Charlie Adelson trial Day 1, Part 2: Veteran FBI agents detail motive, warm seat for Wendi Adelson, who swore in & shut down

Patrick Sanford, the veteran FBI agent who came knocking on Charlie Adelson’s door to arrest him in April 2022, was sworn in for the third time Thursday to testify against conspirators in the murder of Dan Markel.

Agent Sanford relayed significant evidence, detailing the exhaustive data collected on the conspirators’ rented cars, travel routes and more. But beyond detailing for the jury how Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera were first identified and from there tracked down, Sanford was able to illuminate various motives for the murder itself. Under direct examination by Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman, Sanford shared the following elements of motive:

— No. 1 Relocation: Wendi Adelson filed a motion wanting to move to South Florida with the children, but Dan emphatically objected, and the court ruled conclusively in his favor. Wendi had a job offer in South Florida she wanted to pursue and per her pleadings, wanted to live closer to her parents. She and Donna Adelson had considered multiple options for how to convince Dan to agree to relocation — including a payoff of $1 million that would have been split three equal ways: Donna and Harvey Adelson, Charlie, and Wendi.

— No. 2 Money: There was a sizable amount of money that Wendi would have been reasonable to assume she’d inherit if Dan died, between Social Security death benefits for each child, an FSU pension, and multiple life insurance policies.

— No. 3 Visitation: Just before he was killed, Dan filed a motion looking to restrict access between Donna Adelson — Wendi’s mother — and his children, claiming that the boys had shared how their grandmother would insult him in front of them.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Dan Rashbaum got right into it, asking Sanford about the checks that had been written from the Adelson Institute to Katherine Magbanua, despite no evidence that Katie was doing any work for the practice. He wanted Sanford to reiterate that Katie had been given sequential checks — something it appears he’ll later try to argue is a pattern that supports the defense theory of extortion.

Rashbaum then jumped to ask Sanford about Wendi and her life in Tallahassee. Through his cross, Rashbaum attempted to lay out a case for why there would be no relocation-related motive. For example, Rashbaum’s questions laid a foundation for jurors to believe that Wendi desired to lay down roots in Tallahassee, such as looking into schools for the kids, looking into homes to purchase, and making plans with friends into August.

“A person can look into schools, browse home listings, and pencil in lunch plans with friends while also hoping to move far away,” said Karen Cyphers, representing Justice for Dan. “In fact, a person can do all of these things while planning terrible acts, or even as a way to obscure the planning of those acts. The fact is, Wendi wanted to leave Tallahassee, and there was only one viable way out.”

Rashbaum then asked Sanford if he ever had experience with a contract killer being paid in monthly installments — suggesting that this would be more common in extortion, not a hired hit.

On cross, Cappleman was brief but clear, asking Sanford if Dan’s motion to restrict visitation with Donna was ever heard.

“No,” Sanford said.

“Why not?” Cappleman asked.

“He was murdered.”

Wendi takes the stand for the third time, but first time in front of a family member

Wendi’s lawyer, John Lauro — whose most recent high-profile client is former President Donald Trump — appeared in front of the judge before the jury entered the room to enter a formal statement that clarified, “absent a state subpoena, Adelson would invoke her rights under the Fifth Amendment.”

Indeed, the state subpoena confers some limited immunity to Wendi, and Cappleman’s first line of questioning related to just that. Wendi acknowledged before the jury that she could still be prosecuted — just not for anything truthful she says on the stand.

The prior two trials, Wendi testified while looking out at a defense table with defendants she barely knew. This trial, she swore in, sat down, and faced the brother she had claimed to be extremely close with.

Her tone was demure. Wendi acknowledged that her parents were wealthy at the time of Dan’s murder — something she wouldn’t admit in a prior trial, but denied she had discussed the “ins and outs” of her divorce with her mother, Donna — despite various correspondence suggesting otherwise.

And, despite Wendi saying she didn’t take the motion about Donna’s disparagement seriously and never shared it with her mother, Cappleman produced evidence to the contrary. Not only had Wendi shared it with Donna, she forwarded it to 11 other people.

Wendi described Donna as a good, loving mother and grandmother, with whom she maintains a good relationship.

Cappleman asked if her parents were angry with Dan at the time of his murder and Wendi said no, they were in a good place. Cappleman then showed Wendi a transcript of what she herself told law enforcement the day Dan was shot — in which she shares how her parents were, in fact, “very angry” with Dan at that time.

Specifically, Wendi had said to Detective Craig Isom on the day of Dan’s shooting, “My parents have more reason to dislike Danny than like anyone else.”

When reminded of this in the courtroom, Wendi’s response was defensive, saying she made this statement during a lengthy interview, under stress, and that she’d suggested a lot of different people may have been responsible for her ex-husband’s murder.

“Your family had your ex-husband killed to try to help you, didn’t they?” Cappleman probed.

“No,” Wendi said, “That’s completely untrue.”

Cappleman moved on to the next motive — money. After reading from a motion Dan had filed alleging multiple acts of financial wrongdoing by Wendi during the divorce, Cappleman asked how Wendi felt about living in Tallahassee.

“I had a really nice life here; I did not see myself as being stuck,” Wendi said, at which point Cappleman asked her to review her own words in a motion from years prior.

“Did you describe yourself in that filing as being stuck?” Cappleman asked.

“I see the word stuck,” Wendi conceded.

“Was your brother known to carry a lot of cash?” Cappleman asked, “Did you ever see stapled cash?”

“No, I never knew about that,” Wendi said.

“Was your brother protective of you as an adult?” Cappleman asked.

“No, not really,” Wendi replied.

“Did your brother ever look into hiring a hit man to kill Dan Markel?” Cappleman continued.

“No,” Wendi said. Cappleman then presented Wendi with a transcript of what she had shared with Detective Isom, which included Wendi’s account of Charlie saying just that.

“That was the joke he made, yes,” Wendi said.

“When did you learn that Katherine Magbanua was ‘blackmailing’ your brother for the murder?” Cappleman asked.

“Today,” Wendi said, consistent with her claim that she has known nothing, watched nothing, and heard nothing about this case for close to a decade.

“Your brother has known who killed your child’s father and you didn’t know?” Cappleman said.

“No,” Wendi said.

“How did the killers know that Dan Markel was planning to leave town the next day?” Cappleman asked her.

“I have no idea,” Wendi said.

Cappleman then asked a series of questions about a birthday dinner that was held in early July for her father, Harvey.

“There was no big lead-up or discussion about some gift that you were involved in?” Cappleman asked. Wendi didn’t recall.

“Was the murder of Dan Markel your dad’s big gift?” Cappleman asked, to which Wendi appeared to almost affirm, but then balked.

“How about the grandchildren? Having full, unfettered access to the grandchildren?” Cappleman continued.

“They’ve always had full unfettered access,” Wendi replied.

Cappleman then asked a whole series of questions about the TV for which Wendi had called for a repairperson the morning of the murder. “Did you ever use the TV as code for the murder? Did you ever hear your mom do that?” she asked.

“No,” Wendi said to both.

“Did you talk to your brother on the day of your ex-husband’s murder?” Cappleman asked, which Wendi admitted she had done — saying the 18-minute conversation was regarding what to do about the TV, to repair or replace it — a strange conversation to have considering the repairperson had just told her that the TV couldn’t be repaired.

“Where did you go after the TV repairman left?” Cappleman asked. Wendi explained that she stayed home for a while, and then made plans to see friends at the last minute.

“Did you go to the crime scene or very near the crime scene on your way to wherever you were going next?” Cappleman asked.

“No, I did not,” Wendi said. “I went to turn onto Trescott Drive,” she continued, but claimed the road was blocked off, saying she didn’t think anything of it beyond assuming it might have been a downed tree.

However, this is inconsistent with Wendi’s prior testimony and the testimony from an officer who saw her at the roadblock located next to Dan’s home.

“Did you ever communicate with your brother Charlie through WhatsApp?” Cappleman asked, to which Wendi said she wasn’t sure.

“Do you agree or disagree there have been some financial benefits to you and the boys due to Dan’s death?” Cappleman asked.

“I disagree,” Wendi replied.

“When did you decide to change the boys’ name from Markel to Adelson,” Cappleman asked, which Wendi admitted she had effectively done immediately after the murder, to protect them from media attention that centered around the Markel name.

“When did you talk to your mom?” Cappleman asked.

“I talked to her yesterday,” Wendi said.

“Did you discuss anything you’d do here today in court with your mother?” Cappleman asked, referencing a prior email from Donna in which she instructed Wendi to give “the performance of a lifetime.”

“No,” she replied.

“Were you involved in any way in the plot to kill your ex-husband?” Cappleman asked, with Wendi denying involvement. Another question quickly followed: “Is that why you went to the crime scene on the day of the homicide?”

“I didn’t drive by the crime scene,” Wendi replied.

“Have you ever privately confronted your brother?” Cappleman asked, regarding the details of Charlie’s involvement in the murder — to which Wendi reiterated that her attorney had advised her not to talk to members of her family about it.

“Is part of the plot for you to have plausible deniability about this?” Cappleman asked.

“No,” Wendi said.

“When did you first become aware that you were a suspect in this case?” Cappleman asked.

“As the ex-wife, I assumed I was a suspect from the beginning,” Wendi replied.

When asked if she wanted culpable parties to be held accountable, even if it was a member of her family, Wendi said yes, but insisted that her family didn’t do it.

“Well, somebody hired them,” Cappleman said.

“Maybe not,” Wendi countered. “I learned something today.”

“Yeah … me too,” Cappleman said.

Cross-examination by Rashbaum followed.

“You’re aware that the state has named you as an unindicted co-conspirator in this case?” Rashbaum asked Wendi.

“Yes, I understand that is what they believe,” Wendi said.

“They think you did a murder together,” Rashbaum said. “Were you in a conspiracy with any member of your family to kill Professor Markel?” he asked.

“No,” she replied.

Rashbaum attempted to achieve some cleanup, having Wendi discuss how Charlie and Dan weren’t buddies but didn’t have a problem with one another and how their parents were on good terms with Dan, too. He had Wendi recollect how the Adelson parents had investigated buying a home in Tallahassee and how she and Charlie were close, speaking weekly or more. She got the chance to repeat how she loved her job in Tallahassee and was happy. She repeated how she never did any of the crazy ideas her mother had floated regarding their attempts to achieve relocation.

Rashbaum had her recount that she had done everything by the books when leaving the marital home.

“You’re a nonconfrontational person?” Rashbaum asked her about her choice to leave the marital home while Dan was out of town.

“Yes,” Wendi said, “It’s not my best quality.”

The judge called for a recess. Wendi’s testimony will continue Friday.

“The court is in recess,” Judge Stephen Everett said, “Be gone. Good night.”

______

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.