Hidden True Crime - Closing Arguments, Verdict & Victim Impact Statements—Full Day 9 Recap | Donna Adelson Trial

Episode Date: September 7, 2025

Day 9 was the turning point in the Donna Adelson trial. From fiery closing arguments to a stunningly fast verdict, the courtroom saw it all—accusations, rebuttals, and finally, the jury’s decision. We break down how both sides made their case, why the defense struggled, and what the guilty verdict means in this high-stakes family murder plot. ONESKIN: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code HIDDEN at https://www.oneskin.co #oneskinpod FULL BACKSTORY- Apple: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-true-crime/id1521619380?i=1000670853208⁠ Spotify:⁠https://open.spotify.com/episode/2VGAg7V4owkukkAG8SgNFZ?si=8oxZ2529QP28a_gHMTrpvA⁠ About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price. Quince uses

premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers,

spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password-man, manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. Orra gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now

atora.com slash remove. We're back with day nine of the Donna Adelson trial, the woman accused of mastermining the plot to murder her ex-son-in-law Dan Marquale. And I realize that most of you know what happened on this day. It was only the biggest day of trial. So much happened that when I went to record, I had to scratch my original prep because the news kept coming. And then I'm a crime con. So we're late.

But we have it all. And by all, I mean it all went down on September 4th. and we're going to finally talk about everything that happened. But before we do, let's quickly go back to the day before, Wednesday, also known as trial day eight, because that day was packed with explosive cross-examinations and decisions that could shape how the jury ultimately views Donna. The defense officially arrested its case, but not before. One of the biggest questions of the trial had to be answered, would Donna testify in her own defense? At the defense table, there was a lot of back and forth. Judge Everett allowed a few extra minutes,

but he was quick to point out that the defense has had more than enough opportunities to make this decision. Donna hesitated, saying she didn't feel ready to make a choice that would affect the rest of her life. But Everett pressed her forward at one point, even threatening the defense with contempt, if she refused to decide. Now, that moment stood out to me because Judge Everett is typically, a steady presence in the courtroom. He's known for being calm, measured, and almost monotone, yet commanding enough to maintain control without raising his voice. He's fair but firm, and when his tone shifts, even slightly, everyone takes notice. It almost seemed like Donna was

delaying just to hang onto one of the few things she still had control over. We all know Donna loves control, and this was it. But ultimately, she declined to testify. For many people, including myself, that was disappointing. It would have been fascinating to hear her try to explain away all of the bad facts that the state has laid out, right? Bad facts, in quotes. And while I'll always say that everyone is entitled to a strong defense, Donna's attorneys, Josh Zellman, and Jackie Fulford were definitely working with tough material. Some spectators believe they managed well during the state's presentation. But when it came time to put on their own case, I felt as if they dropped the ball.

And here are a few reasons why. First, out of all the witnesses, the defense brought forward, attorneys, private investigators, Donna's friends, it's hard to point to even one that truly helped their case. For starters, a lot of you notice that Donna and Harvey's friends came across as unrelatable, even pretentious. Instead of humanizing Donna, which I think was absolutely the entire point of them testifying, they painted a picture of a wealthy couple wrapped up in gourmet clubs, lavish vacations, and multiple real estate properties. I don't think it did much to humble her in the eyes of the jury. Then there were the private investigators who testified that neither Patricia Byrd

or Drina Bernhardt mentioned Donna bribing them to lie. These are the jailhouse snitches. But that doesn't really carry much weight when the physical evidence suggests otherwise. What's even more interesting is that the state actually chose not to show the footage of Donna and Drina sitting together in jail. It was the defense that introduced that video, trying to show the two writing and talking But instead of helping, it played straight into the state's narrative that Donna had written the script for Drina to memorize. And on top of that, showing Donna cozing up with two career criminals didn't exactly help her image.

Patricia and Drina may not be the most trustworthy on their own, but the problem is their story lines up with the script that handwriting analysis confirmed was Donna's. If we've learned anything from cases like James Craig, it's this. Innocent people usually don't conspire with jailhouse informants, draft them scripts, or offer them bribes to lie. If Donna had never put pen to paper, the state's snitch witnesses, might have been easier to discredit. But with that script in play, their testimony carries a lot more weight. The two family law attorneys who testified turned out to be an absolute disaster for the defense,

when the defense puts witnesses on the stand. They need them to be at least somewhat likable. But these two came across the opposite. Instead of helping Donna, they mainly tried to throw Dan under the bus for things he did during the divorce, while at the same time insisting the divorce wasn't contentious. That's a tough sell because anyone watching can clearly see

it was contentious and emotionally charged, even if from a family law attorney's perspective, it looked routine. Georgia Kaplanman absolutely lit up the second attorney across and that exchange might have been what ultimately scared Donna out of testifying. Up until then, she still hadn't committed to a decision. And Judge Everett had reminded her that taking the stand would expose her to cross-examination. After seeing Kaplanman in action, Donna and her defense team were probably terrified that she be eviscerated if she tried to defend herself.

In the end, none of the defense witnesses did anything, in my opinion, to humanize Donna or make her more sympathetic to the defense. jury other than maybe her former attorney or Wendy's victim advocate. Sometimes when the facts are stacked against you, the best move a defendant can make is to get up there and tell their own story. What happened? That personal connection can be sometimes, in my opinion, the only chance to actually attempt to spark empathy with the jury. And while jurors are instructed not to hold it against a defendant when they choose to remain silent, most people can't help but wonder, if you didn't do it, why not get up there and say so? Why not try to clear your name? And I realize a lot of people say, well, every attorney might say,

don't do it. But in my opinion, what did she have to lose? When it comes to both Zellman and Fulford, I do think they've done the best they could under the circumstances. But again, a lot of you even feel their presentation style might actually be off-putting to the jury. Okay, so here's an example. Jackie, repeatedly referring to Dan as Danny, almost as a show that the defense sympathizes with him. But at the end of the day, the defense's job isn't to get the jury to sympathize with the victim. It's to build empathy for Donna. I mentioned some background on Jackie the other day, but here's another interesting fact. She's actually the co-owner of a funeral home where she serves as a celebrations of life coordinator. Her role is to help families honor

the unique personality and passions of their loved one who has passed away. If you've ever been to a funeral, you know how the eulogies usually go. Everything is framed in the most positive light. Someone who is overbearing, meddling, and controlling in life might be described instead as deeply caring, passionate, always involved. That's the kind of reframing Jackie is skilled at. So again, it just makes me wonder if she'll try to use that same technique during her closing. We'll find out in this episode. Maybe she'll attempt to spin Donna's control over her children's life as the actions of the devoted loving mother who went above and beyond. Well, we're going to see here in this episode if that's the approach she takes. Here we go. A quick word from our sponsor.

I am a big believer in working smarter, not harder, and one skin is skincare that actually works smarter, not harder. At the core of every product, is there OS01 peptide? That's OS1, the first ingredient proven to target senicent cells, which are basically the aging cells that cause wrinkles and that loss of firmness we all experience as we age. So what has impressed me the most, it's backed by real science. Five, five, published clinical studies, and I noticed the results myself. My skin looks healthier, it feels stronger, and that makes me more confident and ready to take on the day and appear on camera. And it only takes one quick step. You cleanse, you apply, you're done. OneSkin is the world's first skin longevity company helping your skin act younger for longer.

And for a limited time, you can try it for 15% off with my code hidden at OneSkin.com. That's 15% off at OneSkin.com with code hidden. Be sure to tell them you heard it here. Smart science. Real results. Try OneSkin today. Your future self will thank you. So back to Thursday, day nine. Before closing arguments, officially began Judge Everett went back over the final jury instructions to make sure everything was clear. The verdict form will give them three options. Count one, guilty or not guilty of first degree murder. Count two, guilty or not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, first degree murder. And count three, guilty or not guilty of solicitation to commit first degree murder.

After that, the jury was brought in in and prosecutor Georgia capital. woman began the state's closing argument. She started by showing the jury a photo of Dan, a father, a son, a brother, a professor, and the victim in this case, a devoted dad who fought to keep his children only to be murdered in a conspiracy designed to silence him. Kaplaneman told the jurors that the defense's experts had tried to paint the divorce as not contentious. But for Dan, for Wendy, and for Donna Adelson, it was everything. Dan had gone to Harvard. He was a professor. And when it came to this fight, he made it as hard as possible because it was about his children. He reminded the jury that over the past 11 years, every defendant has tried to shift the blame. Sifredo pointed to Charlie. Catherine claimed ignorance. Charlie insisted Sigfredo, Luis and Catherine, acted alone. Each tried to play the victim, but the evidence caught them all. And now, Kauffleman said, quote, today is Donna Adelson's turn.

Kaplanman then outlined the two early leads investigators had the Prius seen fleeing the crime scene and motive. And within just one hour of the murder, detectives already had their eyes on Donna after Wendy told officers her parents disliked Dan the most. She reminded jurors that in order to convict, the state only had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donna was one of the people behind this crime. Everyone agrees. This was first-degree murder. the only question left is who was involved. Kaplanman argued that the motive itself is compelling proof. Charlie didn't care about the relocation fight.

He didn't care about the divorce battles. What he cared about was the number one woman in his life, his mother. Donna micromanaged her children's lives and Charlie's role was to solve her problems. And in 2014, the biggest problem was Dan Markell. Kauffelman reminded the jury that in 2012, Donna helped Wendy's secretly rent a new place under her maiden name, timing the separation news to hit Dan just as he was about to give an on-stage lecture. Rob Adelson testified that Donna gleefully reported how they had dropped the news.

In an October 2012 email, Donna referred to Wendy as a, quote, hostage in Tallahassee. She pushed for 100% custody, relocation, and even hinted at using a Catholic baptism as leverage against Dan. Donna's plan was clear. If Dan blocked relocation, she would push to wear him down until he surrendered. Wendy herself admitted her mother was serious. Emails also showed Donna telling friends she was at Wendy's kitchen table working on filings. By March 2013, Donna was sending point-by-point responses to Dan's opposition, calling his religious practices fanatical and dangerous and labeling him psychologically unfit for custom. Cappellman said, quote, so much for the claim that Donna wasn't involved in Wendy's divorce, end quote.

She reminded the jury that the defense had painted Dan as an intelligent, accomplished father in their opening statement, but Donna's emails revealed how much she portrayed him as a self-important idiot, unfit to parent. This shift shows Donna's direct hand in vilifying him. When Dan chastised Wendy in March 2013 for violating their Skype agreement, Wendy forwarded the email straight to Donna, who dissected it line by line and suggested ways Wendy could weaponize his words against him in court. Kavelman highlighted her fury, quoting her words, quote, never, never give up, show this fucker what will make him absolutely miserable, end quote. Evidence shows Donna pushed Wendy to put on the performance of her life. She floated ideas that ranged from a million-dollar payout to baptizing the grandchildren to even dressing them in Hitler youth uniforms.

Tactics, Kaplanman says, reveal her ends justify the means mindset. Kaplanman closed that segment by telling jurors, quote, If Dan had let her relocate, he'd be alive. If he moved to South, he'd be alive. But he would not submit Donna couldn't win through Quote. court so she made it Charlie's problem. End quote. In July 2013, Donna emailed Charlie to catch him up on Wendy's case, including

bribe discussions. Kaplan said that pattern. Donna forwarding updates and priming Charlie as the family's problem solver. On one key day in October 2013, Wendy filed a motion to enforce the marital settlement. That same day, she backed out of buying a Tallahassee home after Charlie persuaded her otherwise. Donna called him a miracle worker. And that same day, Charlie raised the idea of hiring someone to harm Dan with Catherine Magbanwa.

In December 2013, Dan emailed Wendy and the parenting coordinator saying the boys told him, quote, Grandma says you're stupid because he was taking her sun shines away. Dan warned he might seek court relief barring Donna from contact. And Wendy forwarded the email to Donna. and Donna's only reply was, quote, wow. Kaplanman reminded the jury that bad blood ran long after the 2013 divorce. By early 2014, Donna was calling Dan a bastard in text, urging Wendy to aggravate him with legal filings. In March 2014, she vented about Dan showing up at soccer practice, calling him such a fucker.

This proved that tensions never eased despite the defense's. his claims of an amicable divorce. On March 4th, 2014, Donna texted Charlie from a bathroom, urging him to delete the message after reading that she wrote about Dad's birthday gift. Kaplaneman framed that gift, not as a surprise presence, but as the planned murder. On March 21st, 2014, Donna signed a lease on a Miami condo. After Dan's murder, Wendy and the boys moved in. Kaplanman argued the timing was no coincidence that Donna had secured housing months before relocation suddenly became possible. On March 26, 2014, Dan filed a motion accusing Donna of disparaging him to the children. Again, citing, repeated, Grandma says your stupid comments.

He asked the court to bar her from unsupervised contact. Kaplanman told the jurors, Donna's grip on her her sun shines was slipping. She argued that Donna had seen that the relocation was denied. Her bribery attempts failed and now faced legal filings, targeting her directly. With the court closing off every avenue, Kaplanman told the jury, quote, there was still another option, the hitman, end quote. Between June and July 2014, Charlie repeatedly called Catherine out about, quote, getting it done, often stepping out mid-discussion to phone Donna. Kaplanman argued the urgency-reflected efforts to relieve Donna's stress. On July 3rd, 2014, her Evite for Harvey's party listed Wendy's children as Edelson, not Markell.

Investigators said that Donna sent the invitations. And on July 6th, 2014, from Wendy's phone at Donna's condo, Dan was asked if he would be in town July 14th through 18th. Kaplanman highlighted that those exact dates coincided with the hitman's planned trip to Tallahassee. Jeff LaCast testified on July 13th that Wendy said relocation wasn't possible unless something happens to Dan and added that Charlie had looked into hiring a hitman. Next, Kaplan Man went over the timeline of the murder. July 15th, Prius rented. July 16th, Siegfredo and Louise drive to Tallahassee.

July 17th, Hitman Trail Dan around town. July 18th, 1045 a.m. shots fired in Dan's driveway. July 18th, 811 a.m., Donna texts Wendy about the TV set in the living room being fixed, later used as a code on wiretaps. Kaplanman says this was part of the cover story. July 18th, 1245 p.m., Wendy drives past the crime scene, turns around and goes to buy Berman. She later tells police her parents had more reason to dislike Dan than anyone. July 18th, the evening, Donna and Harvey drive to Charlie's at 8.59 p.m. Donna texts outside your house.

By 10 p.m., Catherine arrives greeted by Charlie with a gun. The next morning, money is placed in Catherine's trunk. July 19th, after Donna and Harvey visit Charlie, Catherine meets Siegfriedo and Louise. Kaplanman says the $100,000 payout was split three ways, with Catherine's share later deposited despite no formal employment. July 20th, Donna and Harvey drive Wendy and the boys back to South Florida just two days, two days after Dan's murder. On September 17, 2014, Donna signed the first of 44 checks to Magbanwa, linking family funds directly to the murder for hire. Kaplan had argued that if she were uninvolved, there would have been no reason for her to be the signer. Rob Adelson testified that his mother should a total lack of curiosity about who killed Dan.

When asked what she thought happened, Donna allegedly replied, quote, I don't know and I don't care. On April 19, 2016, an undercover officer handed Donna a piece of paper. Instead of calling the police, she led her grandchildren past the same spot after picking them up from school. Later on a wiretap, Charlie asked if it involves him or other people, and Donna replied, quote, probably both of us. After meeting his mother at a marina, Charlie headed to Dolce Vita to confer with Catherine. Wiretaps captured him making incriminating statements inconsistent with his later defense. Kaplanman attacked Charlie's extortion defense, noting he claimed Catherine extorted him and funneled payments to the hitman. But Kaplanman pointed out the contradictions that Charlie had let Catherine sleep over spend nights with her and even discuss daily plans behavior unlikely if she were truly an extortionist.

Kaplanar argued that Donna later embraced Charlie's version as the truth. By law, this can be treated as an adoptive admission tying her to his story. Kaplanman said, quote, Innocent victims of extortion don't stay silent for years, speaking code, launder cash, or sign 44 checks. Real victims go to police. Well, then, Kaplanman told the jury that Charlie's extortion story wasn't even created until 2023.

Before that, he called the Dolte Vita meeting blackmail. Donna later Googled Blackmail versus extortion in October, 2003, days before. Charlie's trial. Kaplan said Donna doubled down on Charlie's defense. She handwrote a script for Drina Bernhardt to testify, even underlining the word extort. The script matched Charlie's invented stories suggesting Donna tried to recruit false memory. In November 2023, Donna texted Wendy saying she didn't know about the supposed extortion. Kaplanman argued that if the story were true, while at Wendy and the kids live unprotected in Miami near the alleged

extortionists. In that same text, Donna wrote, quote, you know I'm next, but that won't happen. I'll take care of that, end quote, which showed her state of mind leading to her planned flight to Vietnam. Evidence showed that after Charlie's conviction in November of 2023, Donna booked a one-way ticket to Vietnam via Dubai. She Googled extradition treaties and applied for an emergency fast-track visa. Her planner contained notes about canceling insurance and pre-paying child support two years out. Kaplanman told jurors this was a conspiracy built like train cars with each conspirator shielding the others. But Donna left direct evidence. 44 sign checks, license plate notes in her planner, code words like TV on her own admissions. Kaplanman closed by saying, quote, don't let the way she thought

she'd get away with this, be the way she does, find her guilty. After this, the court took a break before it was the defense's turn to give their closing arguments. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark

web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day.

Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually, without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance.

all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. Bulford began by telling the jury that over the course of the trial, they had heard a lot, a lot. And she wanted to clarify some points the state reference from her opening statement.

The state claimed that during the jury, her opening, she had praised Dan and then called witnesses to attack him during trial. Fulford said that wasn't true. In fact, she argued the defense was the only part of the trial that actually elicited evidence about Dan's good qualities, including on cross-examination of his ex-wife Wendy. She explained that the two defense witnesses who discussed the divorce were not there to attack Dan. The state had put divorce documents into evidence, including everything Dan had filed, so the defense had to address them. Fulford reminded the judge. jury that their obligation was to defend Donna and whether the divorce was contentious was a point

the state introduced into the trial. The state called it a bitter custody battle lasting years, but the defense said that the characterization was inaccurate. Bulford emphasized there was never a bitter custody battle and neither Dan nor Wendy tried to take the children away from one another. The case was only about relocation and not a custody battle. She told the jury that Wendy and Dan filed very typical pleadings and the divorce was a standard one. Nothing like the drama the state portrayed. Take a lesson. The state is ignoring the evidence that came in through their witnesses that support our defense

and instead they stand before you with calls and text messages and they tell you what they mean. That's not evidence. Their argument about what a conversation means is not evidence. You decide what it means. You've got it in front of you, and you have to consider it in the context of all of the evidence that's presented. Not just what the state puts in, but what the defense puts in. And I know at some point when we were putting on evidence, you all were looking probably at me like, what are you doing? Who cares?

Some of those little things matter, and I'm going to cover those in the defense, and you'll see why we put those things in that didn't seem like that. I had a hoot to do with anything because they actually did. Next, Fulford moved on to how the state explained breaking the case of who killed Dan. She noted that Louise Rivera decided to cooperate with the state of Florida in exchange for a deal, adding only seven more years to an unrelated sentence. But Louise was a man who got in the car, got the gun off the street, drove to Tallahassee, stalked Dan with his children in the car, watched him, drop the kids off at school, followed him to the gym, and sat in wait.

After that, Dan drove home, unknowingly followed by the men. Louise pulled up behind him in his driveway. Sikfredo got out, shot Dan twice in the head, and they fled back to Miami. Bulford stressed those are the men who killed Dan Markell, not Donna. She argued that the state has all kinds of theories about how Donna might have been involved because she said bad things about him. But what did Luis Rivera say under oath? he testified and I quote

Catherine is the one who elicited Sigfredo to kill Dan Markell and quote. Catherine later claimed she didn't know Louise was involved. Fulford pointed out that Catherine has has lied countless times adding more to her story each time she testifies phone record presented by the state

showed Catherine talking to Louise when Luis and Sigfredo were on their way to Tallahassee and Siegretto didn't answer his phone Catherine called Louise. Fulford argued this show she must have known he was involved. She said, quote, that woman doesn't know how to tell the truth. Luis also testified that Wendy was the one who wanted to get her kids back, which is why the

crime was committed for Wendy. Charlie was the one with Catherine who helped set it up. Luis never said Donna was involved. He specifically said Don and Harvey were not involved. Wolford reminded the jury that Luis was a state witness, meaning the prosecution wants them to believe he is telling the truth. and if that's the case, he's also telling the truth that Donna was not involved. Fulford then turned to the state's focus on relocation.

The prosecution hammered the point that relocation was the whole reason they believed Donna had Dan killed. But Fulford pointed out that Dan was killed on July 18, 2014, and the relocation issue had been resolved over a year earlier. She says the state never submitted any emails or any proof showing Donna continued harping on relocation after the divorce was finalized. Next, Fulford pointed out that Charlie and Wendy weren't always honest with Donna.

Throughout the time Wendy claimed she wanted to relocate, she was secretly emailing her life coach that she had made peace with staying in Tallahassee, that it would be best for the boys and that she also liked her job because it gave her flexibility.

Yet she continued telling Donna that she wanted to move, leading Donna to believe they needed to fight for relocation. Wendy also constantly vented to Donna about things Dan was doing and how horrible he was. Naturally, riling Donna up as her mother. Take a listen.

Well, she's venting to her mother about what she claims Danny Markell is doing, and she's venting to her mother about what she wants to accomplish, only she's not being honest with her. On the backside, she's making other plans. It had been nice for my client, Donna Adelson, to know that because these emails that have been submitted here, which are proof that she wanted to have Danny Markell killed, would not have been written. And when she goes to her hearing on the relocation in June of 2013, she has her mother stay outside. Her mother can't hear what's going on in the hearing.

She admitted she had several witnesses to call beyond the two that got on the stand. And then after the judge made the comment, she gave up. She could have continued with the hearing and put her witnesses on. The judge could have ruled against her and then maybe she has an appellate issue. She gave up because she didn't want it anymore, but she didn't tell her mother that. When she told her mother, well this is how the judge is ruled, the mother understood that through the court system it was done, but not with her daughter Wendy. you can continue to negotiate all the way through a final judgment.

And that's what those emails say. They do suggest some crazy stuff. They do. But she puts in there, we're trying to negotiate. We're trying to negotiate. Get this. You can still work on this. She doesn't know when she's writing those crazy emails that there's no reason to write them

because her daughter agreed, you know, you can have a dismissal on an issue. you can have a denial on an issue. She agreed to it with prejudice, which means it is over. She already made an agreement. She's not going to see three location anymore. So my client is hanging out there trying to support her daughter, and now she's sitting on a court of law charged with murder because of what she wrote in emails.

Because the truth is, you are here to judge my client, based on her conduct, leading up to and to the time of it. of death of Danny Markell. That's her conduct. Can you consider things she said and did after to see if it corroborates that she was involved? You can. But her conduct leading up to the day that Danny was murdered

is in this book that the state has entered with emails. It's separated between, where you can see it, where they lead up to the divorce, and then after the divorce until the time of the hospital. homicide. Now, my client did say ugly things about Danny Markell. During the divorce, she did. Next, Fulford addressed all the names the state highlighted that Donna called Dan, which they used to argue that she hated him. She noted that Donna called Dan names like jibbers, which Wendy said she came up with, as well as a religious zealot, a royal jackass, a piece of shit, a fucker, crazy, a bastard, and Elvis.

And in Fulford's opinion, the state believes that these insults prove Donna wanted Dan killed. But she argued there isn't a single piece of evidence showing Donna ever said she wanted Dan dead, that she planned to hire someone to kill him, paid him, or celebrated his death. All the state has is name calling. Fulford said the prosecution spins his evidence to make Donna look bad, but it's not proof she orchestrated his murder. She then moved on to the grandmother motion, which the state argued pushed Donna over. the edge. Fulford pointed out that the state's own witnesses said Donna didn't know about the motion.

Wendy testified that Donna never saw it or discussed it. And even if she had the motion only alleged that the three and four-year-old said Donna called Dan stupid. The state claimed that was enough to drive her to solicit murder. But Fulford called that spin unbelievable. Listen to this. That's their spin that they want to put on it because they've got this theory that she's the mastermind. And then they stand up here in their closing and they say, everybody who's been charged in this case, so they want to point at the other one, point at the other one, and point at the other one.

No, no, no, no, no. Who is pointing at these people? The state of Florida. The state of Florida is doing the pointing. They're the ones getting the warrants. They're the ones doing the investigation. They're the ones charging people, deciding who they're going to give deals to and not. That's them pointing the finger.

That's not my client. There's no evidence of that. They bring the charges. that they prosecute, they get the convictions, they get people sent off to prison. Not us. We're pointing the blame at the killers for killing them. They proved that those are the people who killed them.

That's not us pointing the finger. They actually did it and it's been proven. And we're distancing ourselves from Charlie Adelson? Let me tell you something. They elicited the testimony about Charlie Adelson. Over our objection, if you happen to remember that, it came in. Charlie Edelson is not on trial.

You may be sitting in that jury room thinking, well, Charlie did it, and it sure looks like Wendy did it. That doesn't have an ounce to do with Donna Edelson doing a thing. Not a single thing. If you think he did it, he'd been convicted. He admitted in his testimony that he is the person, although he claims he was extorted, he is the person that took a hundred and thirty-eight,

$8,000 out of his refrigerator size safe that he has at his house with the money exactly like he says he kept it stapling $100 bills together in stacks of a thousand staple staple staple staple staple he said he took that money out of his safe and he gave it to Catherine Magbanawa that night whether that's his girlfriend and they're still fooling around on the side that's between the two of them that's got nothing to do with my client He did it, but now they want to say Donna Edelson did it. Pick up, pick one. You don't like our theory? That's what they say, you don't like our theory?

Oh, well, you know, you like our theory on everybody else. Pick one. If you have prosecuted Charlie Adelson for paying the $138,000 staple just like their other witnesses in this case said, why are they now saying Donna Adelson provided the money? Oh, wait, oh, because Catherine Magbanawa, who's been sentenced to life, and is telling us that they're telling us, and is telling her sick story now has decided she'd like to see her kid someday,

so now she's going to come in and provide information that will help the state, prosecute an innocent woman so she can go home to her children. That's what that's about. So she claims that this all goes down. Charlie puts the money, Charlie, not Donna, Charlie puts the money stapled just like she knows he does into her trunk. She drives it the next day to Siegfriedo Garcia, her baby daddy, he takes it out of the trunk,

and a day or two later, she gets hers back. And she says, he puts it in her closet, and to this day, she wants you to believe that that money sat in her closet, and she spent it along the way, the records that Ms. Hull testified to showing all her cash deposits, she clearly was doing something with it, right? But to this day, she wants you to believe

she has absolutely no idea how much money she had. Never counted it. Really? She must think y'all was born yesterday. But here's something, she's got this new thing she wants to testify to, that the money was wet and Charlie told her that Donna had washed it. Her money's wet, that she hasn't touched,

that's been somewhere else for these number of days. Well, what did Lewis Rivera testified to about his money that he got? He said it was weird. Well, how was it weird? Well, it was stapled in $100 bills, stacks of a thousand. Not a single word about wet, and he got his money before she did. He got it straight from Sigmaredo. This washing money wet thing is nonsense. Fullford then addressed Catherine's testimony that every time she spoke to

Charlie about, quote, needing to get the job done, he would step out of the room and say he was talking to his mother. Fulford pointed out that Catherine never said when these calls took place, never actually overheard them, and noted that Charlie was seeing multiple women at the time. He could have been talking to one of them and simply told Catherine it was his mom. Fulford argued that Catherine was motivated to share this new information because she wanted to get out of prison, not because it was true. Bulford also addressed that the claim that the birthday present was code for Dan's murder, while Rob said there would be no birthday present, the gift ended up being a special chef hired to cook.

Bulford noted that during cross-examination of Rob, the jury learned he rarely spoke to or saw his family if the state wanted them to believe everything he said about Donna. She emphasized that Rob had an axe to grind, was not involved in day-to-day events and had no first-hand knowledge, but the prosecution relied on his testimony to implicate his mother. Next, Fulford showed parts of emails between Donna and Wendy that the state left out. While the prosecution highlighted Donna helping Wendy with divorce documents, they omitted that Donna advised Wendy to make Dan pay for child support,

schooling, sports, and other expenses. Bulford asked, if Donna wanted Dan dead, why would she be helping Wendy plan for him to financially support the boys? Why advise on negotiation terms of Dan was going to be dead anyway? She also addressed the so-called million-dollar bribe, the state discussed. Fulford explained it was intended so Dan could relocate to, allowing him to commute two days a week to teach while living in Miami and co-parenting with Wendy. They would cover plane tickets and help him buy a house. Fulford asked the jury, why offer all of this if they were planning to have him killed?

Fulford also ridiculed the state's alibi theory. Harvey, not Donna, arranged the Geek Squad repair for the broken TV, even checking a box to allow for an earlier appointment if one became available. Fulford said, quote, who does that if you've scheduled a murder? It makes no sense. They also played a recording of Wendy calling Donna from the Tallahassee Police Department after the shooting. Donna's voice was audibly shaken, asking, how did it happen? where is he now? Fulford said, quote, this is not someone who planned his death. She was shocked. Finally, Fulford emphasized that Donna's phone never ping near Charlie's and night of the murder.

She said that the state wants the jury to believe she dropped money at his house, but they can't even put her phone in the same tower zone. Fulford pointed out that Patricia Bird and Drina Bernhardt each claim Donna offered benefits for false testimony. She said, quote, two felons, same cell block, same script, neither ever on a witness. list. They want deals not truth." End quote. Bulford emphasized that Donna only learned the details two months after Dan's murder from Charlie, who told her

he was being extorted and needed checks written to Catherine. She believed her son's life was at stake, so Donna wrote payroll checks at Charlie's instructions. In April 2016, after agents staged the bump, Bulford noted that wiretaps were approved only for Charlie

and Catherine, not Donna. She asked, quote, if she was the mastermind, why wasn't her phone tapped? Next, she addressed Harvey and Donna's visas, which the state entered into evidence. The visas said, good for single or multiple entries and a visa for tourism, not residents, can come and go as you please. Bulford noted that during Charlie's trial, Donna was very depressed in making remarks about self-harm, and Harvey wanted to get her away on a trip to clear her head. She also highlighted that if Donna and Harvey were really trying to flee, why did they only bring one suitcase, one carry on, and only a few credit cards? It wasn't meant

to be a long trip. Fulford then reminded the jury that law enforcement said Donna was immediately a person of interest after Dan was shot in 2014. Yet after collecting financial records, she wasn't arrested in 2015. After the bump, she wasn't arrested. in 2016. She wasn't arrested when all of the coal conspirators were taken into custody, nor in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022. When Donna got her travel visa and booked her tickets, there was still no warrant for her arrest. She wasn't doing anything wrong. It wasn't until she was already at the airport that the state obtained a warrant and she knew nothing about it. Bulford asked the jury, why would she be trying to flee if she wasn't even aware of a warrant for her arrest?

She reminded the jury that the FBI, the FD, and the TPD collected hundreds of thousands of emails, over 2,000 calls and texts, bank records, and sell tower data, and still, there was nothing tying Donna to the murder. Bulford stressed there was no email, no call, no written record showing Donna plotted Dan Markell's death. She said, quote, the worst they have is foul language. that's not proof of murder, end quote. Bulford urged the jury not to be swayed by the state's narrative.

She ended her closing with a clear directive saying, quote, you have to find her not guilty. The state has failed on all three counts. Take a listen. And there's not a single piece of evidence that connects my client to that murder. Charlie Adelson? Yep. Potentially Wendy Edelson, she's the one who said she hated him.

she's the one fighting with him in court. Donna Edelson, nothing. Not a single piece of evidence. You have to find her not guilty because they have failed to do their job on all three counts. They cannot prove she had him killed. At the time that he was killed,

she had paid anybody or asked anybody to do it. Please take this case seriously. Please go back and review the evidence. Please discuss what's been presented. Don't get talked into something that you don't agree with. The verdict has to be unanimous. If you don't reach an agreement, if you can't be unanimous, there's another procedure we go through.

But please don't buy into what the state is about to do, telling me how wrong I am or telling you how wrong I am about everything and how they have this mountain of evidence. Because they admitted it. Agent Sanford admitted it. There is no direct evidence linking Donna. to anything. And all this circumstantial evidence isn't really circumstantial evidence. It's argument about what it could mean, what it possibly mean, could it have been. That's not beyond a reasonable

doubt. Kaplaneman opened her rebuttal by reminding the jurors that what attorneys say is not evidence. Only the exhibits, testimony, and their own memories matter. She urged them to look at the evidence and decide for themselves what is true. Addressing the defense's claims, Kaplanman said that while they argued Donna was framed as fleeing, Donna herself obtained a fast-track visa to a non-extraditioned country. She made those choices. Kaplanman told the jury.

The defense also claimed that Wendy never told her mom she had given up, wanting to relocate. But Kaplan reminded jurors that Wendy did. In fact, share that information with Donna. Take a listen to this. Wendy didn't bother to tell her mom she was ready to give up on the relocation. Yes, she did. Look in the emails.

She was giving up and Donna wasn't having it. That's when she gets the totally unhinged email from her mother suggesting you're not going to give up. You want to move on with a sense of peace? Hell no, we're going to fight this guy. We're going to dress your kids up as Nazis. That's what happened when she suggested, when Wendy suggested giving up, never, never, never give up, right? This murder charge is not based on the fact that she said some bad words.

I mean, I'd be facing murder just in this courtroom. Obviously, people. That is not what this case is about. You've got to look at all the evidence. I mean, it is death by a thousand cuts. It is powdered sugar. You've got to look at the whole thing and make a decision. And I'm sorry that there's not a smoking gun, but she was too smart for that.

She thought about it. She planned it. She made sure we could never get her, right? She took precautions, but she did make mistakes. And that's what all those exhibits are. Mistakes. Kaplanman said she isn't trying to spin anything. and the only spin that matters is the juries.

She explained that she tells them what she thinks the evidence shows. The defense tells them what they think it shows, and the jury has to decide for themselves what they believe the evidence shows. She highlighted that the defense seems to think that just because Charlie was convicted, Donna cannot be held responsible. Kaplanman made it clear that everyone involved should be held accountable. So perhaps insinuating that Wendy is next, who knows, to close. Georgia brought up two particularly shocking emails from Donna.

Take a look. Two years after the murder, we've got two emails, 64T and 64I. The defense told you in opening that this defendant cares about others more than she cares about herself. The problem is that she decides what other people need, what's necessary for other people in their lives, and she is willing to justify whatever ends she thinks are needed, right? any means to get to those ends are justified in her mind. The problem is she doesn't care about the collateral damage to get to her ends.

The evidence has shown that this defendant, I think, did believe that Wendy and those boys were better off in South Florida. She thought that's what they needed. They would be better off with her, and she was angry that that couldn't happen. Dan Markell is the thing standing in the way. What was the cost of that to not only Dan Markell, but to those of those of the people? little boys. Those little boys lost their father. Look what she says in 64T. Children are two and three. Children do not even have a memory of life before age five or six. Look what she says in 64.

I, I, I, when Wendy is concerned. This is two years after the murder. Her child is having trouble at school crying because he misses his father. And this woman, this nice grandmother, innocent woman says, quote, I still do not believe that Ben is sad about his father. Quotations on the sad. 64. I. I still do not believe that Ben is sad about his father. I spend a minimum of 25 hours a week with him, and oftentimes more than that, including weekend times and sleepover days, and have never experienced the time when he was sad. I think it's just another phase of the many, many, many.

phases that kids go through. The problem is they have a highly intelligent and sensitive mom. She doesn't believe that this kid is sad because she can't take accountability for her own actions and the catastrophic consequences that this had on everyone's life in her family. Not just her son, not just her daughter, not just Rob, not just Dan Markell, but those boys who lost their father wasn't better for them to be in South Florida. It was better for them to be in South Florida. It was better for them to have their father. You must not base your verdict on the feelings of sympathy, prejudice, bias. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and the law. Yes, she's a

grandmother. Most murderers don't look like that. But the evidence has revealed what she is. Please don't let her appearance influence your verdict in any way. It involves the two of us. What about the script? They didn't even talk about the script. She wrote a script. for a witness that was perjured testimony about based on a lie, an extortion lie that's been proven in court to you to be false. This defendant tried to erase Dan Markell, thinking there would be no harm to those little boys, they don't have a memory of their father. They feel the absence of their father. This defendant decided they didn't need their dad. She doesn't get to decide that. She wanted it done. She brought the money. She stroked the check. She didn't have to do that. Charlie was a signatory, had signing power on that account. He could have written the checks. She wrote the checks. Why? Because she was neck deep in this thing. She wrote the checks. She said it involved the two of us. She wrote that script. May you have the strength and the common sense to see this evidence for what it is. It's only one thing. There's only one thing. There's only one.

one truth. It can't all be right. It's only one truth. Render a verdict that does justice. Fine or guilty. Thank you. And with that, the decision was in the jury's hands. As for the closings, I think the defense did the best they could with what they had. Fullford made some strong points, highlighting the gaps in the state's case and trying to show. show that there was no direct evidence leaking Donna to the murder. She emphasized the inconsistencies, the timing of events, and how the so-called fleeing was really just a normal trip. But once Kaplan

got going, she was a force to be reckoned with. Her rebuttal, in particular, was very strong. And being the last thing the jurors here before deliberations makes it, of course, especially important. She reminded them to focus on the evidence, not the defense's narrative. Now, it was is up to the jury to decide which side's view of the evidence resonates and whether they believe Donna Edelson is guilty. I think that most of us assumed that since court ended so late in the day that a verdict wouldn't be reached until the next day, I certainly did. However, that turned out to not be the case. In just a few hours, the jury was back with their decision. Take a lesson. We have a jury find as follows.

as the count one of the indictment first degree murder. The defendant is guilty of first degree murder. Mrs. Adelson, control yourself. Count two, we the jury find as follows as the count two of the indictment, conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The defendant is guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree murder.

Count three, we the jury find as follows as the count three of the indictment solicitation to commit first-degree murder the defendant is guilty of solicitation to commit first-degree murder and it is signed and dated by the four-person one moment members of the jury the bailiff will escort you to the jury room this is edelson while this was not the outcome i'm sure that you desired there will not be any further outbursts in front of the jury. If you cannot control yourself, I am going to have to determine if you'll be removed from the remainder of this process. Do you understand what I'm saying to you? Do you need a moment to collect yourself? Before the jurors are brought back in, we will take

a brief two-minute break. Please give her tissues if she needs them. So there we have it. Guilty on all counts. And then we were able to hear from Dan Markell's parents as they gave their victim impact statements. Take a listen. Failing to achieve her goal through legal means, Donna finally resorted to orchestrating Dan's murder. She plotted, planned, and paid for his murder. Donna's crimes led to further devastation. Her middle son, Charlie, was convicted. and sentenced to a life in prison for his role in facilitating Danny's murder for hire. Can you imagine a mother involving a son to complete a murder? Dana's eldest son, Rob, an honest and decent man is estranged from the family,

and her younger child, Wendy, has decided once again to relocate to another state. Her actions and those of her co-conspirators have caused children to lose their parents. Catherine McBaddenewis, and Frida Garcia, and Charlie Edison, also convicted, are all convicted for life

and have lost access to their children. Prior to her arrest, Donna's recorded phone calls with Charlie reveal their lack of a moral compass or capacity for self-reflection. She blames external forces for her family's curse,

They're outside of her, but she is the curse. And lashes out angrily at witnesses who look and took the brave step to testify. Her modus operandi has always been to run, to run from Tallahassee, and then to try to flee to Vietnam. For our family, there is no such prospect for escape. Danny's absence and that leaves a hole at the center of our lives, no matter where we go. Of course, their heinous and callous actions have left me, Ruth, and Shelley without our Danny, and Ben and Lincoln without their father. For anyone to commit such a cold-blooded, unprovoked act of murder is horrific.

For Donna, someone who claims to care so much about Ben and Lincoln, Her sun shines, her actions are beyond comprehension. She has harmed forever the people she claims to have loved. In the Jewish custom, we have an expression to always wish others to live to 120 years of age. For Donna, I wish her to live to 120 alone in her jail cell. I wish that every day of her remaining days she thinks about the harm she has caused to so many, especially those two boys she claims to have loved so much. For these reasons, Your Honor, I ask the court sentence Donna Idelson to the maximum possible sentence. And my only short question to Donna, was it worth it?

Respectfully, thank you. So from Georgia Kaplan, take a listen. I think I just feel kind of honored to be able to deliver this win for the Marquels. You know, we've heard so much about a win for the Adelson's, a win for the Adelson's, and everything that was lost in those efforts. So it's just been really cool to be a part of this win. During one of the pretrial, as you said, these trials that have become my life, it's a lot of trials at this point.

Talk about what happens when you're a prosecutor and you have to continue to follow cases like this one. Well, I mean, I do have other cases. People don't know that. There are other cases in this office. And I care about, you know, all of them, but obviously this has become sort of a part of my DNA after investing so much blood, sweat, and tears

into this case and getting justice. So, yeah, it's been an epic battle. Was this one tougher than Charlie's trial? I don't know. I mean, I'm older, so I think it is. I think everyone is tougher than the last. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, more time passes and more, there's more stuff,

there's more phones, there's more records, there's more emails, so it's a lot, a lot to organize, and it's a lot of little pieces to try to put together and try to create something cognizable that a jury can follow and get their head around. And Georgia, opening statements right out of the gate, Jackie Pulford, appropriated Professor Markell's nickname calling of Danny. A lot of people were upset about that. Did that bother you?

Not as much as it bothered some other folks. I understood what she was trying to do. It was not the classiest move, and I think she kind of realized that and seemed to correct that over the course of the trial. But, yeah, probably not a great move. And what about the man deliberations? This is roughly the same as Charlie, maybe a few minutes more, but not much. That surprised me because some people were predicting a longer deliberation? A little bit.

I actually lost. I thought it would be slightly shorter, but I was being pretty ambitious. But, yeah, I wouldn't have surprised me if it had been more difficult for them because it was a large puzzle that kind of had to be put together, but I guess they just got what they needed and they knew what they. had to do. Will this be the last prosecution? You are asking the question.

Why are you that guy? Were you surprised by the defense strategy of throwing Wendy and Charlie under the bus? And was the adoptive admissions ruling something that you pre-planned or something you all came up with at the last moment? We had a few incarnations of how to deal with the fact that she had adopted Charlie's really ridiculous story previously. story previously and we didn't want her to be able to distance herself from that and create a new better defense, which she did seem to kind of try to be doing. So we did want to try to shove that on her and then, you know, try to explain that to the jury. Okay, here's this whole other

defense that she already adopted and it's complicated and it has all its pushback that goes with it. So it did feel like a difficult minefield to wade through to be able to explain all that to the jury, but we wanted to make sure they understood that, hey, she's already committed to this defense that's a loser, and now she's trying to switch it up and go to this whole other place, and you've got to pick a lane and can't be both. So I think that's kind of what we were trying to do, so hopefully we were successful.

It sounded like the new investigation developed a lot of crazy evidence, including you all were trying to use some phone calls that you were not able to use at the trial. Is the sealing of this evidence going to be unsealed once now that Donna has been convicted, or do you know? I don't know the answer to that. You know, yeah, I don't know. And you can all still comment, I guess, about details.

I think not, since you're sealed, right. All right, no comments about... Second, you can you imagine it to me, but I don't think I should comment on it since it's sealed by the court. When you found out that Donna was not going to be testifying, somebody tells me you're probably salivating. I don't know about salivating. Yeah, I don't, I...

It's not like I was going to, wow, you guys with some amazing new stuff or anything, but I did put tons of... preparation into that. So I was a little bit like sad when I took my binder that had 110 tabs and packed it away. So yeah, I was a little surprised. She seems like somebody that would wanna tell her story. But it gets trickier and trickier when all these stories

are out there and she would have had to navigate a lot of stuff to get up there. So I do understand why she made the decision. She did and I think it was a smart one, but I was kind of expecting her to testify. A year ago. Evidence that you thought in this trial might have made a difference that what you came across that you introduced. I think the fleeing to Vietnam didn't hurt, especially since she denied it.

She could have just said, yeah, I went to Vietnam. You know, I mean, yeah, I didn't want to get arrested. But she didn't do that. She oversold. So that was helpful. The band number and the planner. Yes. How did you guys find that?

How did you guys find that? What did the an aha moment? Yeah. Yeah. Kind of dumb luck. I mean, that thing is so dense, and there's a bunch of them. So we've just been sort of perusing them, and, yeah, somebody just stumbled upon it and had an aha moment. What about Rob Aedelson's testimony?

How key was that? I think it was important, didn't you? I mean, I thought he was so genuine, and what a guy to be able to do that. You know, I mean, what a terrible situation for him to be put in, and to be able to rise above that and do the right thing. It's really impressive. Did you all wait for this trial to put him on? Why did he not testify previously? I just didn't want to do it to him unless I felt like it was absolutely necessary and I really felt like we needed him in this one.

This wraps up the Donna Edelson trial. I know though that many of us wonder if the Adelson trials are completely over. Only time will tell. But in this case, justice has been served for Dan Markell once again. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers.

It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN.

ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere.

That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or a, on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove.

Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.