Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Charlie Adelson Trial Day 3 - The Testimony of Katie Magbanua

Transcript

Charlie Adelson Trial Day 3 - The Testimony of Katie Magbanua · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:00
  Two decades of doing morning drive radio differently doing it his way like old Blue
• 0:06
  Eyes, except he has a little more hair. The Morning Show with Preston
• 0:10
  Scott get right to it. The big story in the press box brought to
• 0:18
  you by Custom Care Dry Cleaning, and it is the trial of Charlie Aedelson.
• 0:22
  It was day three yesterday and joining us to talk about it, former
• 0:26
  prosecutor, former public defender, now in private practice in McKinney, Texas following
• 0:31
  the trial, Carl Steinbeck, Good morning, Carl, How are you?
• 0:34
  Good morning, Preston, Carl. As I watched, I didn't watch every
• 0:37
  moment of testimony, but I watched a lot of it yesterday, I was
• 0:41
  stunned at what came out of Katie mcbanna's mouth. Were you as shocked as
• 0:47
  I? Well, I was pretty much expecting a lot of what she was
• 0:52
  saying in terms of how she was involved in being the middle man for this
• 0:57
  murder, But what I thought was there be more about from hers, more
• 1:02
  involvement of other Aelsen. So that was probably the biggest surprise for me.
• 1:04
  But I thought she overall did really good, and I thought defense did a
• 1:08
  lot of theatrical type cross examination of her exposing Oliver Lives what she said.
• 1:15
  But in the end, I thought she's maintained her ground really good, she
• 1:18
  maintained her composure, and I thought she was actually helpful for the government.
• 1:22
  Let's go macro view here for our listeners. Katie meg Banwa, of course,
• 1:26
  was found guilty in her second trial as as someone directly involved in the
• 1:33
  plot to kill Dan Markel, but her case was under appeal. This pretty
• 1:38
  much scuttles her appeal, does it not? Because she admitted to her role
• 1:42
  in the murder. Well, the thing is, I'm not sure if she
• 1:48
  was subpoena or not. That was not brought out by either a prosecution or
• 1:51
  the defense. So if she was subpoenaed by the government, then everything she
• 1:53
  has is immunized. So if she's not immunized with a subpoena, then then
• 2:00
  yeah, that could unravel her appeal. But she had approached the state attorney's
• 2:05
  office, did she not? Yes, she did, But like I say,
• 2:09
  I don't know if they immunized he or not. So if they didn't,
• 2:12
  then yeah, that poses problems for repellate lawyers. Let's talk about as
• 2:16
  a defense attorney, Carl, Let's talk about the job that Charlie Edelson's defense
• 2:23
  attorney Daniel Ashbaum did yesterday. He was almost badgering Katie meg Banua. Did
• 2:31
  he go too far? Did he turn her into almost a more credible witness
• 2:38
  in front of the jury. I think that could have very well happened.
• 2:42
  Maybe not with all the jurors, but definitely some of the jurors. You
• 2:45
  can only go so far, and then it does become badgering, like you're
• 2:49
  saying. And I thought his tone of voice was a little bit too angry
• 2:52
  sounding, and it just didn't come across very good and professional like I would
• 2:58
  expect it. Have you ever had a case where, I mean, look,
• 3:02
  if you were called to defend Charlie Aedelson based on the evidence that we
• 3:07
  knew existed before trial, what is your position at that point? Do you
• 3:14
  have a client that you privately think is guilty and so now you're just trying
• 3:19
  to make sure the prosecution does its job. Yes, because effectively he's got
• 3:24
  no credible defense. Really, this is such a ludicrous story that was concocted,
• 3:30
  no doubt by Charlie because no lawyer would come up with such a weird,
• 3:35
  wild theory. So he just got to stick with it though that's what
• 3:38
  Charlie wants to. Charlie doesn't want to plead and roll over. Keep in
• 3:42
  mind, you would be a valuable witness to go against other family members.
• 3:46
  But so far he's not willing to go there. But perhaps when he's in
• 3:50
  confinement in this Florida prisons he will have a change of heart and realize,
• 3:53
  I'm not willing to do life for my sister. The Morning Show with Preston
• 3:57
  Scott mother No heardre on news Radio one hundred and point seven WUFLA Getting the
• 4:09
  thoughts of an expert. He was a prosecutor, a military defense counsel,
• 4:12
  and state public defender. Carl Steinbeck with us following the trial of Charlie Aedelson.
• 4:16
  Charlie, it seems like Georgia Kappelman is beginning to lay the groundwork for
• 4:20
  it would seem to me to be a potential indictment and arrest of Donna Adelson.
• 4:27
  Among the things that I wrote down some notes on that came out yesterday
• 4:30
  is that Donna wrote and signed checks totally better than seventeen thousand dollars to Katie
• 4:39
  Magbanuwa for doing no work, something that the office manager for Charlie Edelson is
• 4:44
  confirmed as well. That's pretty damning. Yes, I agree, and I
• 4:50
  thought even more so against the entire family was what Sargant Korbett brought out.
• 4:56
  Sargan Korbett had a phenomenal presentation that was out by the prosecutor, Sarah Dugan,
• 5:01
  and it was so impressive. It was I've never seen anything that impressive
• 5:05
  on complex digital type information before. It was that incredible. And what that
• 5:11
  showed is really this is a family hit job that was done against Dan mark
• 5:15
  Hill. So if you look also the they even had a presentation of all
• 5:19
  the emails that are going on that we're building up to the time of Dan's
• 5:23
  murder, and in there included was an email or excuse me, a text
• 5:27
  from Wendy Adelson, Charlie's sister, that was sent to Dan asking him if
• 5:31
  he's going to be available the fourteenth of the eighteenth, if he's going to
• 5:35
  be in town that day of July, and of course we know he got
• 5:39
  murdered on the eighteenth of July. I thought it was also almost surreal to
• 5:46
  learn from Katie mcbanua that some of the cash that was given to her was
• 5:51
  literally laundered the money was wet and damp, and that indicate I mean,
• 6:00
  that's money laundering in a whole other world. Is that an effort of the
• 6:04
  ATOL sents to keep their fingerprints off the money. That's what a lot of
• 6:10
  the folks are speculating online on social media. And I think there's probably some
• 6:15
  true to that, because if he recalled the testimony from her is that it
• 6:19
  was also moldy, so it'd been sitting around somewhere collecting all this mold and
• 6:27
  whatnot, So why would they be doing that. So a lot of people
• 6:30
  are thinking, I think it's probably true that because, for example, Charlie
• 6:34
  had used gloves and he said that he had not touched the envelope where the
• 6:39
  instructions were on where to find Dan at his house, So it had a
• 6:42
  picture of Dan and his address of where he lives to give to the hit
• 6:46
  man. So by using glove to not have fingerprints, it makes sense that
• 6:48
  they would also probably be paranoid about DNA and fingerprints on the cash as well.
• 6:55
  Georgia Kapelman referred to when talking with Katie mcbanua regarding the video tape at
• 7:00
  the Dulce Vita of a transcript has a transcript been allowed in this after all,
• 7:08
  so far the judges ruled that the written transcript is not admissible the actual
• 7:13
  video is. So perhaps what the prosecution has done is, since Katie has
• 7:19
  come forward and wanted to cooperate, maybe if they've had her sit down and
• 7:24
  listening and fill in the gaps and explain what she was saying that was otherwise
• 7:27
  inaudible from her perspective in the conversation. So I think that maybe they will
• 7:31
  try to make an effort again to bring in the written But whether they bring
• 7:35
  in the written transcript that she's clarified or not, I think they still got
• 7:41
  really damning information. But here's the thing present. I think this government's case
• 7:44
  has gone so well they could present no more information and I think the government
• 7:49
  would actually easily win the case. Yeah's compressive it so far. Yeah,
• 7:54
  they've been very methodical and I think chronologically really smart in how they unfolded this,
• 8:00
  Katie meg Banua being able to clarify everything that was said, the code
• 8:05
  that was used, what the code meant in conversations with Charlie and in turn
• 8:11
  seemingly conversations between Charlie and his mom. But just the flurry of texting between
• 8:18
  Katie meg Banua, the man who killed Dan Markel, Sigfredo Garcia, and
• 8:22
  Charlie Aedelson. That pretty much clinches this beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't it.
• 8:28
  Yes, I totally agree that the jury is ready to convict him right now.
• 8:33
  I think they see through this charade that the fences tried to launch and
• 8:41
  not getting any lift. And what's going to happen is they only have two
• 8:45
  witnesses besides Charlie, and the other two witnesses Plice Charlie have nothing to do
• 8:48
  with any knowledge of what there would be for extortion. So it's really going
• 8:52
  to just come down to Charlie testifying to the supposed extortion blackmail type effort of
• 9:00
  Katie and Sigfredo, and it's just not gonna It's just not going to get
• 9:03
  any traction. I can't wait if Charlie decides to testify for a cross examination,
• 9:09
  but he almost has to testify because it's all they got left. Carl
• 9:11
  last question, if you're the prosecution, how soon before you drop an indictment
• 9:18
  on Donna Edelson? Well that's that's the real question, is like why has
• 9:24
  this taken so long? These folks should all be sitting at the defendant's table
• 9:30
  right now. They have that strong evidence I think against especially Donna and Wendy,
• 9:35
  So that's something that hopefully they're going to do within the coming weeks.
• 9:39
  If not, it's going to be really a shock. Great stuff. Carl,
• 9:43
  thanks so much for the feedback. I know we'll talk again, Thank
• 9:46
  you, sir, Thanks sir. All Right, Carl Steinbeck with us this
• 9:50
  morning, and his background really lends expertise to looking at the trial here day
• 9:56
  three of Charlie Edelson. Today is day four,