Hidden True Crime - Manipulation, Lies, and a Flight to Vietnam?! - Donna Adelson's Plans Exposed | Trial Day 6 Recap

Episode Date: August 30, 2025

The state ties its case together—Agent Sanford (day 3 on the stand) maps the arrests, backs up Katherine’s proffer, and spotlights Donna’s “outside your house” text, her planner, and the jailhouse script a handwriting expert says she wrote. The defense fires back: probable cause isn’t proof. Search photos, wiretaps, the 2016 “bump,” and Donna’s post-verdict travel plans cap the day as prosecutors rest. 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, Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day of returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to ching, with a well-front cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. Wellfront is taking care of me.

Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest. Howcomes vary. 3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Hello. Hello, Hidden Gems.

What a day. You all know, I love jailhouse niches. They're like, they're always like my favorite day. I'm like, let's let's get the, let's get the snitches on the stand, right? It's my favorite. So, uh, what a Friday. Happy Friday, everyone. I am cozy. I have my drink and my cozy sweatshirt. Thank you to producer Grayson for that because I actually came over in a nicer shirt and I'm like, no, just give me a sweatshirt for this day. It's, you know, and we know what happened with the state, right? State. State rested. We know that. All right. Okay. So Donna calls. Day six of the Donna Adelson trial began with Judge Everett, letting the jury know they'd be continuing with the testimony of FBI Special Agent Sanford. Now, this is Sanford's third day on the witness stand, as we all know, which is very unusual. But it goes to show how central his testimony is to the state's case. case. And even after hours of direct examination, the prosecution still isn't finished with him. Stanford is the one who connected the dots, the undercover bump, the secret wiretap recordings,

and the surveillance that track the Aeelson family's movements. His testimony is what ties all of those threads together into a bigger picture for the jury. Today he walked them step by step through the arrest timeline of the key players linked to Dan Markell's murder. First, came Sigfredo Garcia arrested on May 25th, 2016, just days later. Luis Rivera was charged on June 3rd, though he was already locked up on unrelated charges at the time. Then on October 1st, 2016 authorities arrested Catherine Magbanawa, who prosecutors say was the link between the higher killers and Charlie Adelson. And finally, after years of investigation, Charlie himself was taken into custody on April 21, 2022.

The jury listened closely. Some even jotting down notes as Sanford laid out the timeline. What stands out is how deliberate the prosecution is being here reminding jurors that this case wasn't built overnight. It took years of surveillance recordings and patience before all of the pieces started falling into place. The focus shifted to Catherine McBanwa and what's known as her proffer. A proffer essentially gives a convicted defendant the chance to share information without those words being used directly against them. But it's not a free pass. While the defense can't simply turn her statements around on her,

prosecutors are absolutely allowed to use what she says to chase down new leads and build more evidence. After her conviction, Catherine began cooperating, and her late stage statements have only tightened the case against Donna Adelson. According to Catherine, the very first time Charlie approached her about the murder plot, was on Halloween night in 2013 at a block party on Lincoln Road in Miami.

She said Charlie casually asked if she, quote, knew someone who could take care of someone. And Agent Sanford explained that investigators didn't just take her word for it. They worked to confirm her account. She gave them an exact date for the first approach and they went back to check. And sure enough, digital records placed Charlie on Lincoln Road that very night. To drive the point home, prosecutors showed a message. text message was sent at 104 a.m. that read, quote, on Lincoln with my friends. So by layering Catherine's testimony on top of real world evidence, the state is trying to show jurors that this

wasn't some vague memory or after the fact invention. It's anchored to time, place, and proof. One of the most striking moments during Catherine's cooperation came when she described what happened on the very night of Dan's murder. She admitted she went to Charlie's home to pick up cash for the hit. But according to her, the money didn't come from Charlie alone. She claimed Donna and Harvey Adelson actually delivered the cash themselves. She said the couple stopped by Charlie's place on their way out of South Florida heading to Tallahassee to be with Wendy right after the killing. The state pointed yours to a message that backs up Catherine's account. Donna had texted Charlie, quote, outside your house at the very time she was allegedly

dropping off the money. Prosecutors argue that wasn't some casual visit. It was a handoff tied directly to the murder plot. Fast forward nearly a decade later after Charlie was convicted on November 6, 2023, just one week after that verdict, Donna was caught making an escape plan. She and Harvey had booked one-way tickets from Miami, routing through Dubai, And then on to Vietnam, two countries with no extradition treaty with the United States. FBI agents intercepted them right at the jet bridge on November 13th, just moments before they could board the flight. And then there's another suspicious detail, Donna's own 2014 planner. We thought phones were bad.

Well, let's go back to the 2014 planner. And in the note section, investigators found Dan Markell's license plate number scribbled down by hand. Agent Sanford confirmed the handwriting was hers, and the prosecution is framing it as damning evidence, proof that Donna wasn't just aware of the plan, but actively tracking Dan Markell in the weeks leading up to his murder, and could have provided the killers with his license plate. And then, finally, it was time for cross-examination. Defense attorney Jackie Fulford rose to question FBI Agent Sanford, and right from the start, she zeroed in on the limits of the investigation.

Fulford reminded the jury that in all the years of surveillance, only Charlie and Catherine were ever wiretapped. Not Donna, not Harvey, not Wendy, not soprano, and not Luis. For Fulford, that gap spoke volumes if the state truly believed Donna was at the heart of this conspiracy. Why wasn't she ever tapped? And from there, Fulford moved the conversation into the debate on probable cause. Samford admitted that wiretaps and arrest warrants are based on probable cause, which is a standard of reasonable suspicion that someone may have committed a crime. But that, Fulford-Pressed, is a very different threshold than proof beyond a reasonable doubt,

which is required for a conviction. Her cross built on that distinction, she argued that what investigators had wasn't certainty. It was suspicion, carefully written into affidavits to justify their surveillance. And suspicion, no matter how strong, is not the same as guilt, which we all know. The way Fulford, though, framed it, jurors were essentially being invited to think critically about that gap. Probable cause allows the police to investigate. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what allows a jury to convict. And just because agents had enough suspicion to wiretap Charlie or to look harder,

Donna doesn't mean the state has proven Donna's guilt. It was a subtle but pointed shift in tone. After days of the prosecution layering evidence, Fulford was now tugging at the foundation, reminding jurors that an investigation built on suspicion doesn't always equal certainty in the courtroom. Fulford then shifted gears, walking Agent Sanford step by step through the days of Dan Markell's murder. She painted the picture for the jury, Dan dropping off his children at preschool. That always just gets me.

Dan dropping off his children at preschool. Heading to the gym. One step that I don't do enough of, but like this is Dan Markell going and dropping his children off at preschool and then following through and doing something else that, you know, showing that he is a solid dad taking care of himself, heading to the gym and simply returning home to his garage where he was ambushed in everyday life of Dan Markell and then ambushed in his garage. Fulford's point was sharp. Life looked ordinary that day. Dan didn't know he was being followed. His children had no idea what was coming, and this crime unfolded in broad daylight

against the backdrop of everyday routines. And from there, she reminded jurors that the Adelson family had been under a microscope from the very beginning. Investigators were watching from day one, yet it took more than a year before the suspicion against them really hardened into action. For Fulford, that lag showed that the state was stretching thin leads and putting those thin leads into theories. She also pulled the jury back to one of the calls heard yesterday what the state labels call RR. So call RR. In that conversation, Charlie Adelson jokes crudely about Catherine Meg Fanoa's body. But tucked inside, the banter is something investigators ceased on. Charlie reveals that Catherine's rib tattoo, which reads, 1214, was actually the code on his garage door.

Fulford used this to underline intimacy and access, how close Charlie and Catherine really were, but also to suggest that the state's cases built on blurred lines between joking, secrecy, and alleged conspiracy. And then Fulford turned to the wiretaps themselves. She pressed Sanford on how these recordings were actually handled. Some calls lasted nearly 50 minutes, yet jurors only heard clipped portions. Why? Because agents are supposed to stop listening

when the subject matter isn't relevant to the investigation. Bulford's point was simple but effective. If you're not hearing the whole conversation, you don't always know the full context. She makes good point. What sounds incriminating in the snippet might sound very different in its entirety.

At her point, for the jury not to take the prosecution's highlights at face value, but to consider what might be missing and what might be interpretation rather than certainty. Fulford also pressed Agent Sanford on the state's theory that the conspirators try to use Jeff Lacos, Wendy's on and off boyfriend, as a potential fall guy. Prosecutors had suggested Wendy strung him along up to the week of the murder, is true, learned of his travel schedule and tied his time near Dan's home, to win the hit was carried out. And I admit, the prosecution did a great job, at least for me, laying that out. But the defense drew a sharp distinction. Wendy herself never mentioned Jeff as a suspect.

It wasn't until a friend sat down with her in the interrogation in that Jeff's name came up, simply because he didn't like Dan Markell. Fulford argued, if Wendy and her family truly wanted to frame Jeff, why wouldn't any of them have brought his name up on their own? Agent Sanford also confirmed just how many agencies were involved in this case, the FBI, Tallahassee police, Miami, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It was a massive joint investigation. But Fulford seized on that point, arguing that with all of those resources, investigators still ended up building their case from fragments, partial phone calls, selective surveillance, and interpretations from. rather than faultproof. She then reminded jurors that it wasn't until after Luis Rivera was indicted,

that he began cooperating with prosecutors. His deal was this. His 19-year sentence for the Markell case would run along a 12-year federal term he was already serving, meaning by cooperating he only received in additional seven years. Compared to that to Sigfredo and Catherine, who both received life sentences. Fulford's message to the jury was clear. Was Luis really speaking out for justice or because cooperation gave him a way out of what otherwise would have been a life-ending sentence?

And then came the issue of Donna's arrest. Fulford revisited the dramatic scene at the airport in November of 2023. Sanford admitted that no arrest warrant had been issued for Donna before agents learned of her one-way ticket to Vietnam, Only after finding out when she was going to board that flight, did prosecutors move in. Fulford pressed Sanford was booking a ticket proof of guilt or simply proof of fear. Interesting.

And legally, booking a one-way international ticket can justify an arrest on the grounds of being a flight risk. But Fulford reminded jurors that fleeing isn't the same as conspiring to commit murder. Fear of prosecution is not the same as evidence in participation. Her cross left jurors with a caution. Don't confuse the panic of someone trying to run with a certainty required to convict. Bulford closed out cross by bringing up a key point. For years, investigators had Donna's texts and her emails, her phone records, her movements under surveillance. They even had that message to Charlie outside your house.

outside your house. That was on the very night the state says money was handed off. But despite all of this, no arrest warrant was issued. It only came after Donna booked that one-way ticket to Vietnam, and that, Fulford argued, shows the state didn't truly have enough until panic of her fleeing set in. Interesting point. And the jury also heard how the airport arrest actually in folded. Donna and Harvey arrived at Miami International Airport like any other travelers with carry-ons and checked luggage. They calmly made their way through security, walked to the gate, and scanned their boarding passes. Agents waited until the last possible moment, stopping Donna, not in front of a crowd, but inside the jetway itself, literally steps before boarding the plane. And only then,

with a freshly signed warrant in hand did they take her into custody? And before stepping down, Sanford conceded several points under Fulford's questioning. There are no emails, no text, no voicemails, and no calls in which Donna ever explicitly says, Dan should be killed. No recordings. Tie her directly to Sigfredo, Luis, or Catherine, aside from what Fulford dismissed as a passing dental office hello. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfront. Checking! Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023.

I left my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me. With a Wealthfront cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started at wealthfront.com.

Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base APII as of January 30 at 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees and eligibility requirements may apply to certain and checking features of the cash account.

At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for 3 months on up to $150,000.

Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokeridge LLC member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Bulford reminded jurors that the state's case isn't built on an explicit command. It's built on inference, on reading between the lines. On redirect, Kaplan reminded jurors that the state, that the case doesn't live or die on a single recording or in explicit order. They leaned into the circumstantial evidence, the checks, the coded language, the phone calls, the timing of trips, and texts all pieces that when stacked together, formed the picture the jury wants, the state wants the jury to see. They also revisited Charlie's defense. Remember Charlie had

a long claimed that he and his family were victims of extortion. He even dragged his mother into that version of events. St. Donna was making payments because she too was being shaken down. And then came one of the state's sharpest contrast. planner showed her grandson's bar mitzvah marked for January 2024, a major family milestone. Her grandson's bar mitzvah. And yet, the ticket that she purchased last November was one way with no return flight booked for that bar mitzvah. Kaplan argued that undercuts her claim that she was always planning to come back.

And with that, Agent Sanford finally stepped down, ending his multi-day stretch before of testimony. And before breaking for lunch, Judge Everett turned to Donna directly. He asked her on the record if she understood and consented to her attorney's cross-examination strategy for upcoming witness, Patricia Bird, and Drina Bernhardt. Donna confirmed she did. Judge Everett also gave both sides a heads up if the state is able to rest. If they don't finish after lunch, their case. will roll straight into Tuesday since Monday is Labor Day. And that means the defense has to

a lot of work to do, preparing mid-trial motions, getting witnesses ready, and lining up strategy for the coming days. And since the first defense witness is not local, they will need to be on standby and ready to testify on Tuesday. Well, after lunch, the trial then turned to detective Jonathan Grossman of the Miami Sheriff's Office. Grossman has been in law enforcement since 2000 and he was brought into assist on the Dan Markell case by executing a search warrant at Donna's residence. That search took place on November 14th, 2023. Grossman photographed the home and the images were entered into evidence as exhibits 143 through 163. Prosecutor Kaplanman walked him through what was found luggage near the front entry was.

tags showing a flight from Dubai to Vietnam, packed camera equipment, and visas in both Donna and Harvey's names. A photo of Donna's planner found open on her desk was displayed in court along with certain pages taken from within it. Investigators also recovered. A note from Donna to Wendy in one of the bedrooms that referenced a firearm. It read, quote, Wendy, this is in gun and can be only sold with the paperwork enclosed, end quote. On cross-examination, defense attorney Fulford focused on the timing and thoroughness of the search. Grossman said he arrived at Donna and Harvey's home around 1.15 p.m. and the warrant was executed at 2.30. He was accompanied by other detectives and members of the priority response team with Harvey

present as well. Fulford asked if, in Grossman's opinion, the search was thorough. He confirmed that it was, noting, they even brought in electronic detecting canines to help locate devices. And when asked if the dogs are trained to detect battery operated or plugged in electronics, Grossman admitted he wasn't sure he's not a canine handler. Though this line of questioning and through it, Fulford subtly highlighted potential gaps in the search, leaving jurors to consider how much weight to give the evidence recovered from the rest. residents. Fulford then shifted focus to the scope of the search itself. She reminded the jury that when officers are granted, a search for it, there are usually clear limitations. In this case, they were

authorized to seize anything electronic, documents on paper, sticky notes, financial records, and asset-related materials. She asked Detective Grossman if he was responsible for making sure every area of the home was thoroughly searched. And he explained that it was a team effort. Officers worked together to carry out the search. He confirmed that they were allowed to open drawers, boxes, dressers, closets, and other storage spaces. Next, Fulford brought up some of the exhibits, photos of closets inside Donna's home. So Exhibit 157 showed a closet with female clothing, while Exhibit 160 included a USPS box with a laptop tucked underneath. Fulford asked if he noticed anything else in that photo.

He took a long look and said he didn't. So she pointed to a specific area under a blouse where a light seemed to be shining on something electronic. So he admitted he didn't know what it was. And the defense's point was clear, despite the search being conducted by a team, it's possible not all electronic devices were actually collected. Bulford was subtly showing the jury

that gaps may exist in the evidence recovered from Donna's residence. residents raising questions about how complete the state's picture really is. Classic defense tactic. Cole is in this investigation. Fulford then turned a key detail that this safe that was in the residence. And she asked Detective if he and his team had gone through any safes in the home during the search and he said no. Fulford pointed out that the warrant explicitly allowed them to search safes yet it appears the team didn't locate the in the home.

They didn't photograph it or search it. And the detective confirmed he didn't recall any photos or searches of the safe highlighting another potential gap in the search. Solid work, defense. She also asked about timing. The detective didn't remember exactly when the team left, but guessed it could have been sometime after 3 p.m. Considering the search didn't start until 2.30.

And Fulford subtly emphasized that it wasn't very, very long, it wasn't a very long window to cover the entire residence. It wasn't a ton of time. And then Fulford then probed Grossman's familiarity with the case before executing the warrant. He confirmed he knew the general facts and had been involved in searching the rental Prius tied to the murder. Fulford asked about the specific allegations, stacks of $100 bills bundled in groups of $10 for $1,000. She asked if they would have photographed anything like that if found. And the detective said probably, yeah. And when asked if his team actually searched the luggage in the home, he admitted they did not.

With that line of questioning complete, Fulford had nothing further and there was no redirect. The trial was then moved to a new witness, one who immediately stood out arriving in a purple prison, jumpsuit, and chains. And she introduced herself as Patricia Bird. Byrd explained that she is currently in custody for violating probation on a felony case and that if convicted on the original charges, she could face up to 15 years in prison. She also has another pending felony case. Prosecutor Sarah Dugan asked Byrd whether she had been offered anything in exchange for her testimony. She said no. Bird described her time in the Leon County Jail where she shared a pause.

with Donna Adelson for six or seven months. She slept right next to Donna, ate meals together, and spent leisure time together. Bird said that she and Donna spoke constantly, forming a close bond along with another inmate, Drina Burkhart. And once their friendship deepened, Donna spoke to Bird about her pending case. And Bird, even asked Donna directly, whether she had done what she was accused of in that trial. along with sharing other details that would later become important for the prosecution. So the snitches are, at least the first one, is on the stand.

Let's take a listen. Did Donna Adelson ever ask if you were ever in custody with a woman named Catherine Magdanwa? Yes, she did. And were you ever in custody with Catherine Magnawa? Yes. Was that several years ago? Yes, ma'am. And about how long were you in custody for with Meg Van Nuwa for?

About a year or two. Now, did you tell Donna Adelson that? Did you let her know that you had been in custody with Meg Van Nuwa? Yes. Since you had been in custody with Meg Vanua, once Donna Adelson knew that, what did Donna Adelson want you to do? She wanted me to say that when we killed him, I knew my boyfriend parents had money.

Okay, so basically she and some other people did this crime and they did it because her boyfriend's parents had money. Yes. Who did she want you to tell that to? She wanted me to tell, to whoever came up and asked me about it and the investigators. Okay. Did she offer you anything in exchange for you providing that information? Yes. What did she offer you? a trailer and some land and she would have her husband fix my teeth okay so like if you got out of

custody she'd help you buy a trailer and land yes and that her husband could fix your teeth yes like veneers yes patricia told the jury that donna had admitted to her involvement in the plot to be able to keep her grandchildren but she said donna claimed it wasn't supposed to escalate to murder. Patricia also alleged that Donna tried to manipulate her into telling others that Catherine Meg Banwa had carried out the plan for money, essentially framing Catherine as the mastermind. To convince her, Donna allegedly offered Patricia gifts, a trailer, land, even veneers.

But Patricia was firm. Catherine never said any of that. Prosecutor Sarah Dugan then asked if Patricia had ever spoken to investigators or Donna's attorneys while in jail, and Patricia confirmed she had. she shared the same information she testified to in court. She emphasized that the statements about Catherine were false. Donna was simply trying to get her to relay a lie. Dugan followed up asking who else investigators and attorneys had spoken to while gathering information.

Patricia listed Elizabeth Knight, Cassidy Conway, and Dina Bernhardt. When asked if she had informed her own attorney about Donna asking her to provide false testimony, Patricia said yes. Later, an investigator from the state attorney's office came to speak with her, and she again recounted everything she testified to in court. This line of testimony painted a picture of Donna, allegedly trying to manipulate those around her, but also highlighted the independent credibility of Patricia, who refused to repeat a lie even under pressure. Next up, was cross-examination by defense attorney Josh Zellman. Zellman focused first on Patricia Bird's interactions with investigators.

He asked her about a female investigator she had spoken to, trying to clarify whether the investigator was black or white. And Patricia said she was black. But Zellman reminded her that during a hearing a few weeks ago, she had testified that the investigator was white. Patricia explained she remembered that prior testimony and admitted she had been confused by the question at the time. Makes sense.

Selman then questioned Patricia about the timeline of her relationship with Donna Edelson. She had moved into the same jail pot as Donna about a month before speaking to a male investigator in August. Selman suggested it was unlikely that Donna would have immediately offered Patricia gifts like land or financial incentives so soon after meeting her. But Patricia maintained that's exactly what happened. She reiterated that the information she was asked to relay about Catherine was false. The defense also drilled into Patricia's personal impressions, asking if she had testified that she thought Catherine was manipulative. Patricia confirmed that she had. Finally, Selman asked questions about what Donna allegedly told Patricia regarding her own role,

if any, in the conspiracy seeking to clarify whether Donna admitted direct involvement or framed the events differently. This cross-examination aimed to sow doubt about Patricia's credibility and the speed and scope of Donna's alleged influence over her giving jurors reason to question the reliability of her testimony. And during Zellman's cross, the state raised an objection, arguing that the defense was trying to improperly impeach Patricia over minor details and lapses in memory. Judge Everett allowed the questioning to continue, noting that showing Patricia her prior statement, was fair and she could explain any discrepancies. Zellman then probed further into Patricia's account of her time with Donna in jail. While Patricia had testified that they were housed together for six or seven months, Zelman asked how much of that time they were actually sleeping next to each other. And Patricia said maybe three or four months. That's a long time. Depressed whether jail records

would be more accurate and Patricia agreed they could be. The defense was clearly. trying to chip away at her credibility, clearly, highlighting that the time Patricia described might not have been as continuous or close as she recalled. So it's worth noting, though, that anyone who's been in jail knows time can feel longer than it actually is. And Patricia tried to clarify before Zellman cut her off. That's what she was, I think, trying to say. Well, on redirect, prosecutor Sarah Dugan had Patricia finish her explanation. And Patricia said, quote, we were in two different pods together. We slept next to each other in one pod and the same section in another pod, which is still in the same room.

She added that despite the sleeping arrangements, she and Donna spent their entire days together in the pod. And regarding speaking with investigators or attorneys, Patricia explained that she consistently agreed to speak with each business. her every time they came, even if she couldn't recall the exact number of visits. So Dugan closed with a pointed question that struck at the heart of the case. She asked Patricia whether she had asked Donna if she had only written checks to Catherine or if she had actually done what she was accused of. So Patricia responded plainly. Donna said she did what she was accused of.

This testimony reinforced Patricia's version of events and underscored the prosecution's narrative about Donna's alleged involvement, even after the defense, tried to cast doubts on the details. And up next on the stand was another former inmate who had been housed with Donna Adelson, Trina Bernhardt.

Drina explained that she is still incarcerated, at the Leon County Jail for two separate felony cases and has a very long criminal history with 27 prior convictions. She emphasized that she had not been promised anything in exchange for her testimony. Drina described the bond she formed with Donna during their roughly four months together. They became close friends, so much so that Donna referred to Drenna as her jail daughter and gave her the nickname Sunshine. The two shared art note.

and daily conversations about life and their cases. One note displayed in court read, quote, I hope your life will be filled with love, joy, and flowers. You deserve only the best because you are the best. Love Donna. Trina also testified that Donna spoke often about her grandchildren, sometimes even referring to them as her own children, and regularly discussed different aspects of her pending case.

Trina said that after these conversations, she reached out to law enforcement to report what Donna had told her. She admitted that her initial motivation was selfish, hoping for a lighter sentence or a chance at rehab. But over time, she said she realized it was the morally right thing to do. She added that while she still hopes for leniency, her primary focus is seeking justice for the Markell family. You thought this was your run club era. Turns out, it was more of a thinking about run club era. The good news?

Someone's marathon training is about to start. Sell your workout gear on D-pop. Just snap a few photos, and we'll take care of the rest. They get their race day fit, and you get a payout for trying. Someone on D-pop wants what you've got. Start selling now. Deepop, where Taste recognizes taste. Before I switched to Wellfront, my APY was probably 0.1.

Once I switched to Ching, with a Wellfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest. Howcomes vary. 3.3%. 3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to $150,000.0.6,000 new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank.

Grena further testified that Donna expressed concern about her son Robb's testimony and repeatedly mentioned Catherine Megbanwa. Donna allegedly asked Dina more than once to step in as a defense witness and provide false testimony about things Catherine supposedly said. According to Dorena, Donna even handed her a handwritten script, yeah, script to memorize and testify from, which contained fake confessions pinned on Catherine, including slang. Drina had never used herself. The testimony underscored the prosecution's narrative that Donna allegedly tried to manipulate inmates to cover her tracks while also highlighting Drina's credibility as someone who ultimately chose to tell the truth despite her own complicated background. Well, Drina testified that Donna's promises were extensive.

They included access to commensary, money for phone calls, a cash offer of $10,000, a grand piano, and even the contact information of a doctor who could provide prescriptions, which Drina needed because at the time she was struggling with drug addiction. Next came cross-examination where defense attorney Josh Zellman went after Drina's credibility. He reminded the jury that Drina faced a mandatory 15-year sentence, had violated probation, and picked up a new felony. yet suddenly she befriends Donna and decides to reach out to investigators on her own. Zellman highlighted that her first conversation with investigators occurred right before her release,

though Dorena admitted she wasn't sure if the release was connected to her cooperation. He also asked about her relationship with Patricia Bird, and Dina clarified that any friendship existed only in jail. Deltman also drew attention to a curious detail from her first release. interview and at the end drina asked investigators did i do a good job he suggested this combined with her legal troubles and pending charges indicated she may have been motivated in part by self-interest hoping for leniency or assistance with her new cases and this line of questioning was clearly designed to challenge drina's reliability and show jurors that her cooperation came with incentives and possible

ulterior motives even as she painted a picture of Donna attempting to manipulate inmates for her own needs. Let's take a listen to Drina. If you didn't reach an agreement with the state, the court would have to sentence you to 15 years day for day. If I went to trial and was found guilty, yes. So that your understanding is if you went to trial, you would face 15 years day for day. If I was found guilty, yes. Okay. So we're talking about a violation of probation. You'd go to a VOP hearing. You've already testified that you started using again.

Yes. You didn't show up for probation? Correct. Okay. So if you went to court without an agreement, you would have to be sentenced to 15 years. Is that correct? Yes. Now, isn't it true that when you went to meet with law enforcement on December 20th, of 2024. You made sure a couple days prior to this to sit down in a location in the pod and engage in a lengthy conversation with Donna Adelson, correct? No, actually the pod, you can see the whole pod is visible.

Isn't it true that you told them that you made sure that you sat where a camera could catch you while you sat with my client going over paperwork. Yes. Okay. And you wanted them to make sure that they could get video of you with my client? Yes. Just a moment, Your Honor. Did you tell my client she was naive about jail?

She was naive about jail? Yes. Meaning that she just wasn't aware of what went on in jail? Yes. I may have. I don't remember. Now let's talk about that video. I believe this day is going to be introducing that a little bit later. Now describe for the jury how it came to be that my client wrote down the script that they've introduced into evidence.

How it came to be. Yes. Donna wrote it and she and I were going to supposed to go over it and practice it. During that time that you were sitting there, did you write anything down? I may have colored or written something, but I honestly don't remember. Did you take things out of your, out of the notebook that you'd already written and show them to her? Probably, maybe.

I don't know. I honestly don't remember it's in a while. So you don't remember telling her what to write? No, I didn't tell her what to write. Your testimony here today is that you never told her what to write. Yes. Okay. That's the one thing you are sure about here today.

The defense kept pushing the narrative that Drina Bernhardt had a self-serving agenda, suggesting she either wrote or directed Donna in creating the so-called script, hoping to reduce her own sentence. But on redirect, prosecutor Kaplanman pushed back and pushed back hard. She reminded the jury that Drina had handed over Donna's handwritten script long before her most recent jail violations. She wasn't coached. Kaplan emphasized, and she wouldn't have known the deed. details necessary to fabricate the script. Yes, Doreena hoped for leniency, but her testimony and her disclosure of the script predated any new plea leverage. And next on the stand was a forensic expert. Interesting. A handwriting analyst, Kate Butler. Butler walked jurors through how handwriting

deviations create a unique fingerprint for each individual. She compared Donna's known writings entered as Exhibits 59 and 59A against the jailhouse script recovered from Drina, Exhibit 62. And to make it clear, Butler prepared a PowerPoint showing side-by-side charts of the known writings and the script. She explained that her analysis wasn't about cherry-picking letters. Instead, she examined every stroke, the way lines start and finish, the spacing, the slant, the curves to note consistencies and deviations. Her conclusion about authorship comes from the totality of these traits, not a single letter or word. Butler also zoomed in on details that jurors rarely noticed on a casual glance, highlighting subtle characteristics that can

definitively link a piece of writing to a specific person. Her testimony set the stage for the jury to see the script as authentically authored by Donna, reinforcing the prosecution's claim that she directly attempted to manipulate witnesses through written instruction. Let's take a look at that. This is a demonstrative court chart. It has some of the words and letters from the question documents. Thank you so much. So I have looked through the question. documents of which there were three pages. I found certain words and cropped those words digitally and placed them on this chart.

I did the same thing with some of the words and letters from the known writing. And I put similar words and letters so that I can better explain how it is that I am able to, first of all, choose an individual handwriting characteristic and then how I'm able to show that it is found within the known writing and that it is similar. Does the next slide indicate the points of comparison

on these particular characters? Yes, the next slide has some arrows and other markings which are pointing out some of the individual characteristics that I found in my examination and showing how they are similar between the question writings and the known writings. I apparently clicked it. I clicked it. I'm sorry.

Go ahead. So would you like me to describe each of the characteristics? Yeah, thank you. So beginning with the first word in the uppercase W of the word why, we see the overall structure of the uppercase W has a very small tick at the bottom near the baseline where it appears that there's a little bit of an upstroke and then a very small tick and then a downstrikes.

a downstroke that kind of makes the bottom of the w and that particular shape of it being sort of flat on one side but pointed or angled on the other side of the of the w on the on the side that's next to the h the right side of the w has a bit of a curve whereas the left side does not have that curve so i observed that similar structure in the word wall within the known writing you can see on the left side very flat but on the right side, a very sharp angle up to the top. And then the top ends with a bit of a tick to the right. And that's pointed out in both the red arrow, the first red arrow in the uppercase W of the word why, in the question

column, as well as in the uppercase W of the word why on the known column. Kate Butler continued walking the jury through the unique characteristics that link Donna Edelson's handwriting to the Jailhouse script. She highlighted as we just saw there the open loop E instead of a full islet, two distinct styles of Y, the M in Miami with a bubble-like flourish, an A with a gap in sweeping stroke, and an N that dives into the following D, leaving open bowls. And Butler stressed that these aren't random quirks. It's the consistent repetition of the same natural variations across both Donna's known writings and the jailhouse script that establishes authorship. Butler's conclusion was clear. The script given to

inmate Sunshine was written by Donna Adelson. And she testified that the questioned writing and the known sample came from the same person. Importantly, Butler confirmed that the script was not Drenas. It was Donnas. It was Donnas. There was no cross-examination and the witness was excused. The court then broke for a recess. So after recess, Sergeant Corbett returned to the stand as court resumed. We heard from him a few days ago, and the state may have him back to clarify a few things. Dugut put States Exhibit 62, the handwritten script under the microscope. They noted that Donna's writing mirrors Charlie Adelson's so-called extortion defense,

almost word for word. The evidence suggested that Donna wasn't improvising but actively rehearsing Charlie's alibi. The script even repeats the word extort twice, once underlined and ending with the casual Ha ha. Dugan also reinforced a key timeline point. Donna only Googled the term extortion versus blackmail in October 23, nearly nine years after the events. She was allegedly covering up. This reinforced the state's argument that the script was not some coincidental creation, but a calculated effort to shape testimony and support the Adelson family's defense narrative. Dugan then turned to the content of Donna's script. It claims Charlie opened his safe, handed over $138,000, and then continued

paying $3,000 a month. While that matches Charlie's testimony, the state framed it as Donna's planted defense playbook. Cell phone evidence added another layer. Texts between Donna and Wendy showed they were actively tracking Charlie's trial in real time. The state argued that Donna wasn't blindsided by the proceedings. She was strategizing from the outside. For instance, a November 6th, 2023 text from Wendy, after Charlie testified that he was extorted, drew a reply from Donna. It read, quote, we shouldn't have to pray. He's telling the truth, protected his little sister for years. That suffering ends through this, end quote. And another text from Donna dated November 1st, 2023 shows her commenting on her attorney, keeping her in the dark about Charlie's extortion

defense. So that text reads, quote, our relationship with Charlie would have been much different. I hope he knew what he was doing. Your testimony was crucial. Let's see what a jury does to him and to the rest of us. I'm next, but that won't happen. I'll take care of that, end quote. Prosecutors pressed Sergeant Corbett and weather cell evidence confirmed any threats or extortion in July 2014. Corbett was clear, no. Instead, the day after the murder, Charlie's text to Catherine, were casual, talking about the gym, pool, kids, and the weather. No fear, no threats, no money discussions.

Jurors saw messages from 2014 through 2016 where Charlie expressed affection and friendship, telling Catherine, I love you multiple times, calling her a friend for life. She replied, she'd always care for him, and their texts included inside jokes, emojis, birthdays, and mundane conversation. The state reiterated the point. There was no evidence of extortion, no discussion of murder, nothing supporting the claims Donna was referencing in her script. This contrast framed Donna's script as a calculated effort to shape the narrative,

rather than a reflection of real-time events, reinforcing the prosecution's argument that she was manipulating the story from the outside. Dugan then pivoted to Donna and Charlie Adelson's WhatsApp communications. Sergeant Corbett explained that WhatsApp is encrypted, doesn't appear in carrier records, and keeps content secure. Dugan emphasized the point, if someone wanted hard-to-find conversations,

WhatsApp would be ideal. The jury was shown a message from July 21st, 2016. Charlie told Donna, quote, info you've got is in yesterday's paper. Spoke to Marcus this morning, not officially yet, but it's looking that way after he spoke to Garcia's attorney. End quote. The prosecution used this to show that the Adelson's were tracking

Sigfrato's case directly through lawyers. Evidence also confirmed that Catherine was saved in Charlie's contacts as Caddy, K-A-D-D-D-I-E. and messages reflected years of closeness. I knew about investing, but I really didn't know how to go about it. Meet Corey, a wealthfront client. With Wealthfront, it could put money in, and it would automatically distribute it into a diversified portfolio. Then it starts to compound. The compounding compounds on the compounding. Just let it run, and it's great.

Over one million clients trust Wealthfront. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. Investment Management and Advisory Services provided by Wealthfront Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk to principle regardless of the strategy used. Has performance does not guarantee future results. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to chiching, with a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. Wellfront is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest.

Howcomes vary. 3.3%. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026.5% as of January 30% 6 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brogeridge LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Two months after Sigfredo's arrest, Charlie texted Donna about Catherine and Sycredo's attorney crossing paths, calling her nice and beautiful. The prosecution highlighted the tone of the messages.

There was no outrage toward Sycredo, no anger toward Catherine. Donna even joked back saying, quote, like all your girlfriends. And the state stressed that this is not how someone talks about their extortionist. On August 2nd, 2016, Charlie texted Donna about a state star witness who was a convicted cocaine dealer, floating alternate theories about the murder, perhaps drug-related, or maybe Dan owns some money. Donna responded, quote, wow, I have stated. stopped reading everything, and quote. Notably, there was no mention of extortion, no objection, just agreement. The jury then saw text from November 6, 2023, after Charlie's guilty verdict.

So Wendy sent, quote, I love you very much, call if you can. And then Donna replied, quote, your brother protected you for years. Now you are not guilty. Your lawyer took care of you. You can bury me in the dress I bought for Lincoln's bar mitzvah." End quote. What a text. And within 24 hours of Charlie's verdict, Donna's action suggested urgency and planning. She messaged a Vietnam visa representative, quote, I'm trying to get a fast-track emergency visa for myself and Harvey, end quote, specifying a 90-day multiple entry visa.

She sent photos, passports, and flight details. By November 12th, less than 36 hours before their scheduled flight, Donna typed in all caps, quote, Our flight tomorrow, 8 p.m. 30 hours, two exclamation points. So the visa representative reassured her, and by Don on November 13th, the visas were delivered. The jury also saw Donna's own notes and planner entries. On November 8th, she wrote reminders to stop Amazon deliveries, and had notes about selling the condo. The prosecutor framed this as clear evidence that Donna and Harvey weren't planning a vacation.

They were preparing to vanish. Her 2023 planner included notes about selling jewelry, dishes, implants, comics, canceling disability insurance, and even pack for Vietnam. One entry tracked child support through November 2025, planning two years in advance. track child support through November 2025. Planning. Yeah, two years. After the verdict, Donna reached out to Wendy for, quote, business assistance sending contacts for an attorney and the condo property.

The prosecution suggested jurors could read this as coded logistics for escape, not genuine legal help. And even more, on November 7th, Donna texted a friend, quote, can't say why, but we may need you. Wendy's not responding. Issue we cannot discuss over the phone. I know this sounds crazy, but it's not, end quote. And the state framed this as clear planning for a cover, not casual updates,

and supporting that the same day Donna Googled list of United States extradition treaties, noting Vietnam as a non-extradition country, and simultaneously opened the fact that. track emergency visa chat. On all of this, painted a picture to the jury of premeditated, meticulous planning to flee the country. Immediately following Charlie's verdict, far from a simple travel plan was the time she did all of this. And that was painted for the jury today. On cross-examination, Zellman pushed back on the narrative that Donna was planning to flee. He argued that selling dishes, jewelry, and other items isn't evidence of escape and stopping.

Amazon deliveries is just a normal step when leaving town. Zellman emphasized that no assets were moved overseas and that at most Donna secured a 90-day visa tourist, a tourist visa, not a permanent exile. Their message to the jury, this could have been precautionary travel planning, not a flight from justice. Zellman also stressed that Donna wasn't aware of Charlie's friendly text with Catherine. He said, quote, there's no evidence that she knew the content of their conversations and simply suggesting that the state was stacking Charlie's words without tying them directly to Donna. So on redirect prosecutors tied Charlie's 2016 text about a Miami Sun article, which reported that Sycredo and Luis had been arrested.

he quoted the author, a family friend and attorney who predicted that there would be no further arrest. So the state framed this as context for the Adelson's relief. They then returned to Donna's own actions, the emergency fast-track visa, planner notes to liquidate assets, and Google searches for non-extradition countries. Vietnam, the prosecution stressed, was clearly chosen with intent and not coincidence. And with that, the prosecution, rested. Yes, the state rested. And after three weeks

of wiretaps, gang bumps, coded calls, and surveillance tying Donna to the broader case, their presentation was complete. The ball now shifts to the defense. It's in their court. They are not required

to prove Donna's innocence, only, again, to give jurors enough reasonable but doubt to outweigh the week's evidence, testimony, and digital footprints laid out over the state's case. So it is a holiday weekend. Happy Friday, or as we say in our house, happy Friday. Court will not resume again until Tuesday. And we will, of course, be back. I will be back to recap everything that goes down. And you'll probably be seeing a little bit. bit more of me this weekend. I'll leave it at that. Right. We'll see you guys. Bye-bye.

At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfront. Checking. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. I lost my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own. and I can trust wealthfront is taking care of me. With a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts.

Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boosts for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank.

Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees, and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. 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. Again, 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.