Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Charlie Adelson Trial - The Verdict!

Transcript

Charlie Adelson Trial - The Verdict! · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:06
  It is the big story in the press box here on the Morning Show with
• 0:09
  Preston Scott's Show five forty three, brought to you by Custom Care Dry Cleaning.
• 0:15
  I'm Preston, that is Grant and Carl Steinbeck with us. In fact,
• 0:19
  so excited to talk to us this morning. He called an hour ago
• 0:23
  to join us on the show. Hey Carl, Hey, good morning past.
• 0:27
  You are doing yeoman's work, buddy. Carl is featured on a YouTube
• 0:33
  channel, Jury Trial Mentor, and you can follow the happenings on this case
• 0:39
  as well as I'm sure many others on the website. Carl, course is
• 0:43
  a very seasoned prosecutor and defense counsel. The verdict came in. You called
• 0:50
  it the timing of this. It didn't take him long. No, it
• 0:55
  was such an awesome job done by Georgia Kapelman. In her closing, she
• 0:59
  had all all that deep dive of minutia of detail in such a storyline fashion.
• 1:03
  It was like a documentary or a movie, the way all this information
• 1:07
  was showing up on the screen behind her as she's walking the jury through how
• 1:11
  this murder plot happened and how Dan mark Hill was viciously killed her. I
• 1:18
  made several notes as she was doing her closing, and I, like you,
• 1:22
  Carl, thought it was absolutely spectacularly brilliant. I thought it was simple,
• 1:27
  it was easy to follow, it was chronological, it got into the
• 1:32
  details. I think she also made a very important point at the beginning,
• 1:38
  but I'm curious of your thoughts of it. She said, it only takes
• 1:41
  one of you to quit this guy, and so I'm going to go over
• 1:47
  all of what this evidence is in detail. How important was that to kind
• 1:52
  of challenge the jury? This is on all of you. Well, I
• 1:57
  think it really took away anybody that's already had their mind made up, because
• 2:00
  I think the case was so strong that she was absolutely right. I have
• 2:05
  never heard a prosecutor say that before, and I'm going to remember that because
• 2:08
  that has wrecked a great teaching point, because you don't want to bore the
• 2:13
  jury, and that's exactly what the defense council did, and Georgia did the
• 2:15
  complete opposite. It was such a masterful job. As really impressed. Besides
• 2:21
  the chronological presentation, I thought another thing, and I'd like you to comment
• 2:24
  on this. You know, much was made of Katie mcbanwa testifying, and
• 2:30
  she did and quite candidly, she gave a lot more information and knowledge than
• 2:35
  I thought she would bring to the case. But Georgia didn't really rely on
• 2:39
  Katie at all in her closing. No, that was another really great point.
• 2:46
  And because the defense was trying to make a big deal about well,
• 2:47
  you can't believe Katie. She's a liar. She's lied so many times.
• 2:51
  Nothing she says is worthwhile. But Georgia pointed out, it's like, we
• 2:54
  don't need to bring in her whole character to understand what she knows and brings
• 2:59
  a value to the case. All you have to look at is little pieces
• 3:01
  of information she did testify which actually do fit the other pieces of their case
• 3:07
  against Charlie Adelson. In case you missed the news, Charlie Adelson has been
• 3:12
  found guilty on three counts in the murder of Dan Markel first degree murder,
• 3:16
  conspiracy to commit first degree murder, solicitation to commit first degree murder. Carl
• 3:22
  What what's the importance of all three of those charges? Just the fact that
• 3:25
  in case the jury didn't agree on one of them, they could find him
• 3:30
  guilty on the others. Right, Well, I think that that shows consistency
• 3:34
  Number one with the other co conspirators. They were brought up and convicted on
• 3:38
  all the other charges except for obviously the first one who roll over and pled
• 3:42
  guilty and agreed to testify. So we have those same against Katie, and
• 3:46
  we also have the same against said creator Garcia, the trigger pullers. So
• 3:51
  it made sense to go with those same three. And you always want to
• 3:53
  have some backup because if for some reason the the holdout on the murder one
• 3:59
  charge, then you actually have some other lesser type included defenses that didn't actually
• 4:03
  ultimately have to prove that he was behind the murder itself. So it was
• 4:08
  a good strategy and it worked well, and I think it also shows the
• 4:12
  momentum that now the prosecution has. I'm going to ask the question that I
• 4:15
  hate asking, but I feel like I owe it to the audience to ask
• 4:18
  this question. Is there any possibility Daniel Rashbaum offered such a ridiculous defense and
• 4:27
  quite candily was seen in closing arguments smiling, yawning, smirking, et cetera.
• 4:33
  Is there any chance that that's grounds for an appeal for Charlie. No,
• 4:39
  not at all. I don't see that as an issue. That's just
• 4:42
  different body language matters, and I would say there was also I don't know
• 4:46
  if it was on view from the television coverage, but he also turns his
• 4:50
  shoulder towards Charlie at times, and Charlie was trying to give him a note
• 4:55
  or something. So there was some kind of issue going on between Charlie and
• 4:59
  rock Bomb there for a little bit, but it was enough, and the
• 5:01
  jury wasn't really paying attention to that because they're, you know, listening to
• 5:05
  Georgia's riveting clothing, so it was a I don't think that's an issue at
• 5:11
  all. This is the Morning Show with Preston Scott forty two minutes past the
• 5:18
  hour, Carl Steinbeck with me, Carl, what would you say to people
• 5:23
  that are listening to this and are bored, bored with the pursuit of justice
• 5:28
  in the murder of someone over custody. I'm getting an email or two from
• 5:32
  somebody saying this is boring, verdicts over whatever. Well, that's exactly actually
• 5:40
  why I created Jerry trout mentor my brother is the technical expert in the host
• 5:46
  of that channel, because I was so outraged and he was as well about
• 5:49
  the lack of progress and going after these other atle sins. It was just
• 5:54
  so such an outrageous story when he told me about it, and he got
• 5:58
  me covering this case, and so that somebody that doesn't have a concern for
• 6:02
  the remaining justice against the other Adelson's, I have no idea why they wouldn't
• 6:09
  want to see the rest of them go down. And actually, if you
• 6:12
  stop thinking about it, the prosecution's case was against Donna and Wendy as well,
• 6:16
  and they have a lot more evidence against Wendy that didn't come out in
• 6:19
  the trial, and they didn't need to, of course, but the evidence
• 6:23
  is so compelling. And also Rachmum was defending Wendy so much throughout the trial
• 6:27
  as well as Donna. So anyway, it's a very compelling story and that's
• 6:31
  why it's got the national coverage. Well, and I'm going to point out
• 6:34
  we are not done with this story yet. I mean, you and I
• 6:38
  are Donna as of today. Maybe we'll talk tomorrow about a couple of other
• 6:43
  things, but the fact of the matter is this case should continue, should
• 6:47
  it not. I mean, would you be shocked if they did not indict
• 6:53
  at least Donna moving forward? Yes, I do really think Donna at a
• 6:59
  minimum, and also Wendy. Wendy, there's a lot more circumstantial type evidence,
• 7:02
  but there is no doubt. I think this jury if they had the
• 7:05
  other two rolled up and sitting there at the defense table as well, they
• 7:11
  would have been convicted as well. And I think they'll go back and listen
• 7:15
  to the jurors and say, hey, what would you want differently if we
• 7:16
  were going to have these other two as codefendants as well. So they have
• 7:21
  this great opportunity to perfect their case and go after the other Adolesen's what do
• 7:27
  you think again? I think the case with Donna is a parallel case to
• 7:31
  Charlie in my opinion, I said night last night on the YouTube visit that
• 7:36
  you did as well with surviving the survivor. I consider Donna the fuel to
• 7:42
  all of this. She left a lot of specifics to Charlie to arrange,
• 7:46
  but she was certainly in on all of it, and I believe that she
• 7:48
  was the push, She was the motivation to all of this happening. But
• 7:53
  do you feel for Wendy there's a first degree murder charge out there or do
• 7:58
  you feel as though it's more conspiracy or related charges? They needed key information
• 8:03
  about Dan and his whereabouts for Wendy and if he's got to think about it.
• 8:09
  The prosecution argued in their closing that jeffle Cost, her boyfriend at the
• 8:16
  time all this went down, her boyfriend of eight months, was framed,
• 8:20
  and how was he framed? He was framed to be the fall guy and
• 8:24
  to take the blame and to try great reasonable out reasonable doubt in case law
• 8:26
  enforcement came after him, and that's exactly what they did. So it was
• 8:31
  really a two track thing. Wendy was claiming or Wendy targeted jeffle Cost to
• 8:37
  take the fall, while Charlie started dating Katie mcvanwa to be able to be
• 8:43
  a conduit to find hitman that could do that kind of thing. So it
• 8:48
  was a dual track thing like that, And it just shows how deep down
• 8:52
  sinister and evil this plot was and also how long it take took to develop.
• 8:56
  So that's why I think they got a really strong case against both of
• 8:58
  them. Carl I've appreciated your expertise. Perhaps we'll visit tomorrow, we'll see
• 9:03
  what the day holds for us, we'll see if further indictments are coming out.
• 9:07
  But again, thank you so very much. Thanks sir Carl Steinbeck with
• 9:11
  us this morning, and again it's trial Jury Trial mentor that has been covering
• 9:16
  this case as well. We've got a blog up on my blog page where
• 9:20
  you can see the reaction of Charlie Edelson. He was brought in knowing the
• 9:24
  verdict before it was announced. He knew it had leaked, it had gotten
• 9:28
  to them because, as Tim Jansen pointed out, there are bayliffs, there
• 9:33
  are people that are listening to I think it probably took them longer to prepare
• 9:39
  the paperwork because I think the case was so solid. But I told you
• 9:43
  it was going to be I told you all along. This was the strongest
• 9:46
  circumstantial case I had ever seen. And I'd spend six months as a grand
• 9:52
  juror on Capitol murder cases years ago, and this one trumped all of them
• 9:56
  by a factor probably two or three. Uh. Let's let's come back,
• 10:01
  move on to other things. Lots of stories in the news. We've got
• 10:05
  a manly minute still to come on the Morning Show with President Scott m hm hm