Charlie Adelson trial Day 1: State’s case consistent, defense floats puzzling conspiracy theory

For seven years and through two trials, the state of Florida has presented one consistent theory of the murder of Dan Markel: Members of the Adelson family hired hit men to kill Markel so that his ex-wife Wendi Adelson could relocate to Miami with their two children while eliminating various other forms of inconvenience that Dan brought to Wendi by holding her to account.

Over the past many years, however, various defense teams have offered multiple conflicting, and now incomprehensible, theories of why the young professor and father of two was shot in the head in his driveway.

In the first trial, Sigfredo Garcia’s lawyers argued that their client came to Tallahassee on a bender, uninvolved in a murder, and that Luis Rivera pulled the trigger. Katherine “Katie” Magbanua’s lawyers, on the other hand — in the same trial — pointed fingers at both Garcia and Rivera, suggesting that Garcia was motivated to kill Markel as a favor to Charlie Adelson in exchange for a promise that the bachelor dentist would stop dating Katie and that Rivera was simply “giving Katie’s name” to justify a plea deal.

No evidence existed to back up any of these theories, but in the second trial, Magbanua’s lawyers doubled down, pointing fingers at Charlie and other members of his family, suggesting that Charlie and the hit men somehow did this behind Katie’s back.

In opening statements Thursday morning, the state’s case — presented by Assistant State Attorney Sarah Kathryn Dugan — was consistent and focused. The facts of the case were laid out in unequivocal terms: Charlie, his sister, and their parents had Dan Markel killed to erase him from the lives of his children.

Dugan outlined the many channels of evidence that all lead back to Charlie: Financial records between him and Katie; Charlie’s hit man “joke” and the TV gift he gave Wendi as a divorce present that would become her “alibi” the morning of the murder; extensive phone records; wiretaps; stapled cash; and more.

Dugan described the pattern of communications between Charlie and other conspirators “like train cars — they only touch the car right in front of them,” in that he only ever talked with Katie, never Sigfredo or Rivera directly, in the attempt to insulate himself from their act. Dugan continued, quoting Charlie’s conversation with Katie at Dolce Vita, where he claimed to Katie that law enforcement can’t arrest a person if they aren’t caught “at the scene,” to which Dugan quipped how “unfortunately for them, this isn’t an accurate description of the law.”

Indeed, in this same conversation, Charlie reassured Katie that “crimes are tough to prove” unless the suspect confesses or is caught on a wire talking about a crime — and gave her instructions about what to say and do from there.

Dugan told the jury about how the conspirators spoke in highly coded conversations — using words like “listings,” “property,” “patients,” “potbellied pigs,” to obscure what they were really referring to. He said it will be up to them — the jury — to decide what it all truly means.

Throughout Dugan’s opening, Charlie was seen in close-up shots shaking his head, blinking profusely, rubbing his chin and scribbling notes.

“This defendant carried out his plan,” Dugan said, “he conspired, and he solicited, and he is just as guilty as if he pulled the trigger himself.”

And then Charlie Adelson’s lawyer spoke.

Dan Rashbaum began his opening by calling the murder of Dan Markel a “tragedy” — saying that “the world lost a brilliant and legal mind, his family lost a son and a brother, this community lost a sense of security and lost a good citizen and his two boys — the nephews of Charlie Adelson — lost a loving father.”

“His senseless murder continues to be felt throughout this community and others — it was inexcusable, despicable, evil,” Rashbaum said, “But what I’m going to tell you today is what actually happened. You will see that Charlie Adelson had nothing to do with the murder of Professor Markel. You will see that the state cannot come close to meeting its burden. Why? Because Charlie Adelson is innocent. I don’t have to prove innocence, but what I‘m telling you, I very rarely say in a courtroom as a defense lawyer: Charlie Adelson is innocent.”

Rashbaum then previewed a winding conspiracy theory of a case, perhaps intentionally confusing, asking jurors to suspend their disbelief and contemplate a scenario in which a person can be misinterpreted on FBI wiretaps not just once but for weeks on end.

Rashbaum told the jury the state did a great job convicting the three killers, but by arresting Charlie, their “assumptions didn’t make sense.”

“I love jigsaw puzzles,” Rashbaum said, “I love them because they only work if every piece fits. If a piece doesn’t fit, it becomes a mess. You can’t hammer it, and you can’t ignore it.” But of the state’s theory of the case, Rashbaum said, “I’m going to show you how those pieces don’t fit.”

To the defense, “two crimes” occurred July 18, 2014 — “the first one being the brutal, heinous murder of Professor Markel.” The other crime, per Rashbaum, the state doesn’t yet know about, but “they’re about to find out like you,” he told the jury. “Because that day would forever change Charlie Adelson’s life.”

In the winding defense theory, Charlie spoke too freely in front of bad actors — namely his then-girlfriend Katie Magbanua — about the stress his sister was feeling through her highly litigious divorce and was then set up by Katie and her gangster associates in a plot to extort money from his family. Rashbaum told the jury that Katie wanted a deeper relationship with Charlie, but that Charlie didn’t want that. And that Katie’s allegiance to Charlie really upset Garcia, with whom she shares two children.

The defense story has a few threads. In one, Garcia hated Charlie. Garcia decided to kill Markel to get Charlie framed for murder so that Garcia could get Katie back all for himself. Somehow, Rashbaum tells the jury, Garcia intentionally called an Adelson phone (Harvey’s) to plant a connection that could be discoverable by law enforcement. It’s unclear how Rashbaum thinks Garcia believed this plot would work, considering it would result in linking himself to the murder.

In the other thread, Rashbaum claims that Katie herself masterminded this — having heard Charlie’s hit man “joke” and the ability of the family to contemplate a $1 million payoff to Markel. In other words, Rashbaum insinuates, Charlie became enmeshed in a web of extortion and blackmail long after the murder, with the FBI bump becoming a “second extortion” against him and his family.

Rashbaum claims that the extensive wiretapping and the recording of Charlie at Dolce Vita will exonerate his client — and will prove his innocence (never mind that his defense fought hard, but unsuccessfully to keep all of these recordings out of trial.)

“He’s innocent,” Rashbaum said, “Send him home.”

This would be an excellent plot for a movie where the protagonist is a good guy.

But while the jury won’t hear it, observers of this case are surely familiar with the other goings-on in Charlie’s life captured on wiretap and attested to by plenty of witnesses: steroid dealing, drug dealing, tax evasion and insider trading, while enjoying recreational activities where he’d proudly boast the exploitation of young women at home and abroad, Jet Skis, Ferraris, and his collection of automatic weapons.

“Rashbaum is pretty fixated about puzzle pieces,” said Karen Cyphers, representing Justice for Dan. “So, I’ll offer him a new analogy: the defense theory isn’t just missing pieces. It’s missing borders, a picture and any semblance of glue.”

______

Florida Politics provides ongoing coverage of the Markel murder case, which is drawing international media attention to Florida’s capital city. Our reporting draws from sources including contributor Cyphers of Sachs Media, who, with attorney Jason Solomon, advocates with the grassroots group “Justice for Dan” to draw attention to the case and provide analysis relevant to Florida’s political, advocacy and legal communities.