Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Charlie Adelson Trial Day 2

Transcript

Charlie Adelson Trial Day 2 · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:00
  Asking the questions you want the answers to the Morning Show with Preston Scott on
• 0:05
  News Radio one hundred point seven WFLA, thirty five minutes past the hour.
• 0:18
  Good Morning Morning Show with Preston Scott, Monday, October thirtieth. Grant Allen
• 0:24
  running the program over there and I am joined by Carl Steinbeck back with US
• 0:29
  retired Lieutenant Colonel US Army Judge Advocate General's Corps practicing attorney, formerly a prosecutor,
• 0:37
  Military Defense Council, State public defender as well. Following the trial of
• 0:42
  Charlie Adelson and the murder of Dan Markel. Carl, let me get your
• 0:46
  perspective as someone who has been on the prosecution side and the defense side.
• 0:51
  What stood out to you in day two of the trial on Friday, Well,
• 0:58
  I think it helped establish that this was a family affair to take down
• 1:03
  Dan Markel. There was really great points scored by Georgie on across examination.
• 1:07
  Essentially was across amination. She was obviously called by the state, but she
• 1:11
  was more or less a hostile witness, and Georgia really laid it on her
• 1:15
  and she really implicated her in being a part of this murder plot. And
• 1:19
  she also really established her as lying about a lot of stuff, including little
• 1:23
  details, and she brought a lot of the motives also for why Dan had
• 1:30
  to be eliminated in order to save Wendy, because Wendy's job was also on
• 1:33
  the line. Because they brought out, through the lawyer of Dan Markel,
• 1:38
  that they had serious issues that they were going to raise to hold Wendy in
• 1:44
  contempt at court. And if you recall, Wendy said she didn't even know
• 1:47
  what contempt to court meant. So there's a lot of great points made for
• 1:49
  the prosecution. They also brought out another key thing that the defense had initially
• 1:55
  got suppressed, but they were able to bring out finally that this murder plot
• 1:59
  actually happened a year before Dana was murdered, So it was really great points
• 2:02
  for the government. Explain the deal that Wendy has right now, she has
• 2:08
  what limited immunity as a unindicted co conspirator, and that whatever she says in
• 2:15
  these trials cannot be used against her in any subsequent trials. Is that accurate,
• 2:23
  Yes, sir. That covers the use aspect, and there's also derivative
• 2:25
  use that also they cannot use, so any leads they get from what she
• 2:29
  testifies to they could not use that against her as well. But anything independent
• 2:32
  that, if they acquired from her before she's testified or outside of her testifying,
• 2:37
  that's fully fair game. So really, I think the way Georgia went
• 2:40
  after her and directly accused her of being a part of this, I really
• 2:45
  think they're going to charge her very shortly, shortly after this trial happens.
• 2:49
  And so I understand this correctly, and you've been on both sides of this,
• 2:53
  so you'll know if she is charged, and she has asked questions basically
• 2:59
  along the same line on specific details, if she gives an answer totally opposite
• 3:04
  to what she said in this proceeding or in the one against Katie Magbanua,
• 3:09
  it cannot be used against her. We did have a previous conversations to writing
• 3:16
  the Survivor there were local attorney Tim Jansen said that could be used against her.
• 3:22
  But the issue is what they could also do is charge with perjury in
• 3:25
  any of these or all of these three proceedings, and that could be a
• 3:30
  way to get all of it in. So that's something else the prosecution has
• 3:32
  at their table. So I think Jack Campbell's really looking at going after more
• 3:37
  Adlsen's than I think that's really good to see. I was stunned at Charlie's.
• 3:43
  I've described it as a middle school boys reaction. When one of his
• 3:46
  on again, off again girlfriends, I don't know what her last name is,
• 3:52
  June I think was her first name, appeared in court. What did
• 3:54
  you make of that? If you're his defense attorneys, they had to ringe,
• 4:00
  Oh yeah, I was just going to use the word. There's a
• 4:02
  that was a real cringe worthy timeframe in the trial. But there's also a
• 4:06
  lot of other cringe worthy times as well where Charlie's actually smiling and then looking
• 4:13
  happy. Of the names that Donna had called him, called Dan Markel in
• 4:19
  some nasty email that she sent to Wendy, calling him bully in some other
• 4:24
  words I want to describe here, but some really nasty terms that she described
• 4:28
  Dan Markel, and he was actually smiling and sort of chuckling one he saw
• 4:30
  that. So, as a defense attorney, if I knew my client was
• 4:33
  doing that, I'd be cringing my chair. Because the thing is, Preston
• 4:36
  jury's really pick up on that stuff. They're constantly comparing the interaction of the
• 4:41
  defendant with the who's on the witness stand? So he's really he's really doing
• 4:46
  himself in on this one twenty one years and still growing. So please tell
• 4:50
  a friend all what three four, It's the Morning Show with Preston Scott on
• 4:56
  News Radio one hundred point seven, doubfl Or on NewsRadio WMLA, Danemocity dot
• 5:03
  com. Forty one minutes passed with attorney carl Steinbeck offering a little analysis of
• 5:14
  day two of the trial of Charlie Aedelson. What was the most in your
• 5:18
  opinion, powerful bit of testimony that prosecutor Georgia Kappelman was able to elicit on
• 5:26
  Friday against Charlie. Well, there's quite a few there, Preston, But
• 5:32
  I do think that probably one of the things that's so critical of the trial
• 5:39
  is a body language. And I think the body language and how Wendy Adelson
• 5:43
  responded to her questions was just atrocious for Charlie's defense, and I think that
• 5:48
  really stands out. And like I say, I think the fact that this
• 5:53
  murder plot happened before and also jeff lo Cass was a critical witness, and
• 5:57
  remember this was her ex boyfriend. He was a boyfriend and up until five
• 6:00
  days before the murder happened, and he testified that basically he was set up
• 6:05
  to be the fall guy and to be falsely accused for this. So I
• 6:09
  think that really struck home for the jury, and that was one of the
• 6:11
  key takeaways for this jury. Jeff leicask came across as very, very believable.
• 6:17
  He was not at all nervous. He was you know, people speaking
• 6:24
  truth don't have to fish around and try to think about what they're going to
• 6:27
  say and how it comes across. And that's something I observed with Wendy.
• 6:30
  Every time she was asked a question, you could tell she was running it
• 6:34
  through the mill, trying to figure out how can I answer this to not
• 6:38
  get myself in trouble. You're exactly right, That's the way it really works,
• 6:43
  no matter how many times somebody lies, when they tell the truth,
• 6:46
  there's a liberation in that right. And that's why I think what we're going
• 6:48
  to see here with Katie mcbanwell being called as a witness for the government,
• 6:51
  I think he could possibly see that as soon as today, if not tomorrow.
• 6:56
  And so despite her lying all those hours on the witness stand and and
• 7:00
  lely denying she had nothing to do with this, because this is sent a
• 7:02
  central point of the defense theory, which is she's the one that extorted Charlie
• 7:08
  through the hit man. I think this is going to be really good for
• 7:11
  the prosecution to lay it all out there, be bold, be aggressive,
• 7:15
  and just go after the truth. She is, in essence, because of
• 7:17
  the opening statement of the defense, going to now be almost a rebuttal witness
• 7:21
  to that opening statement. But I've contended carl that what she's going to likely
• 7:27
  do is she's going to get because the judges allowing the dolcea vita video in
• 7:31
  but no transcript, which I think is probably fair and the appropriate decision.
• 7:39
  I think she's going to corroborate the conversation. That's my guess, right.
• 7:44
  And I think also if you look back at the kind of questions that Georgia
• 7:48
  was asking Wendy, like the seventieth birthday party that happened for Charlie and that
• 7:55
  this was like a gift to Charlie for seventieth birthday to have Dan killed,
• 7:58
  I think that's what he is setting up those questions with Wendy on. So
• 8:01
  I think that's how she's going to close the loop. By having Katie talk
• 8:05
  about those kind of details. Tell me this, in your opinion, does
• 8:09
  Charlie Aedelson take the witness stand in his own defense? Well, he really
• 8:13
  has to because to have this kind of defense, theory that he was extorted
• 8:18
  and he willingly gave up one hundred thousand dollars within minutes of hearing about this
• 8:22
  murder, certainly less than twenty four hours he comes up with twenty comes up
• 8:28
  one hundred thousand dollars to pay to Katie, and then yet almost two years
• 8:33
  later, when somebody wants to bump them for five thousand dollars, he's talking
• 8:35
  about escaping the country and killing this person. So it's just such a huge
• 8:41
  dichotomy of factors here. In common sense, I think that he's got really
• 8:46
  no option but to testify this because otherwise it's just argument through questioning that Raschmam
• 8:52
  has done so far. So yeah, I really expect them to have to
• 8:54
  testify. Why were the parents not brought into this at this stage. I
• 9:00
  was a little surprised when they got permission to interview the parents from the judge
• 9:03
  that they then chose not to. Well, that's also has to do with
• 9:07
  consciousness of guilt. I think that's the real elephant in the room from my
• 9:11
  experience, when you don't have family members, they're supporting somebody charged with a
• 9:16
  serious crime, and here you charged with murder of all things, and you're
• 9:20
  not even there to support your son. But think about it, the government
• 9:22
  has already named Donna, his mother, as an unindicted co conspirator, so
• 9:28
  that just supports it. So whether she's there, it's going to be bad
• 9:31
  for Charlie. On the other hand, because the jury's going to be looking
• 9:33
  at him, and think about it, in the next day or two,
• 9:37
  they're going to be presenting evidence of the bump, and they're going to see
• 9:39
  what Donna looks like, and they're going to be reading Donna's reaction to this,
• 9:43
  So Donna's not going to be able to fake it and actual very well.
• 9:45
  So it's either way you slice and dice it. It looks really bad
• 9:48
  for Charlie. Carl I appreciate your insight, and I know we'll be talking
• 9:52
  again. Thank you very much, sir, Yes, sure, thank you.
• 9:56
  Carl steinback with us this morning, and we're covering the Aedelsen trial every
• 10:01
  day because justice has to happen here. There has to be justice. There
• 10:07
  has to be an accounting by the Aedelson family in what role, if any,
• 10:13
  they played in the death of Dan Markel forty six minutes after the hour