going to be page seventy nine through one oh one,
and this is back to our exhibit. And again that

(01:10:18):
was the filing begins on page seventy nine. I'm specifically
interested in eighty two and in this filing, doesn't mister

(01:10:46):
Mark Halsay quote the husband affirmatively alleges that the wife
helped herself to non marital assets, including money in stocks
owned prior to marriage, as well as numerous personal non
merita belongings of the husband, such as luggage, bicycle, tennis, racket,
and family heirlooms. The wife has refused to return these

(01:11:07):
items or to allow the husband into her home to
see what other personal belongings were taken without his permission
or acquiescence. So my point is he's accusing you of
theft in this paragraph. Those are the words that are here.

Speaker 8 (01:11:21):
Yes, yeah, and.

Speaker 3 (01:11:22):
He's very adamantly objecting to your relocation. Right on page
eighty two, it says the sole stated reason the wife
seeks to relocate is so that she can be closer
to her parents, was being near your parents the sole
reason that you wanted to relocate? No, it wasn't the

(01:11:45):
sole reason stated in your petition.

Speaker 2 (01:11:47):
It wasn't the sole reason stated in my petition, And
it wasn't the sole reason that he and I talked
about before I filed the motion to relocate.

Speaker 3 (01:11:56):
Why was he so adamant and so confident that this
was the real reason you wanted to be down there.

Speaker 2 (01:12:02):
I think there's a lot of things in these fleetings
that are not true. So just because it says something
doesn't make it true.

Speaker 3 (01:12:09):
Sure, but did he know that your mom was just
grinding on this issue of trying to get you down there?
He would have had no idea. He wouldn't have been
that wouldn't have been known to him. I don't think so.
But he was accusing you and these pleatings of all
kinds of stuff, right, I mean, I'm not saying it's
too but hiding financial assets, failing to disclose things, kidnapping

(01:12:33):
his kids in the middle of you know, his business trip,
all those sorts of things.

Speaker 2 (01:12:38):
Right, Yes, he said lots of things.

Speaker 8 (01:12:40):
Okay. One of the things she has is a word
that has been the rumor is a diamond belonging to
the Markell family that she's never given back that the
Markels have asked for. I don't know if that has right.

Speaker 3 (01:12:56):
And you said a lot of Does that.

Speaker 8 (01:12:59):
Have anything to do with an engage? Was that used
in an engagement ring? Or does anyone know anything more
about that diamond?

Speaker 3 (01:13:07):
Things? Too? There's filings going both ways that are pretty venomous.
Would you agree with that? I would not agree with that.
Yours were pleasant.

Speaker 2 (01:13:15):
I'm not saying divorce filings are pleasant, but mine were
not venomous.

Speaker 3 (01:13:18):
Okay, did your mother, Donna Adelson review the UH filing
in which Dan Markella is accusing you of this theft
and all this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:13:33):
I don't remember if she did.

Speaker 3 (01:13:35):
What about the one where Dan Markel is asking that
your mother not be permitted to have unsupervised visitation with
the kids.

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
My mom never saw that because after he filed that,
he then asked my parents to babysit the kids.

Speaker 8 (01:13:50):
My mom bab right, So it was given as a
as an engagement ring. It was a Holocaust ring, I
know that, and she didn't like to wear it, so
it was given as an engagement ring. I didn't know
that and that's a tricky thing with engagement rings. Some

(01:14:10):
people feel like once they're given to them, they're not
giving them back when they get divorced. And she didn't
like it and didn't like to wear it. I assume
she thought it was hers since it was given to hers. Yeah,

(01:14:35):
it gets very emotional when it gets when it's your
family heirloom.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
Ti banana bread gave him a hug goodbye. So there
was nothing truthful about that fleeting that he filed and
my mom never saw it.

Speaker 3 (01:14:46):
Why do you think he fought?

Speaker 8 (01:14:47):
Wait, we got to give this the proper respect. This part,
this ridiculous part.

Speaker 3 (01:14:55):
Kel is asking that your mother not be permitted to
have unsupervised with the kids.

Speaker 2 (01:15:01):
My mom never saw that because after he filed that,
he then asked my parents to babysit the kids, and
my mom baked him banana bread gave him a hug goodbye.

Speaker 3 (01:15:09):
So there was nothing truthful about that fleeting that he
filed and my mom never saw it. Why do you
think he filed that?

Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
He was really angry at me for leaving him.

Speaker 3 (01:15:18):
Okay, so he didn't really want to limit your mom's
visitation with the kids. No, that's baby, said after he
filed that evidenced by the banana bread, and so she
didn't even know about that filing.

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
She never knew about it, Okay, right, evidence.

Speaker 8 (01:15:37):
I mean I talk about this banana bread a lot.
When you're a channel member, you get to use the
banana bread emoji because I just think it's such another
one of Wendy's kosher style lies that's just so easy
to debunk. If he was eating kosher, Aedelsen didn't have

(01:16:01):
a kosher kitchen, didn't matter what was even going in,
never mind the ingredients. It's already not kosher being cooked
in a non kosher oven. So why what would be
the point of making him banana bread.

Speaker 1 (01:16:20):
I don't know.

Speaker 8 (01:16:20):
I said a couple of nights ago, he could use
it as a door stop or a paperweight. I mean
maybe after a couple of days. I mean, what's the point.
And she's hugging him goodbye. That's evidence that there's that
there's good feelings between the two. Even if let's say
let's say I'm wrong and this banana bread was cooked,

(01:16:44):
He's like, yeah, thanks, I don't know what I'm gonna
do with this, and a hug was given. People can
give you a hug be kind to your face and
hate you behind your back? Is this we all just
born yesterday? I just don't think it happened. But okay.

Speaker 3 (01:17:01):
And when she laid all those options out in that
email to you about other options that you could take
to relope to secure the relocation, as far as bribing,
remember that converting the Christian children to Christianity, remember that suggestion?

(01:17:24):
Sure do you? Okay? What did she put in there
that she viewed as your most non negotiable and most
important part of your divorce? I don't know. Do you
have something I can see states Exhibit fifty seven.

Speaker 8 (01:17:46):
We're watching it, Michael, because there's a new filing. Go
back to the beginning of the episode today about Wendy's
test alone, and it is page one.

Speaker 3 (01:18:10):
One. So you want me to read what she said here?
I want you to answer the question what was the
most important part.

Speaker 2 (01:18:24):
Of the divorce for my mom? Yes, it says here
that for her it was relocation.

Speaker 8 (01:18:31):
All right?

Speaker 3 (01:18:31):
And did you have two eight hour mediations in your divorce?

Speaker 2 (01:18:36):
We had two very long mediations. I don't remember exactly
how long they were, but they.

Speaker 3 (01:18:45):
Was mister markl seeking to depose your mom as part
of the divorce. I don't remember that. Do you know
if it ever happened. I don't think it happened. I
don't remember. It was the prospect of that upsetting to
your mom.

Speaker 8 (01:19:00):
I have to take a little break. I'm sorry to
cut it off here, but sometimes I just need to
take a break. I will be right back. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:19:24):
My check.

Speaker 4 (01:19:24):
Roberta strides through the static case true crime Gotham, where
the shadows play their place, frauds to fold when a
spotlight beams, fact focus, queen busting, propaganda schemes, glass shadow
lies that goes through the streets, standing for victims, giving
voice that beats, and why see post truth sharpest night.
Roberta exposing she's an anti froud light partast warrior, dissected

(01:20:00):
Satan's defense, twisted innocense, claims, breaking pretense. Gotham's truth Seeker
cuts clean with the blade facts in the forefront.

Speaker 1 (01:20:08):
No justice gets swayed.

Speaker 4 (01:20:09):
Cold facts drip, heavy, real talk, gun furls, cracking cases
open like oysters with pearls, innocense gimmicks crumble the dust
in the wind for victims, Her creed justice till the end.

(01:20:31):
Headphones blazing, she drops heavy artillery.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
Now we're just.

Speaker 4 (01:20:35):
Twisted neat blunt objects. Civility. Roberta got receipts that unraveled,
deploy exposing the lies, these frauds that deploy glass shatters,
lies that goes through the streets, standing for victims, giving
voice their beats and was speed post truth sharpest knight.

Speaker 3 (01:20:52):
Roberta exposed it.

Speaker 4 (01:20:53):
She's the anti fraud light.

Speaker 8 (01:21:32):
Okay, I'm back, I'm back and back, thanks for your patience.
There's been a new filing in Wendy Adelson from Wendy
Aedelson and Donna's case. She protects her rights, her Fifth
Amendment rights in this where she wants her Fifth Amendment

(01:21:55):
rights protected and she wants the defense to be very
limited in their cross examine nation of her, so they
can't go beyond the scope of the direct examination, very
much like we've seen in all the previous trials for
the In the murder of Dan Marcau, I.

Speaker 2 (01:22:12):
Don't remember it, so I don't remember talking with her
about it, or.

Speaker 3 (01:22:17):
Did your mom called Dan any disparaging names around this timeframe?

Speaker 2 (01:22:22):
Well, I just read them in the emails, but I
don't remember them independently.

Speaker 3 (01:22:27):
Okay, did she call him an asshole? Yes, a narcissist, yes, bully, yes,
religious sell it, yes, bastard that I don't remember? Page five?

Speaker 14 (01:22:40):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (01:22:43):
Is it page five from the first email?

Speaker 3 (01:22:46):
Yes, if you'll just go through by that physical pages,
I see. Yes, I'm sorry. What was your answer? Yes, fucker. Yes.

(01:23:10):
But in all the filings made on your behalf byble
different lawyers that you had, and all of the emails
that your mom said, he was never described as abusive.

Speaker 2 (01:23:24):
I mean he was described as emotionally abusive.

Speaker 3 (01:23:26):
Yes. Can you show me where he was described as
emotionally abusive in any of those Well, not by my mom,
but in the fleetings. Okay, show me that. It's going
to take me a while to find it. Okay, Well
you're not in there, but you can get back to me. Well,
it is in there.

Speaker 8 (01:23:47):
Wait, does she mean in the filings? Dan Markel's never
described as emotionally abusive in her divorce filings or in
Donna's emails. Because Donna does call him a bully, I'd
call that a moment felly abusive. Not that I'm helping
Wendy out with her, Not that I'd like to help
Wendy out with her testimony. But is it in the

(01:24:08):
filings or Donna's email? I thought this was Donna's descriptions.

Speaker 3 (01:24:12):
No, so would you have to review the whole file
in order to find that, or could you give us
a starting point of which filing it might be located in.

Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
It might be under the petition to relocate. It might
be under the initial divorce proceedings. It wouldn't be in
emails from my mom, but it would take a while
to find. It might be in the depositions.

Speaker 3 (01:24:48):
Okay, did you be yourself as being stuck here in
Tallahassee once the relocation was denied? I didn't.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
I mean, I had a really nice life here. I
did not view myself as being stuck.

Speaker 3 (01:25:02):
Would you please turn to page one hundred and seventy six.

Speaker 8 (01:25:05):
And that strangely, she wrote a book where the character Lily,
who strangely resembles her, felt stuck, and Jeffrey Lacass said
as ify that she hated Tallahassee and she felt stuck,
and all they talked about was her divorce and how
much she hated Tallahassee. So I don't know, maybe you

(01:25:27):
could ask her another another question. She objectively had a
nice life. You can have a nice life and not
enjoy it.

Speaker 3 (01:25:39):
Exhibit in front of you. I think it's highlighted for you.

(01:26:00):
Did you describe yourself in that filing as being stuck
in Tallahassee?

Speaker 2 (01:26:05):
I don't see it.

Speaker 3 (01:26:06):
You said it was highlighted, but there's nothing highlighted. Okay,
I did not let it for you.

Speaker 8 (01:26:15):
Okay, enough, Wendy loves to be in the right. They
didn't highlight the page. How Wendy gets to be right?
They didn't highlight the page.

Speaker 3 (01:26:35):
So did you describe, at least in one occasion, being
stuck in Tallahassee?

Speaker 9 (01:26:40):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
Can I read the sentence? Sure? So it says.

Speaker 2 (01:26:46):
The husband has made it difficult for the wife with
her colleagues at her current position due to his statements
and actions, and the husband's intent is to relocate to
a larger area at some point, So the wife is
merely stuck in Tallahassee until the husband decides that the
time is right for him to leave.

Speaker 3 (01:27:02):
Meaning had he accepted a job anywhere else by the
time that he was murdered.

Speaker 2 (01:27:08):
No, he hadn't yet been offered a job, but he
was always looking okay, so he was just.

Speaker 3 (01:27:14):
Gonna move and just let you have the kids.

Speaker 2 (01:27:16):
At that point, he probably would have done what I did,
which is have a conversation and see if it was
a place that made sense for both of us to live.

Speaker 3 (01:27:23):
And would you have moved to wherever he got a
great job and started a new life there potentially? Yeah, Okay,
did you like Tallahassee? I did? And you said, I
think you did say this, But let me clarify. Was
your mom aware of the order denying relocation?

Speaker 2 (01:27:45):
My mom was aware of the order denying Really he.

Speaker 3 (01:27:48):
Said about your brother, Charlie. Was he aware of that
as well?

Speaker 8 (01:27:51):
I can just hear Jeffrey the Kaz if he would
was if there wasn't a secret stration order, if he
was in the galary for that testimony, just laughing out loud.
Did you like Tallahassee?

Speaker 1 (01:28:04):
Yes?

Speaker 8 (01:28:04):
I did, just hear your laugh out loud at that.
How many witnesses could you get? Do you think so
many of them are beholden to I wonder still to Wendy.

Speaker 9 (01:28:18):
But.

Speaker 8 (01:28:21):
Jeffrey la cass Oh, I'm thinking the other witness who
just came forward against Wendy helped me out. He's a lawyer.
Figure it out. She would probably testify the same way.

Speaker 2 (01:28:40):
Oh, I'm sure my mom would have said something to him.

Speaker 3 (01:28:44):
All right, So did your mom suggest anyways that you
might core stand Mark Hall to let you move with
the kids to South Florida. Yes, I think we talked
about that before we did. And for this, I'm referring
back to those emails and in particular the bribe. So

(01:29:08):
another bribe to get him to allow relocation on page
five of five of the first email for the defense,
another bribe to get him to allow relocation should be
the offer of plane tickets so that he can fly
back and forth. Right, So you were going to potentially

(01:29:28):
offer this big monetary benefit that would allow him to
fly back and forth to work. Is that the idea?

Speaker 8 (01:29:35):
I never said that I was going to do any
of the Sarah Yusuf, I don't know why I forgot
her name, but I did. Yeah, she would testify that
Wendy hated tell that, Assie.

Speaker 3 (01:29:45):
Okay? Was that the idea that your mom had?

Speaker 8 (01:29:48):
That was the idea?

Speaker 3 (01:29:49):
All right? And the amount of the bribe is going
to be or was at least discussed as being a
million dollars? Is that right? That is what they said okay,
And did you agree with that? Would that have worked?
I have no idea if it would have worked. But
you think he might have taken a million bucks to
let his kids go, Well, he wasn't letting his kids go.

Speaker 2 (01:30:10):
He would have moved to South Florida and he would
have commuted back and forth to his job. So maybe,
well then why wasn't it offered because I didn't want
to do it?

Speaker 3 (01:30:24):
All right? What about the idea that you could try
to threaten Dan to convert the kids to Christianity so
that they can fit into the Bible belt here in Tallahassee.
Is that something your mom suggested in these emails? My
mom did suggest that, okay, and specifically this is on

(01:30:47):
page seven of the exhibit. Let dribbers know that your
children will be baptized in the Catholic church, have a
picture made of them in front of the church, all
that kind of thing. That's what your mom suggested at

(01:31:08):
one time.

Speaker 2 (01:31:09):
She did, yes, okay, And did you do any of
those things? Well, I don't even think I responded to it.

Speaker 3 (01:31:18):
Do you know whether the defendant, your brother Charlie, was
supportive of the plan to convert them or pose as
converting them to Christianity. I don't think he was particularly
involved in this RealD of my mom's age eleven of
the exhibit, there's an indication from your mom that Charlie

(01:31:41):
at least has discussed this with her, and maybe a
somewhat supportive Charlie brought up a good point when he
said that Americans were dropped behind enemy lines during World
War Two wearing Nazi uniforms to get what they wanted.
They had a job to get done, and they did
what they needed to do to accomplish it. You have
a job to get done in a very short timeframe.

(01:32:03):
To accomplish it. If you dressed your kids up in
Hitler youth uniforms and brought them down here, I could
care less if it was an act of defiance, that
would show Gibbers that he's all caps and bold, not
in control. So it just seems like your mom was
pretty extreme about this situation of getting you relocated. Can

(01:32:23):
you agree with that? Yeah? All right? And Charlie was
at least consulted on it or had offered some information
about it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:31):
Well, that was my mom's rendition, So I don't know
if that's what actually happened. Or that was her perception.

Speaker 3 (01:32:37):
Sure, were you involved in the effort to consult a
lawyer about the bribe and whether that was going to
be legal?

Speaker 2 (01:32:47):
I wasn't the lawyer consulted in that.

Speaker 1 (01:32:49):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:32:49):
No, were you involved in consulting a lawyer with your mom? Okay,
do you know for sure if any of the any
financial offer was or was not made to Dan Markel?
I couldn't say for sure if they made it to
Danny without me knowing, but I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:33:05):
I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (01:33:05):
Is that something they would do is try to negotiate
with him behind your back or deal with this situation
behind your back?

Speaker 2 (01:33:12):
I don't think so. I think I would have known.
Danny probably would have told me.

Speaker 3 (01:33:16):
But you definitely didn't extend any of these offers or threats.
When was the divorce.

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
Final this summer of twenty thirteen.

Speaker 3 (01:33:37):
All Right, I'm gonna switch gears for a minute and
talk about phone stuff. Was your cell phone collected by
the police in this case?

Speaker 2 (01:33:45):
After Dan was shot, I gave the police my cell
phone and asked them to search it if it could
be useful.

Speaker 3 (01:33:50):
All right, And around the time of the murder, was
your number nine five four eight oh, three zero zero
seven nine, it was can you agree that the numbers?
Let me show you an exhibit.

Speaker 8 (01:34:07):
She gave her cell phone and asked them to search
it if it would be useful, not that she knew
that they'd get a warrant to search it anyway. And
she was talking to Charlie on what's that another encrypted device?
A little like in case we just went over. We're

(01:34:30):
defended talking on an encrypted app, and her and her
defense witnesses, her expert defense witnesses, we're talking to her
lawyers on that encrypted app that auto deleted. I don't
know if Wendy's and Charlie's communication auto deleted on WhatsApp.

Speaker 3 (01:35:04):
You will, okay, Well, I want to explain what it is, okay. Yeah.
So I talked a lot about converting to Christianity, but
I didn't mention what religion you are. We talked about
Dan being more religious than you are, but we didn't
talk about what religion you are. So could you explain
that to the jury police.

Speaker 2 (01:35:23):
Sure, I'm Jewish and Dan was as well, Right, Danny
was Jewish as well.

Speaker 8 (01:35:28):
Okay, So I had.

Speaker 3 (01:35:33):
This exhibit fifty nine.

Speaker 9 (01:35:35):
This is not.

Speaker 3 (01:35:49):
Yes, that's what we did one moment. All right, you
may not be able to do this, but stay fifty nine.
I've got phone members attributed to your family members. Obviously
you don't know the other people.

Speaker 11 (01:36:10):
Are those phone numbers accurate?

Speaker 3 (01:36:12):
If you know what a timeframe around the murder? Yes? Okay,
all right? And then you are also familiar with the
wiretap that was conducted in this case.

Speaker 9 (01:36:27):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:36:27):
And did I provide you a disc labeled disc one
oh seven and ask you to review some calls and
see if you could authenticate the voices on those calls?

Speaker 9 (01:36:37):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:36:38):
All right, And for that I made you a little
spreadsheet which I've marked as sixty one. And were you
able to initial by each call indicating that the highlighted
names are the voices of the people they purport to be? Yes?

Speaker 11 (01:36:57):
At this time, I'd asked im in a state sixty one.

Speaker 3 (01:37:02):
Stay all right, and if we can shift back to
we talked about your divorce being final. Once the divorce
was final, weren't there still a lot of filings that
went back and forth between both you and Dan Markel?

Speaker 2 (01:37:25):
Yes, and no, the divorce was final, we had a
final settlement agreement. The agreement was I take my name
off the title to the house. He pays me half
the value to the house. So for within the first week,
I went and took my name off the title to
the house. And I waited until October when he was
supposed to get back to me. He never paid me
the money, and so I called and I asked what

(01:37:48):
happened that was the deal? And he said, I have
compelling reasons I'm not going to pay you. And so
I made one filing a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement because he didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:37:58):
Do it right, So you believed that he owed you
money persua to the settlement agreement. He was in violation
of the settlement agreement, yes, And he was of the
belief that you had withheld some financial things from your
affidavit and maybe he didn't know you the money that
you had previously agreed on because you had not been

(01:38:19):
honest in the initial disclosures. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:38:22):
He accused my attorney of having unclean hands and committing
a crime.

Speaker 3 (01:38:28):
Yeah, and assisting you and withholding this money from the disclosures. Okay,
all right, So I want to ask you about the
motion to enforce marital settlement Agreement and hold Dan Markell
in contempt of court that was filed. You may need

(01:38:51):
to refresh your memory. October thirty first, twenty thirteen. You
ZIP fifty six and have you take a look at
this is going to be on three thirty eight? All right?

(01:39:43):
Could you just read the title the caption.

Speaker 2 (01:39:47):
Of that filing motion to enforce marital settlement agreement and
to show cause why the former husband should not be
held in contempt of court?

Speaker 3 (01:39:56):
What does it mean to be held in contempt of court?
Not to be doing what the court has asked you
to do? What can happen to you if you're held
in contempt at court? I don't know. Really, could you
be jailed? I don't know? All right? And when was
this file? This was you filing it? Right? I mean

(01:40:17):
you're the client, right, you're asking that he be held
in contempt and I filed This means I mean at
the time I filed, which was ten years ago. Oh, okay,
we'll refresh your recollection with a document goes through three
forty Okay, I have it.

Speaker 8 (01:40:53):
Okay, So.

Speaker 3 (01:40:56):
What was it you were asking for in this motion?
It was what I just mentioned.

Speaker 2 (01:41:01):
So basically I took my name off the title to
the house he never paid. This was asking him to pay.

Speaker 3 (01:41:07):
Cough up the money or be held in contempt yep, okay,
And what day was this filed?

Speaker 2 (01:41:15):
This was filed on October thirty first, twenty thirteen.

Speaker 3 (01:41:20):
All right, so Halloween of thirteen. And that's the same
day that you backed out of the contract to purchased
the house in Tallahassee right. I don't remember that day,
that was, Okay. Do you remember that it was your
brother Charlie that specifically convinced you to back out of
that particular house deal.

Speaker 2 (01:41:38):
I don't, Actually, I don't remember that.

Speaker 14 (01:42:03):
Kah.

Speaker 3 (01:42:39):
These text mesters, that's your recollection, okay, And you might
have to look around for context, but I'm suppose you.

Speaker 11 (01:42:45):
Could be looking at this one okay.

Speaker 3 (01:42:59):
Mm hmm, okay, does that refresh your recollection? Honestly? I mean,

(01:43:21):
I can read what's here, but I still don't remember.
I remember. And after pulling the plot on the house,
there were some emails where you were saying you can't
answer the phone, you're crying too hard about the house.
Like you seemed genuinely upset about pulling the plot on
the house. But now you don't remember it.

Speaker 2 (01:43:40):
Well, it's been ten years, so a lot of terrible
things have happened since then. It's hard to remember. I
really liked the house and was excited about it, but
it was more than I can afford at the time.
That's what I remember is talking with the real estate
agent and having her say we would just we'd find
another house.

Speaker 3 (01:44:00):
Wasn't the right one? Would you have any reason to
dispute that that occurred on Halloween of twenty thirteen?

Speaker 2 (01:44:05):
No, I'm probably did I I just don't remember, okay.

Speaker 3 (01:44:10):
And then a few months later, on February fourteenth of
twenty fourteen, there was another filing. I want to draw
your attention to page three seventy nine to ask you
what that document is. Do you have me to read

(01:44:33):
the title of the document?

Speaker 2 (01:44:34):
Yes, please, Former Husband's Countermotion to Enforce Marital Settlement Agreements,
Financial Provisions and incorporated Motion for sanctions.

Speaker 3 (01:44:44):
Do you remember this filing?

Speaker 2 (01:44:46):
I don't remember this filing, but in anticipation of my
testimony today, I refreshed and reread it.

Speaker 3 (01:44:52):
Okay. And he accuses you in this filing of breaching
the marital settlement agreement in various ways, right, that's correct, okay,
and committing abroad upon the court by omitting the two
hundred thousand dollars in assets from.

Speaker 8 (01:45:04):
Your right, she admitted two hundred thousand dollars in assets.
She's in she's being accused of things that she could
lose their law license over, but she doesn't remember it,
has doesn't have any memory of it. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

Speaker 3 (01:45:24):
Financial affidavit that when he is alleging and ask the
court to sanction you, yes, that's what he said. Okay,
So again you're both seeking the court sanction each other
and them them's fighting words and lawyer terms.

Speaker 2 (01:45:42):
Right, Well, I was filing a motion to enforce a
settlement agreement, So I don't think that's really fighting words.
That's just asking the court to complete what it was,
what had already said it wanted to do.

Speaker 3 (01:45:54):
Okay. And on page three seventy nine, Dan suggests that
the court send a strong message about your malheasance by
awarding him the entirety of the undisclosed assets of over
two hundred thousand dollars. Right, that is what he asked for, Okay.
And then on March tenth of twenty fourteen, on page

(01:46:15):
four thirty seven, do you respond with your motion to
dismiss the former husband's counter motion to enforce the marital
settlement agreement that we just talked about.

Speaker 2 (01:46:27):
I'm sorry, which what is the page number four thirty seven.
I'm not familiar with this, but do you want me
to read through it?

Speaker 3 (01:46:45):
Could you read the caption aloud please?

Speaker 2 (01:46:47):
Short, motion to dismiss the former husband's counter motion to
enforce marital settlement agreements, financial provisions and incorporated motion for
sanctions for failure to state a cause of action and
motion to drake is a sham pleading, and motion to
strake is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous pleating.

Speaker 3 (01:47:06):
And then if you'll go to page four thirty nine,
do you see a paragraph that begins the vast majority
of the former husband's motion?

Speaker 2 (01:47:18):
Actually, don't see that on page four thirty nine, Yes, ma'am,
I think I have it.

Speaker 3 (01:47:26):
Hold on number eight. Yeah, The vast majority of the
former husband's motion contains allegations that are redundant and material, impertinent,
and scandalous. YadA, YadA. He's making false and immaterial statements
against you. His pleadings only prove that he is a
disgruntled former husband who cannot move past this dissolution so

(01:47:49):
it's getting personal. Would you agree with that?

Speaker 2 (01:47:53):
My attorney here is responding to his pleading which was
over the top, and this is over the top, right,
I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (01:48:04):
Then six days later, Dan files another motion seeking action
against your mother, and that's the one we've already touched on.
That's page four forty one, Is that right?

Speaker 2 (01:48:14):
Page four yes, ma'am, Yes, that's what we talked about.

Speaker 3 (01:48:19):
Okay. Former husband's counter motion for enforcement a marital settlement
agreement on parenting issues and motion for contempt and sanctions.
Here he's alleging again more violations of the marital settlement agreement,
including communication between he and the boys. He wasn't happy

(01:48:40):
with how much communication was happening, failing to keep him
informed of where his kids are, failure to communicate about
parenting decisions like the kids schooling, diet, and extracurricular activities,
and refusal to provide him access to the kids on
their birthdays. So he's complaining about a lot of things
associated with this, not just money stuff. It's parenting stuff too, right,

(01:49:05):
that's right, And isn't it in this motion that? Yes, sir,
I said that that's right, isn't it in this motion
that Dan Markel seeks to enjoin you from allowing your
mother from spending time with the kids without supervision.

Speaker 2 (01:49:23):
Can you please show me which page that's like.

Speaker 3 (01:49:25):
Four or fifty? Do you see a paragraph beginning on
three specific occasions? Yes, I do.

Speaker 11 (01:49:42):
Could you read that please?

Speaker 2 (01:49:45):
Eight A on three specific occasions. In November twenty thirteen,
the children informed mister Merkel, Abba, dad, grandma says you're stupid.
When when queried as to why Grandma, the maternal grandmother,
would say such things, the children replied jointly that it
is because she says you are trying to take her
sunshines away from.

Speaker 3 (01:50:03):
Her and continue. Please.

Speaker 2 (01:50:06):
In December twenty thirteen, you don't have to say the
name of your child.

Speaker 3 (01:50:11):
My child, the.

Speaker 2 (01:50:12):
Younger son further stated to mister Markel in front of
the former wife, Abba Grandma says she hates you. The
children were visiting with their grandparents at that time.

Speaker 3 (01:50:21):
Mister Markel is concerned that continued exposure to such negativity
forms a foundation for parental alienation. Is that what he
was alleging about your mom? That is what he is
alleging in this document? Yes, and this was filed in court.
He filed this in court on what.

Speaker 2 (01:50:38):
Date it will be at the front of the document, Right.

Speaker 3 (01:50:44):
Yes, ma'am, Page four forty one.

Speaker 2 (01:50:52):
This was filed on March twenty sixth, twenty fourteen, and
this was.

Speaker 3 (01:50:56):
The filing that never got ruled on. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:51:00):
I don't believe there was any ruling on this.

Speaker 3 (01:51:02):
That's because Dan Markel was killed before the hearing. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:51:06):
I don't know what it was scheduled for.

Speaker 3 (01:51:08):
It wasn't even scheduled yet. Okay, I was waiting to
be scheduled when he was killed. If if is it
fair to say your mom was worried about this motion.

Speaker 2 (01:51:19):
No, my mom never knew about this motion, and as
I mentioned before, Danny asked my mom to babysit after
filing this motion. So I don't really believe anything that's
written here.

Speaker 3 (01:51:29):
Well, you forwarded this motion to your mother. I don't
believe the email. In fact, you forwarded this motion to
twelve different people, your mom, Jeffrey lucass, Renee Griggs, Tova Walsh,
Morgan Honeycutt, Gary Cohen, Miguel Edmundson, Trey Hubler, Robert Adelson,

(01:51:52):
Rachel Frank, Jared Reich, and some M. E. H U
l n y C at Yaho. So if you weren't
worried about this, why did you send it to all
these people?

Speaker 2 (01:52:05):
I couldn't really say, it's been a long time.

Speaker 3 (01:52:07):
And then a couple of days later we know what happened.

Speaker 2 (01:52:14):
So this was in March, so a couple of days
I filed it, I sent it to people in July
and Danny.

Speaker 3 (01:52:20):
You sent it. I'm sorry you sent it. A couple
days later, I sent the I SAT email to twelve
different people in March. Yes, very.

Speaker 8 (01:52:35):
So we're supposed to believe that after Dan Marcel files
this motion accusing Wendy of Donna Edelson of creating, of
doing things that would create an atmosphere of parental alienation,
of calling him names, that she's gonna that he's going

(01:52:57):
to want to put his children with a woman called
him stupid, and that you're trying to take your sunshines away.
So we know that they tried to kill him in June,

(01:53:17):
and this plan was I mean they started and started
asking around in October, so I mean this was always
I guess their backup plan or it was the plan.

(01:53:42):
So they're having a sidebar conference move through this. Let's
see if I can move through it a little faster.

Speaker 9 (01:54:06):
Kay, Do you want to get you seated?

Speaker 10 (01:54:17):
Definitely?

Speaker 3 (01:54:17):
About while we're all here.

Speaker 8 (01:54:24):
I can't imagine dealing with Judge Everard must be pretty easy.

Speaker 1 (01:54:29):
You're a lawyer.

Speaker 8 (01:54:30):
Seems like a pretty easy going judge.

Speaker 9 (01:54:35):
Chirstphone and have the frogs or crickets or whatever that
was turn it off?

Speaker 8 (01:55:03):
Oh Lordie, this is a long break.

Speaker 9 (01:55:10):
Capal Ben. You can resume your examination, Thank your honor.

Speaker 11 (01:55:15):
I want to talk a little bit about your.

Speaker 3 (01:55:17):
Brother, Charlie. Is he an older brother or a younger
brother too.

Speaker 2 (01:55:20):
I'm the youngest of three, so I have two older brothers.
They're both older.

Speaker 3 (01:55:24):
Than me, all right, and he's the middle child, Charlie.
That's right, all right? And are you closer to Charlie
or to the other brother. I'm closer to Charlie. How
much time were you spending with Charlie back in twenty
thirteen and twenty fourteen?

Speaker 2 (01:55:38):
A lot of time. I was in Tallahassee. He was
in South Florida.

Speaker 3 (01:55:45):
Did he work a lot? He worked a lot? Yeah.
Did he work at one location or travel around?

Speaker 2 (01:55:52):
He would travel around. He worked at multiple locations.

Speaker 3 (01:55:55):
Was he pretty successful in his job?

Speaker 2 (01:55:58):
He came up with a eat business model for what
he did, and he worked really hard and was very successful.

Speaker 3 (01:56:05):
Was your brother known to carry a lot of cash?

Speaker 2 (01:56:10):
I know, I mean he had cash on him sometimes.
I never saw large sums of cash.

Speaker 3 (01:56:15):
Did you ever see stapled cash?

Speaker 2 (01:56:17):
I never saw stapled cash.

Speaker 3 (01:56:18):
Were you familiar with his practice of stapling cash together
in stacks?

Speaker 1 (01:56:22):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:56:22):
I never knew about that. Was your brother, Charlie protective
of you?

Speaker 2 (01:56:30):
I mean when I was a little kid.

Speaker 3 (01:56:32):
What about as an adult?

Speaker 2 (01:56:34):
As an adult, I mean not particularly.

Speaker 3 (01:56:39):
Is it fair to say that during the year or
so leading up to the murder of Dan Mark how
that your brother did not like your ex?

Speaker 2 (01:56:49):
I mean I don't think he Yeah, he probably didn't
like him, but I also think he didn't spend a
lot of time thinking about him.

Speaker 3 (01:56:55):
Did he ever like him?

Speaker 2 (01:56:57):
Yeah, I mean I think they got along fine.

Speaker 3 (01:57:01):
Did your brother ever mention hiring a hitman to kill
Dan Marcel?

Speaker 9 (01:57:05):
No.

Speaker 3 (01:57:08):
I'm going to turn your attention to your law enforcement interview,
and I'm referring to page twenty five, lines thirteen or fifteen.

Speaker 17 (01:57:28):
Samander, It's just this pap here, okay, all right?

Speaker 3 (01:57:39):
So page twenty five do you find it? Yes, quote
it was always his joke. He said, I looked into
hiring a hit man, and it was cheaper to get
you this TV. Is that what he said? That was
a joke that he made. Yes, and hiring a hitman.

(01:57:59):
That was to kill m Markel, right, that was the joke.
That was the joke that he made in foretaste. Yes,
not to kill someone else.

Speaker 2 (01:58:05):
No, well he never used his name.

Speaker 3 (01:58:09):
Okay, Well he's hiring you the TV because it's cheaper
as a divorce present than a hit man. Who else
would he be hitting with the hitman?

Speaker 2 (01:58:16):
I never really thought about it because it was not
a thing that he meant.

Speaker 3 (01:58:19):
He just made a bad joke. Well, you repeated the joke,
didn't you.

Speaker 8 (01:58:22):
She never thought about it, but she repeated it. These
are the kind of whopper lies that are really hard
to believe. Your ex husband, we only have one. Oh
my lord, it's so hard to deal with all these lies.

Speaker 3 (01:58:38):
He repeated the joke. Didn't you also repeat the joke
to other people? Yes, like jeffle Coass.

Speaker 2 (01:58:42):
I never said that to Jefflicas.

Speaker 3 (01:58:44):
Jeff Coas that your brother got you that TV as
a divorce present because it was cheaper than hiring a
hit I may have repeated that joke in the context
of the TV, yes, all right.

Speaker 8 (01:58:52):
And I may have told him that my brother was
looking into hiring a hit man. I may have let
it slip after and night the heavy drinking.

Speaker 3 (01:59:01):
Who is jeff licas.

Speaker 2 (01:59:02):
Jeff Lecass was a person I dated in twenty thirteen?

Speaker 3 (01:59:07):
And did you tell Jeffrey Lacasse shortly before the actual
murder that your brother really had looked into hiring a hitman?
I did not. Did he buy you a TV as
a divorce president? Did my brother buy me a TV
as adorce president?

Speaker 9 (01:59:20):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:59:20):
Sorry, should have clarified that. And was the TV that
your brother bought you as a divorce present the same
TV that was being repaired on the morning of the murder? Yes?
Did your mom text you that morning that the repair
guy was coming to repair the TV?

Speaker 2 (01:59:35):
I don't remember that.

Speaker 3 (01:59:37):
Why would your mom have been involved in your TV
repair appointment? Because I didn't purchase the TV.

Speaker 2 (01:59:43):
The TV was a gift that my brother paid for,
but my mom went and got it and he reimbursed her,
so the contract would have been under her name and
her number. So when the when the repair guy was coming.
They may have called or texted the number on the
account instead.

Speaker 3 (01:59:55):
Of my number. Okay. And after the murder, do you
recall going to to a dinner where you got sick
at the table?

Speaker 2 (02:00:03):
It was about a month later, And yes, I remember
where did.

Speaker 3 (02:00:06):
That dinner occur? Was that here in Tallahassee or somewhere else?

Speaker 2 (02:00:08):
No, it was in Miami, all right.

Speaker 3 (02:00:10):
And was it like a out at a restaurant. It
was at a restaurant, all right. And when we say
you got sick at the table, did you actually vomit
at the table? I threw up at the table, all right.
And did you ever hear your brother refer to that
particular dinner as a celebratory dinner?

Speaker 9 (02:00:23):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:00:23):
Did you tell Jeffrey Lacasse that your brother called that
a celebratory dinner? I did not.

Speaker 6 (02:00:28):
Was that.

Speaker 3 (02:00:33):
Was that dinner a celebration of the murder of your
ex husband? Absolutely not.

Speaker 2 (02:00:38):
That dinner was the first time I left my house
after over a month because I was terrified. And if
it was a celebration of anything, it was a celebration
that I was willing to leave the house and eat
a meal.

Speaker 3 (02:00:49):
Do you know, Catherine Magbanawa or have you ever met her?
I have met her. Did you have an independent friendship
with her or did you only know her through your brother?
I only knew her through my brother. What was her
relationship to your brother?

Speaker 2 (02:01:00):
They dated at some point.

Speaker 3 (02:01:02):
Was there anything unusual about her as a girlfriend from
your viewpoint at the time, No, so she seemed like
a typical kind of girl that he would date. She did.
Did you meet all his girlfriends? I don't know. I
met many girlfriends, okay. Did you meet Whitney Kick?

Speaker 8 (02:01:18):
I did?

Speaker 3 (02:01:19):
Okay, And Whitney Kick was after Katherine Macmanawah, correct, I believe? So?
All right? And there's a photograph. I'm sure you recall
you on the beach with Catherine Macmanawaw. Do you recall
when that photo was taken?

Speaker 9 (02:01:32):
I do.

Speaker 2 (02:01:33):
It was Father's Day twenty fourteen, so nine years.

Speaker 3 (02:01:37):
Ago, June fifteenth of twenty fourteen. That sounds right, So
about a month before the murder, that sounds right. Where
was this photo taken? It was in Miami.

Speaker 2 (02:01:46):
I went down to visit my dad for Father's Day.

Speaker 11 (02:01:49):
Coaching and showing me what at Ark States thirty five
is this that photograph?

Speaker 3 (02:01:53):
And I've attached to the data associated with it. Yes, okay,
s fair and accurate copy of that photograph.

Speaker 18 (02:01:58):
Yes, judge, I asked, even, oh yeah, all right.

Speaker 3 (02:02:33):
Is that you in the center?

Speaker 9 (02:02:34):
That's me?

Speaker 3 (02:02:35):
Which one is Catherine mc banawah the one on the
left our left in the picture? And how long hadn't
as mag banahah have been dating her brother at the
time this photo was taken. I have no idea how
many times had you met miss mag bana at the
time this was taken? I think once before? Okay, how
many times did you hang out with her?

Speaker 9 (02:02:50):
Total?

Speaker 2 (02:02:51):
Just these two times, once at the dinner when I
met her, and then once at the beach for an hour.

Speaker 3 (02:03:00):
Was the relationship between your brother and Katherine mcbanawaw serious if.

Speaker 8 (02:03:03):
You know well she was only at the beach with
her for an hour, she remembers it was an hour.
She doesn't remember the incredibly contentious divorce filing that threatened
her license, but she remembers exactly how long she's spent
with Katherine mcbanawa on the beach.

Speaker 3 (02:03:23):
I don't know, I mean ten years ago. Was it serious?
Not too serious? It never stood out to you during
that time frame, is like, oh, this is the one.

Speaker 7 (02:03:33):
No.

Speaker 3 (02:03:37):
All right, so you mentioned you thought Whitney kick was
after Katherine mcbanwall. What about June Umcinda? Do you know
which one that is?

Speaker 2 (02:03:44):
When you say, do I know which one that is,
she's not in the picture.

Speaker 3 (02:03:47):
No, Man, you're one of your brother's girlfriends, June and Chinda.

Speaker 2 (02:03:49):
Do you know I met I met someone in June?

Speaker 9 (02:03:51):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (02:03:52):
And would you agree that was also after Katherine mcmanawall, Yes,
that would have been after When did you learn that
Katherine mcbanawall was blackmailing your brother for the murder of
your ex husband today? Hmm, so he never told you.

Speaker 9 (02:04:06):
No.

Speaker 3 (02:04:07):
You testified in Katherine mcvanna's murder trial last year, didn't you?
I did, Yes, and she was convicted. She was convicted, Yes,
of murder, Yes, of murder, of murdering Dan Markel, of
murdering my children's mother, Yes, a crime for which she
apparently is innocent because she was just a conduit for
Sacredo Garcia. Did you learn that today along with all
of us?

Speaker 2 (02:04:27):
Well, I learned that someone made that argument. I don't
know whether it's true or not true.

Speaker 3 (02:04:30):
Okay, you have no knowledge of it.

Speaker 2 (02:04:32):
I have no knowledge in all the years this has
been pending, And all of the years this has been pending.

Speaker 3 (02:04:36):
Your brother has known who killed your child's father, and
you didn't know. I did not know. Do you know
why Catherine mcmanawaw was on the payroll at the Adelson Institute.
I believe that she worked there. What did she do there?

Speaker 2 (02:04:53):
I know my brother met her at a dental office,
So I'm guessing administrative.

Speaker 3 (02:04:56):
Work of some kind.

Speaker 8 (02:04:58):
Oh right, So she knows that Katherine mcdanall worked in
a different dental office, so she's gonna she seems to
know quite a bit about the case.

Speaker 3 (02:05:06):
Did you ever observe her doing administrative work there?

Speaker 9 (02:05:08):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:05:11):
How did the killers in this case know that Dan
Markel was planning to leave town the day after the killing?
I have no idea. You knew he was planning to
leave town the next day, didn't you?

Speaker 11 (02:05:21):
I did?

Speaker 3 (02:05:21):
Yes? Did you convey that information to anyone? Absolutely not
to your knowledge. Did your brother have that information? I
don't know why he would have known that. So if
the killers were told, it has to be done today
because he's leaving town tomorrow. We don't know how they
knew that.

Speaker 2 (02:05:34):
I have no idea how they knew that, but it
would have to come from.

Speaker 3 (02:05:38):
Someone familiar with Dan Markell's schedule, wouldn't it. They would
have to find out somehow. I don't know how, prior
to Dan Markel's.

Speaker 8 (02:05:46):
I don't know how. I just don't think Donna would
know that detail. I mean, I'm with the majority of
the people in this case. I think you know who
follow this case thinks that it's just from living on
planet Earth. It's not normal to drive by the crime scene,

(02:06:06):
and it's even stranger to have three different reasons why
you drove by the crime scene up to the crime
scene tape an hour after your ex husband was murdered,
with having no knowledge in it, just being coincidenced. One
is that she frequently drove by Dan Markel's house to
come to terms with the divorce. She had a bad

(02:06:28):
sense of direction. It was the only way she knew
how to get to the liquor store. And or three
you can take your pick, or it was a shortcut
to get to the liquor store, which is not a shortcut,
but she thought it was a shortcut. She was under
the mistaken idea that it was shortcut.

Speaker 9 (02:06:45):
So when.

Speaker 8 (02:06:47):
You know the truth never changes I mean that's the
you know, the issue I have doing true crime when
you're making things up, or you're going in different directions
that lead away from the case and make people conspirators

(02:07:09):
that won't or spin tales to make the accused look innocent.
You can do endless, endless podcasts, but the truth never changes,
so you're really confined to the evidence, which is why
we see one of the reasons why we see there
are many it's very lucrative one, but so much true

(02:07:30):
crime media that is one completely untrue.

Speaker 9 (02:07:35):
Be.

Speaker 8 (02:07:37):
Made to help either free a killer or get help
get a killer off.

Speaker 3 (02:07:44):
Or murder. When were you last in South Florida? Was
it this trip that's pictured here?

Speaker 2 (02:07:50):
No, because it was my dad's seventieth birthday in early July,
so I would have gone down to celebrate his birthday.

Speaker 3 (02:07:56):
Okay, when's dad's birthday? July fifth? How long were you
down there for that July fifth trip?

Speaker 2 (02:08:04):
I don't really remember offhand, but my guess is about
a week.

Speaker 3 (02:08:08):
Did you see Charlie Aedelson on that trip?

Speaker 2 (02:08:10):
Yesin zick r N.

Speaker 8 (02:08:16):
Says thank you ROBERTA for your humor and insight, love love,
love your lives. When I can catch them. Thanks for
catching them The Real Deal, Thanks so much. The Supersticker
The Real Deal again says If Wendy is charged, what

(02:08:39):
would the charge be, it would have to be murder
because any I don't know. Maybe she would have had
to be in the plannings of it, But what's the
evidence she had to have knowledge of it. She had

(02:09:01):
to give them the cant schedule that's making it happen.
I don't know. It has been rumored that Georgia has
more evidence against Wendy that she's holding back. May not be.
Wendy may never be charged in this case. I've always

(02:09:24):
thought that they were laying down a fantation, doing the
easiest people to the hardest. I think Wendy's the hardest.
I don't think Harby, though he's like Wendy, an unindicted
co conspirait in this case, will ever be charged. But
I think Wendy is about I don't know, about a
fifty to fifty shot. She may walk away benefiting the

(02:09:45):
most from this crime, and in my eyes, being involved
and the majority of the public who follows this case,
they see her as guilty of this crime, and she
may get off. That may be the reality that we're
all going to have to swallow and live with. And
her punishment may be the limit in I mean, she's

(02:10:07):
like a social paride. She can only every time she
goes to a job interview, they look her up. She
has this history following her around like a bad smell.
Her children may eventually get wise to this and on
communicator discommunicator her families and shambles. That may be the punishment.

(02:10:31):
I don't know. I mean, of course, I'd like as
much as anyone to see Wendy at least be tried,
even if she's not convicted, at least be tried for
this crime. I'd like to see the stake give it
their best shot.

Speaker 2 (02:10:45):
We celebrated my dad's birthday, the whole family and friends everybody.

Speaker 3 (02:10:48):
Did you see Catherine mcmanawa on that trip? I don't
remember if she was there. And did dad have a
birthday party? Dad at a birthday party? Was it a
big birthday? It was the seventieth birthday. And was Katherine
macgranawa at the party.

Speaker 2 (02:11:00):
I don't remember seeing her there.

Speaker 3 (02:11:02):
And do you remember seeing June um Chinda at the party.
I don't Whitney Kick at the party. I don't so
It could have been any one of them or none
of them or none of them. I don't remember there
being a girlfriend with them at the party. All right.
So you said the birthday was what July fifth? It
would have been July fifth, okay?

Speaker 2 (02:11:16):
And you know on what day you celebrated, maybe his
birthday If it was, I felt like it was a weekend.
So maybe if July fifth was a Saturday, then it
was on his actual birthday.

Speaker 9 (02:11:26):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (02:11:26):
Tell me about the event. Who you said? There were
family and friends there, about how many people, maybe like
fifty people. What was on the menu we had? Paie yah?
Were you responsible for securing the paiea or is that
your brother's job or someone else.

Speaker 2 (02:11:46):
I didn't arrange it, but I speak Spanish and no
one else could communicate with him, so I spent some
time helping him. That's why I remember what we eat.

Speaker 3 (02:11:53):
Okay. Did your dad get any big gifts for his
seventieth I don't remember, did you? So there was no
big lead up and discussion about some big gift that
you were involved in, at least.

Speaker 2 (02:12:06):
I don't remember. I don't remember if I gave them
a present.

Speaker 3 (02:12:08):
I hope they did. Do you remember what anybody gave
him for that birthday. I really don't. Was the murder
of Dan Markell your dad's big gift. I mean, that's
of course not. That's a horrible thing to say. What
about the well, what about the grandchildren getting full unfettered
access to the grandchildren? Uttered access to their grandchildren always
not when they lived in Tallahassee, Well.

Speaker 2 (02:12:30):
Whenever they could come up and see them, they did.

Speaker 3 (02:12:32):
They were fifty percent of the time with Dan Markel,
right sure.

Speaker 2 (02:12:35):
But whenever they were with me, they had full unfettered access.

Speaker 3 (02:12:38):
On the occasion that we're talking about Dad's birthday, was
that one of the times that when you came back
to Tallahassee, your parents rode with you and then rented
a car and drove home in the rental car.

Speaker 2 (02:12:47):
It was, And how long a drive is that it's
about seven hours.

Speaker 3 (02:12:54):
During that seven hour trip, or at any time when
you were in South Florida, was there any discussion of
a murder at all? No, absolutely not. Any discussion of
what to do about Dan. No, any further discussion about bribing,
converting to Christianity of those strategies.

Speaker 2 (02:13:12):
No, that ship had long sailed.

Speaker 3 (02:13:15):
Any discussion on that trip about the Penning motion to
preclude your mom from having contact with the kids. No,
what was wrong with the TV that was repaired the
morning of the murder?

Speaker 2 (02:13:25):
I think one of my boys might have thrown something
at it. There was like a little crack in the TV.

Speaker 3 (02:13:31):
How long had the TV been broken?

Speaker 8 (02:13:32):
There was a little crack, not by Jeff like that,
This is description. It's a little crack that made it
totally unwatchable. You could see but barely the screen.

Speaker 2 (02:13:48):
And at the time that it got repaired, I honestly
don't remember.

Speaker 3 (02:13:51):
Could it have been a long time, quite a long time? No,
it could have been.

Speaker 2 (02:13:54):
I mean I would be completely speculating. I don't remember
how long it was broken for.

Speaker 3 (02:13:57):
Do you remember who repaired the TV? Yes, it was
called the geek Squad. Do you remember the window that
the geek Squad gave you for when they were going
to be at your home to do this repair? I do.

Speaker 2 (02:14:08):
I think they said it was eight to twelve or
nine to one, something like that.

Speaker 3 (02:14:12):
Okay, would you agree with me if I told you
it was eight to twelve? That sounds right? All right?
And do you recall what time the repairman actually arrived?

Speaker 9 (02:14:18):
No?

Speaker 2 (02:14:19):
But I remember they came on the early side, okay,
and was the repair don No?

Speaker 3 (02:14:24):
Why not?

Speaker 2 (02:14:25):
Because I called my brother to find out how much
a new TV would cost versus how much the repair cost,
and it didn't make sense to repair it.

Speaker 8 (02:14:33):
They came on the early side a little too close
to the morning, giving me full time to drive by
the crime scene, and then I had an impromptu lunch
with my friends just to give myself another alibi. This
is what Charlie describes Wendy leaving her alibi you.

Speaker 3 (02:14:50):
To buy a new TV.

Speaker 8 (02:14:51):
Yep.

Speaker 3 (02:14:54):
The records indicate the repairman was there for about forty
five minutes. Does that sound accurate to you?

Speaker 9 (02:14:59):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (02:15:00):
Us? Sure? Why was he there for that long just
to tell you, like, this thing can't be repaired or
it's cost prohibitive to do I remember, I don't.

Speaker 2 (02:15:08):
My guess is he was there to try to see
how he could repair the TV, and then he gave
me an estimate, and then I found out what the
estimate compared to the cost of the new TV would be.

Speaker 3 (02:15:15):
Who paid the repair man? I did the repair man.
You're familiar with his statement that you seemed really upset
that day. What were you upset about. I have no idea.
Were you upset that day?

Speaker 2 (02:15:27):
I don't remember being Oh, yes, I was upset that day.

Speaker 3 (02:15:31):
I was upset.

Speaker 2 (02:15:31):
I remember Danny wanted to take the kids swimming, and
I wanted to pick them.

Speaker 3 (02:15:34):
Up earlier in the day. I said nothing to do
with the TV.

Speaker 2 (02:15:37):
I don't think so. I probably wasn't that upset about
the TV.

Speaker 3 (02:15:50):
Did you ever use the TV as code for the murder?

Speaker 9 (02:15:52):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:15:54):
Did you ever hear your mom do that?

Speaker 11 (02:15:56):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:15:58):
Do you remember on July thirteenth, twenty fourteen, seeing Jeffrey
Lacosse at your place on Aqua Ridge? Do you even
remember that evening?

Speaker 2 (02:16:08):
I don't remember seeing him at my place because by
that point we were kind of broken up, so I
don't think I would have seen him at my place.

Speaker 3 (02:16:13):
So on that occasion, you couldn't have told him you
wanted to share something with him in confidence.

Speaker 2 (02:16:19):
I think that would be very unlikely. We had kind
of broken up at that point.

Speaker 3 (02:16:21):
And you couldn't have told him at that time. The
statement about your brother really did look into hiring it.

Speaker 2 (02:16:26):
I can't imagine I would have said that.

Speaker 3 (02:16:29):
And when did you break up with mister Lacasse? Or
when did the two of you break up?

Speaker 2 (02:16:33):
It would have been end of June twenty fourteen.

Speaker 3 (02:16:37):
So not four days before the murder. No, all right,
So end of June twenty fourteen would have been the
last time you saw him?

Speaker 2 (02:16:45):
No, no, no, I saw him after that. We were
talking and kind of figuring out what we wanted to do.
But we had gone on a trip to Gainesville the
last weekend in June, at which point we had a
big argument and I really didn't want to be with
him after that. So at that point, for me, it
was pretty much done. But there were more discussions until
it formally ended.

Speaker 3 (02:17:03):
And when was the formal end?

Speaker 2 (02:17:06):
I remember seeing him that Monday night and telling him
I wanted to pass some space.

Speaker 3 (02:17:10):
Okay, So four days before the murder. So four days
before Danny was killed, all right? And that was Was
that the end end of your relationship with him? The
last one I told him?

Speaker 8 (02:17:18):
I wife, So Wendy does this thing where she just said,
did you did you throw up on the table?

Speaker 9 (02:17:27):
Yes?

Speaker 8 (02:17:27):
I vomited on the table. Was it four days before
the murder? Yes, it was four days before Danny got killed.
So she has to change the language. It's so bizarre.
It's like a control thing. It's also in statement analysis
is signed for deception. So if you're asked about a

(02:17:48):
gun and you talk about a firearm, it's a sign
of deception or a flag for deception.

Speaker 3 (02:17:54):
Yeah, where did you go after the TV repair man left?

Speaker 8 (02:18:02):
Correction? So if you call it a firearm and then
you call it a gun, like so if you change
the language or something. But here Wendy's is changing. I
just think it's a power and control.

Speaker 2 (02:18:11):
After we left, I stayed at the house for a
while and I was working on some pieces of writing.
I was talking with various friends. I had a friend
in town interviewing for a job at FSU. I was
making plans to go meet her. The time got too
close to before her interview. And then I had two
friends that I would often meet on Fridays, just kind
of last minute, and so we need plans to go
have lunch.

Speaker 3 (02:18:31):
All right, So what time did you leave the house
to go have lunch?

Speaker 2 (02:18:34):
I really didn't remember offhand, but I refreshed my memory
and saw it was some time around twelve forty five.

Speaker 3 (02:18:39):
Okay, so it makes sense that you might have left
your residence at about twelve thirty. Sure, okay. And did
you go to the crime scene or very near the
crime scene on your way from your residence to I
guess to lunch or to wherever you were going next. No,
I did not, So you never turned on Trustcott Drive.

Speaker 2 (02:18:56):
I went to turn on Trustcott Drive, but I saw
that it had been blocked off by some tape, and
so I just kept driving on Serville okay.

Speaker 3 (02:19:02):
And when you had to turn around at the tape
right to.

Speaker 2 (02:19:04):
Go back, I think I tried to turn right and
it couldn't turn, so I would have made like a
the kind of turn, like a K turn, and kept going.

Speaker 3 (02:19:11):
Was there a roadblock there? There was tape? Yeah, and
an officer was there. I didn't see an officer, but
I did see a car, a law enforcement market vehicle.

Speaker 14 (02:19:19):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (02:19:19):
Did you have any contact with the officer?

Speaker 9 (02:19:21):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:19:21):
Okay. Did you do anything after that to try to
find out what was going on down that roadway?

Speaker 9 (02:19:27):
No?

Speaker 2 (02:19:27):
I just assumed it was weather or maybe a tree fall.

Speaker 3 (02:19:29):
Had there been bad weather that day.

Speaker 2 (02:19:31):
No, But it was summertime and there's electrical storms and
trees fall, so that would have been pretty normal for
summer time.

Speaker 3 (02:19:36):
Where were your kids supposed to be at the time
that you encountered that roadblock, they would have been at school,
and that's at the Creative Preschool.

Speaker 14 (02:19:43):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (02:19:43):
Who took them to preschool that day, Danny? And who
was supposed to pick them up from preschool that day?

Speaker 11 (02:19:48):
Me?

Speaker 3 (02:19:49):
All right, So did you know for sure that they
had made it to pre school that day at the
time you encountered the roadblock? I just assumed.

Speaker 2 (02:19:54):
I mean, if they hadn't made it to preschool, Danny
would have let me know.

Speaker 3 (02:19:56):
But did you attempt to call Dan Markell when you
encountered the roadblock.

Speaker 2 (02:19:59):
No, I didn't think anything of it. I didn't thin
give us related to the house. Had you talked to
Dan Markel or your kids that morning, my kids know,
but that would have been right.

Speaker 8 (02:20:07):
It's a little hard.

Speaker 3 (02:20:08):
It's strange.

Speaker 8 (02:20:08):
It's almost like she knew what time. It's a really
good point where time the murder took place. It had
happened earlier, they wouldn't have gotten to pre school. They
could have been in the house alone. I mean, why
wouldn't you run into the house.

Speaker 2 (02:20:27):
It's bizarre, normal and the normal.

Speaker 8 (02:20:31):
Thing for our mothers to make sure our kids are Okay,
you just check, you just check the pre school. Donna
knows that this is a big problem. She says, well,
of course. You know, if you go to one of
my shorts, you can hear Donna talking about it. Why
didn't you call the preschool? You know, if he's dead,

(02:20:54):
it's a little hard to drop them off at preschool.

Speaker 2 (02:20:57):
Danny and I tried to get in touch with each other,
but we left. We were trying to figure out where
Ben was going to go to kindergarten at the time,
and we left voicemails for each other but didn't get
to talk.

Speaker 3 (02:21:06):
Okay, did he leave your voicemail message that morning?

Speaker 9 (02:21:08):
He did?

Speaker 3 (02:21:11):
We talked. I asked you earlier about him being scheduled
to leave town the day after he was killed. Do
you know where he was planning to go?

Speaker 2 (02:21:17):
He was going to New York to see his girlfriend.

Speaker 3 (02:21:20):
The message that he left you that morning, do you
remember what he told you in the message?

Speaker 2 (02:21:25):
I mean, I think it was about our son's school.
Other than that, I don't really remember.

Speaker 3 (02:21:30):
Okay, included in that was was it included in that
message that he was heading to the gym and was
going to be at the gym between nine fifteen and
ten thirty that morning.

Speaker 2 (02:21:38):
I really don't remember, but that sounds like it could
be what he would leave.

Speaker 8 (02:21:41):
Okay, Oh, just so unbelievable that you wouldn't remember the
last message if you were really traumatized by it. You
would remember your last message by your ex husband to
you who was murdered in such a brutal, horrifying way.

Speaker 11 (02:22:04):
Would it refresh your transfer that that boy?

Speaker 3 (02:22:07):
Now sure? Okay, the smell that he left you what

(02:22:33):
his plans were in regards to the gym that day
he did? What exactly did he.

Speaker 2 (02:22:36):
Say the dam about the gym? He said, I'm going
to be at the gym, probably between nine fifteen and
ten thirty, but I'm happy to chatter meet with you.
Maybe we can go for a walk at school or
something like that.

Speaker 3 (02:22:46):
Let me know. Okay, So that particular voice smail doesn't
sound very emotionally abusive. I would agree with that.

Speaker 2 (02:22:52):
No, by this point in time, we were parenting really
well and we were doing just fine.

Speaker 11 (02:22:56):
It was along great.

Speaker 1 (02:22:59):
You're on what was there?

Speaker 3 (02:23:02):
Strike? I'll strike the comment your art. Did you talk
to your brother on the day of your ex husband's murder?
I did? And about what time of day did you
speak to him.

Speaker 2 (02:23:13):
It would have been right after the repair guys were there,
because that's when I called him to tell him ask
him whether I should get their TV repaired or buy
a new TV, so it would have been warning.

Speaker 3 (02:23:21):
How long did you talk to him? I don't remember.
It is eighteen minutes down incorrect? That sounds reasonable, Okay.
Did you talk to him about other things other than
just the TV?

Speaker 2 (02:23:31):
I really don't remember what else I talked to him about,
but probably maybe I would have asked him about his
work or he would have caught up.

Speaker 3 (02:23:37):
Did you happen to mention Dan Markel's plans to go
to New York the next day? I don't see why
I would have. Did you have WhatsApp on your phone
at that time? I don't know if in twenty fourteen
I had WhatsApp.

Speaker 2 (02:23:48):
Now we use it for all the parent chats at school,
so it's everybody seems to have it, But I don't
know if everybody had it back.

Speaker 3 (02:23:53):
In twenty fourteen. What is WhatsApp?

Speaker 2 (02:23:55):
What's the app is kind of an app you would
use for texting.

Speaker 3 (02:23:59):
Do you know if your brother Charlie had it at
that time?

Speaker 2 (02:24:01):
I have no idea if you had it at that time.

Speaker 3 (02:24:03):
Did you ever communicate with Charlie through what's App? Maybe?

Speaker 2 (02:24:06):
I mean, I don't know if I had it at
that time or if I had it later. I probably
would have.

Speaker 3 (02:24:10):
It's just not sure.

Speaker 9 (02:24:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:24:12):
Did you have any contact of any kind with Catherine
Macbanaua on the day of Dan Markell's murder?

Speaker 9 (02:24:17):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:24:18):
Did you ever communicate with her through WhatsApp? I never
communicated with her at all. All right, let's talk about, well,
you communicated with.

Speaker 2 (02:24:24):
Her on the I saw her in person, but I'm
saying I never texted with her, called her. I never
communicated via a device other than in person.

Speaker 3 (02:24:31):
Okay. What about when you were talking to your brother?
Did she ever get on the phone and speak to you?
I don't think so. Okay. I want to talk about
where you went when you left your residence on the
day of the murder. You tried to turn on to
Trescott and then you ended up where I went.

Speaker 2 (02:24:46):
I was supposed to go to a party that night,
a stock the bar party. So I went to a
liquor store to pick up what they had asked for
as the present for their party. So I went to
the liquor store, I picked up the alcohol, I stopped.
I think I got gas, and then I went to
to meet my friends.

Speaker 3 (02:25:01):
In the liquor store. Purchase appears to have occurred at
twelve forty nine based on the receipt. Do you have
any reason to dispute that? Okay? And then from there
to the restaurant, yes? And where was the restaurant located mosaic?

Speaker 2 (02:25:14):
I actually don't remember. I just remember I would go
north on Thomas Full Road.

Speaker 3 (02:25:18):
All right, So pen is the restaurant where law enforcement
came to speak with you and you ended up going
with them to the police station. Right, that's correct? Right?
Do you agree or disagree that there have been some
financial benefits to you and your boys as a result
of Dan's death? I disagree? When did you decide to

(02:25:43):
change the names of your children from Mark Hell to Adelson?

Speaker 2 (02:25:49):
So after Danny's murder, there was a lot of news
that just hit the media and the renew stories everywhere,
and Nancy Grace on CNN put pictures of my boys
with their faces unlurted, just picture of them, and I
was terrified. And so when they started school, I started
school with my last name, thinking that would keep them safe,
that they wouldn't be associated with the murder.

Speaker 3 (02:26:09):
Wasn't the Adelson name in the press? It was not
in the press now yet.

Speaker 8 (02:26:15):
And this is totally untrue that Nancy Grace but pictures
of her kids and edited it.

Speaker 3 (02:26:28):
Do you agree that you legally changed the kids' names
on July sixth of twenty fifteen? That sounds right, So
it was actually a year after the homice a year after.
When was the last time you talked to your mom?

(02:26:50):
Did you talked to her today? Yesterday? I talked to
her yesterday in her emails and we referenced one of them.
While you've been here on the stand. She talks about
you giving performances and playing roles. Did you discuss anything
about what you would do here today in court with
your mother?

Speaker 11 (02:27:06):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:27:11):
Were you involved in any way in the plot to
kill your ex husband? Absolutely not. Did you know what
was going to happen? But maybe you do not know
the details? I knew nothing. Is that why you went
to the crime scene on the day of the homicide?

Speaker 2 (02:27:22):
I did not go to the crime scene on the
day of the homicide.

Speaker 3 (02:27:24):
Do you know who all was involved in the murder?

Speaker 9 (02:27:26):
Well?

Speaker 2 (02:27:26):
I learned today, but at the time, no, Okay.

Speaker 3 (02:27:32):
Have you ever privately confronted your brother about his role
or possible role in the murder?

Speaker 2 (02:27:36):
My attorney has advised me not to have conversations with
anyone in my family about the case.

Speaker 3 (02:27:44):
But you had a close relationship with your brother at
the time of the murder, right.

Speaker 2 (02:27:48):
I absolutely had a close relationship with my brother.

Speaker 3 (02:27:50):
And you're how soon after the murder did your lord
advise you not to talk to your family about it?

Speaker 2 (02:27:55):
In twenty sixteen?

Speaker 3 (02:27:57):
Okay, So what about the two years in between? Did
you talk to him about it?

Speaker 9 (02:28:00):
Then?

Speaker 2 (02:28:00):
I mean, I talked to him about the fact that
a murder occurred. But I guess I don't understand the question.

Speaker 3 (02:28:05):
But you never talked to him about the suspicions you
raised in a law enforcement interview that your brother might
have done it. No, I did not. You suspected your
brother could have been a part of this, Right, I
suspected lots of people could have been a part of it,
But he was one of the people.

Speaker 9 (02:28:23):
Right.

Speaker 2 (02:28:24):
While I was talking with law enforcement for six hours,
terrified out of my mind, I offered them every possible
idea I could come.

Speaker 3 (02:28:29):
Up with, Right, and one of the possible ideas was
that your brother could have murdered your child's father.

Speaker 2 (02:28:36):
I didn't really believe that was possible.

Speaker 3 (02:28:43):
It was part of the plot for you to be
able to have plausible deniability about this.

Speaker 2 (02:28:47):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (02:28:49):
Is it better for both you and your brother if
you don't know the details of this.

Speaker 2 (02:28:53):
I don't even understand the question that you're asking me.

Speaker 3 (02:28:55):
When did you first become aware that you might be
a suspect in this case?

Speaker 2 (02:28:59):
I mean, as the wife, I assumed I was a
suspect from the beginning.

Speaker 3 (02:29:06):
What was your first thought when you were asked if
anyone might have murdered Dan Markel for your benefit?

Speaker 2 (02:29:12):
I thought, oh, my god, maybe if I hadn't divorced him,
he would still be alive. Maybe this is my fault
because I complained to the wrong person. Maybe Danny gave
a student a bad grade and they came after him.
I just was trying to think of who possibly could
have wanted to hurt him.

Speaker 3 (02:29:28):
But you didn't say any of that before. The first
thing you said was Charlie, right.

Speaker 8 (02:29:36):
I mean, this is interesting. Maybe I complained to the
wrong person. She gives exactly the error, exactly the idea
that maybe she complained to Jeffrey Lacas, who would be
the wrong person, someone who loved her, or when to
proclaim is loved her didn't really work, when to win

(02:29:58):
her back by doing heroic act. I mean she names
exactly jeff Jeffrey. I mean she describes exactly Jeffrey Lacass's
role as as the chump, as the has the pin
the murder.

Speaker 3 (02:30:17):
On page twenty five of your interview Mine five through fifteen,
do you have any reason to dispute Page twenty five,
Not five hours into it, you say Charlie might have
done it?

Speaker 9 (02:30:28):
Right?

Speaker 3 (02:30:29):
Can I see? Please?

Speaker 18 (02:30:30):
You may.

Speaker 3 (02:30:36):
This is going to be cap one. I say no,
he would never Yeah, Page twenty five, LI five through fifteen.

(02:31:02):
I mean my brother, the one his name is Charlie,
the one I'm really close to. He makes a lot
of jokes in that taste. And it was a joke
he made he bought the TV for me this morning
that got broken, and then I was talking to him
about whether it made sense to pay or fix it
or whether I should get a new one. And it
was always like it was always his joke that like
he knew that Danny always treated me badly, and it

(02:31:23):
was always his joke. He said, I looked into hiring
a hitman, and it was cheaper to get you this TV,
so instead I got you this TV. And you do
say you don't think you would do it, but can
we agree? You brought up his name on page twenty
five of the interview I did. When asked, would you
ever ask someone to do something like this? You say
not in a million years. When asked, okay, do you

(02:31:44):
think someone would do this for your benefit without asking you?
You say no. And when is starts to ask you,
what good does it serve, you say, I mean my brother.

Speaker 9 (02:31:52):
The one.

Speaker 3 (02:31:53):
His name is Charlie. Isn't that how it went?

Speaker 2 (02:31:56):
This is the transcript, but I think there's also inaccuracies
in the trans description.

Speaker 3 (02:32:01):
Boy, all right, do you want the culpable parties held
accountable for murdering the father of your children? Absolutely? I'm
grateful they're already in jail, but not if it's your family.

Speaker 2 (02:32:16):
It's not my family.

Speaker 3 (02:32:16):
I mean somebody hired them, right, not necessarily, somebody paid him.
I learned something this morning. Yeah, me too. You didn't
want them held accountable if it was your family members,
didn't you tell law enforcement that that's not what I
told law enforcement. What did you tell law enforcement?

Speaker 2 (02:32:30):
I told them that the person who did this should
be held responsible and that I had nothing to do
with it.

Speaker 3 (02:32:34):
Page lines seven through twelve. If somebody tried to kill
my ex husband, they should be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law, the investigator says, regardless of who
it is. And your answer is I mean, it would
be different if I thought it were my brother, but
I don't think it was my family. It's different now,
isn't it. No, it's not different. That's exact different today here. No,
that's one of further questions.

Speaker 8 (02:32:57):
Okay, not doing that, We're not doing you're not doing
the cross not today. That was a long all right.
I am going to end this episode the way I
and so many of these episodes with a victim impact statement.

(02:33:20):
So it's now so legendary the end of that direct examination.
It's different today, isn't it. I love how she says,
I I don't understand the question, so hostile, and then
at one point she goes, I don't think I even
understand the question. She understands the question, She just is

(02:33:43):
indignant and is offended it's trying to get across the
idea that she's offended that you would be asked. This
is from Adam L. Berger and Stephen E. Frank to
the Honorable James Hankinson in Sick Freight of Garcia and
Catherine Durgan Trial, Dear Judge Hankinson. In Jewish tradition, there

(02:34:06):
is a legend that someone who successfully matches three people
with their future spouses earns a place in heaven. There
are various explanations for this story. One is that God
matched Adam with Eve, so that bringing spouses together is
doing God's work. In a life cut far too short.

(02:34:26):
Dan Markel made two successful matches. We are one of them.
We each met Dan in the first few days of college.
Adam lived two flights below Dan in his freshman dorm.
Steve met Dan through his own freshman roommate. For each
of us, our first conversations with him stand out in

(02:34:47):
our memory. He wanted to know everything about us, where
we grew up, how many siblings we had, what their
names were, what our interests were, what we wanted to
do with our lives. In the space of a few hours,
it seems as though he knew everything about us. He

(02:35:07):
remembered all of it. We each built strong, independent friendships
with Dan, but he didn't actually introduce us until near
the end of that first year in college. It certainly
wasn't with the goal of making a match. This was
the early nineteen nineties. Nineteen nineties. Both of us were

(02:35:28):
deeply in the closet, and the notion that we could
be a couple was the first furthest thing from our minds.
But Dan somehow sensed that we would be great friends,
and it was with that in mind that he brought
us together. Over the next couple of years, the three
of us became an inseparable group. Senior year, we all

(02:35:52):
lived together, and we remained in close touch after graduation,
even as Dan went off to Israel and then England
on postgraduate fellowships, Steve went to study in Germany, and
Adam moved back to New York City. It was in
that year, nineteen ninety six, that the two of us

(02:36:14):
finally became a couple. We have been together ever since.
We remember the joy on Dan's face when we shared
our news. We were, of course nervous about telling him.
How would he react to the fact that two of
his closest friends were gay and dating each other. But
for Dan, the fact that we found happiness was all

(02:36:37):
that mattered, and he thought it was hilarious. He had
quite literally matched Adam and Steve. At our wedding in
two thousand and six, Dan danced and celebrated with unbridled enthusiasm.

(02:36:57):
He was part of the small crew who lifted our
chairs and held them aloft as we celebrated another Jewish tradition.
On the video, which we have watched again and again
in the years since his death, you can see his happiness.
This is how we will remember him. Over the next

(02:37:20):
few years, with our lives centered in New York and
his in Tallahassee, we saw less of Dan. Still, our
friendship endured as we each welcomed children into our lives.
One of our last visits with Dan was in Cambridge
in May twenty thirteen. We had just moved here to

(02:37:40):
take new jobs, and Dan's visit coincided with our oldest
son's fourth birthday party, which meant we didn't have much
time to spend with him, but he joined the party,
mingling with the other preschool parents and having a grand time,
even though he didn't know anybody, and the occasion was
more by singalongs and cupcakes rather than grown up conversation.

(02:38:04):
Dan took so much pride in the fact that we
had children, but because for him, children were life's greatest gift.
Dan's love for his two boys was obvious and overwhelming.
It defined him. They were the central focus of his life.
One of the greatest tragedies of Dan's death is that

(02:38:25):
those boys are now being raised by the very people
who conspire to have him murdered, and who are working
every day to erase his memory from their lives. We
hope they do not succeed. We always imagined we would
have Dan with us over the decades, challenging us and
cheering us as we moved through the stages of our lives.

(02:38:49):
We expected more visits, more meals, more stories. We look
forward to telling our kids how Dan brought us together,
and telling Dan's kids silly stories about his college hijinks.
We looked forward to one day comparing notes with Dan
as our children started college and formed adult friendships of

(02:39:10):
their own, and perhaps attending the weddings of each other's children.
None of this will come to past, nor did Dan
ever have the chance to make his third match, though
we have little doubt he would have. But as abbreviated
as Dan's life was, we know that God saw the
light in his beautiful soul, and how hard Dan worked

(02:39:33):
to repair our broken world, we know that Dan earned
his place in heaven. Dan's academic study was justice, a
topic that was at the core of his being. Writing
about justice fueled his passion for Jewish study, his instinctive

(02:39:54):
sense of right and wrong, and his love of argument
and debate, as well as delight in taking provocative stands.
It saddens us beyond that measure that the subject to
which Dan devoted his academic life now hangs over his
death like an inescapable shadow. Will there be justice in

(02:40:18):
our lifetime for Dan? Will there be appropriate punishment for
the people responsible for taking the life of our friend?
Will there be some consequence that deters other from committing
such heinous crimes? We ask your honor to do everything
in your power to answer those questions with a definitive yes. Sincerely,

(02:40:45):
Adam L. Berger, Stephen E. Frank That's what I have
for today.

Speaker 9 (02:40:55):
Guys.

Speaker 8 (02:40:56):
Please hit the thumbs up on your way out, subscribe
to the channel, support the channel, become a Patreon member,
send a donation via venmo or buy me a coffee.
Links are all in the description of this episode. I
will be back very shortly with another true crime report,

(02:41:18):
and of course I'll be live streaming every day during
Donna Edelson's trial, both during the day and in the evening,
so I'll be live streaming the trial and doing updates
at night at six. Have a great night, everybody, thanks

(02:41:40):
for watching with me.

Speaker 4 (02:42:01):
What a speech your head.

Speaker 16 (02:42:03):
You got it a murder because you wanted to raise
your daughter's kids. Tama has he is just to stop
on the way to civilization in Miami is where all
the fancy people are.

Speaker 3 (02:42:23):
The TV is about five.

Speaker 16 (02:42:26):
You can't get.

Speaker 3 (02:42:27):
Away from that.

Speaker 1 (02:42:29):
Toutoe tato huho.

Speaker 3 (02:42:32):
You know the guy you pay me?

Speaker 16 (02:42:34):
Then you can't get away from that.

Speaker 3 (02:42:37):
Oh don What a speech your head.

Speaker 14 (02:42:42):
You thought child was just for.

Speaker 16 (02:42:44):
The little people, but now you're so blankets with the
locked up proof. Your grandmother is locked down and you're
one way right to feed on your blue.

Speaker 8 (02:43:00):
Dana.

Speaker 3 (02:43:11):
What a stitch your head.

Speaker 16 (02:43:13):
Your family are exiled from the social circles you swam in.

Speaker 3 (02:43:20):
Le all, No, you never made that banana break.

Speaker 16 (02:43:23):
Your offer to babysit for dance, but you'll soon Benke
in license plates and thinking a.

Speaker 4 (02:43:31):
Buble could have been.

Speaker 16 (02:43:33):
Oh Gona, you

Speaker 8 (02:43:35):
Had to plan a murder, the con the don do

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Struggle Between Wendi Adelson & Donna Adelson Just Got Real!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

All Episodes

The Struggle Between Wendi Adelson & Donna Adelson Just Got Real!

Stuff You Should Know