Hidden True Crime - Matriarch vs. Daughter?! | Donna Defense Shades Wendi! - Adelson Trial Opening Statements

Episode Date: August 24, 2025

The trial of Donna Adelson is finally underway. Prosecutors say the 75-year-old matriarch helped orchestrate the murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel, her former son-in-law, in a bitter custody battle. In opening statements, the state painted Donna as a controlling mastermind—while the defense insisted she’s being scapegoated for her son Charlie’s crime. Witnesses, crime scene photos, and even Dan’s neighbor’s chilling 911 call set the tone for Day 1. And in a stunning twist, the defense pointed the finger at Wendi Adelson. Sponsors: Naked Wines: To get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to http://NakedWines.com/HIDDEN and use code HIDDEN for both the code AND PASSWORD. Live It Up: Head to http://letsliveitup.com/hidden and use code HIDDEN for 15% off your first Super Greens order! 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. I knew about investing, but I really didn't know how to go about it. Meet Corey, a Walthfront client. With Walthfront, 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 1 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. Task performance does not guarantee future results. Friday marked the start of the highly anticipated trial of Donna Adelson, who stands accused of conspiring to orchestrate the murder of her former son-in-law and professor Dan Markell.

And hidden true crime plans to cover this trial with daily recaps. You can get caught up with our full backstory into this case. It's linked in this episode and in YouTube pinned comments. The case stems from a bitter custody battle between Dan Markell and Donna's daughter, Wendy Adelson. And at 75 years old, Donna faces the same charges that her son, Charlie Adelson, was found guilty of in the fall of 2023. The murder also involves two hitmen and a middleman, all of whom have already been convicted in our serving time. Despite the convictions, prosecutors maintain that their investigation into the Markell case is not complete. The state attorney's office asserts that

Donna collaborated with her son in plotting the killing, raising serious questions about the extent of her involvement. As the trial unfolds, we will provide day-by-day updates keeping you informed on every development in this high-profile case. Again, for those who want to review the backstory, we've included a detailed summary of the events leading up to the trial in the description below. After three intense days of jury selection, Judge Everett confirmed on Thursday evening that a full jury had been seated. Twelve jurors and two alternates made up of eight men and six women.

Friday morning, courtroom 3G at the Leon County Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida, began to fill with spectators and family members. Harvey Adelson, Donna's husband, sat quietly on a reserved bench about 20 feet behind her. Across the room, Dan Markell's parents, Ruth and Phil, took their seats preparing to face yet another trial in the ongoing saga following their son's murder. The courtroom buzzed with quiet whispers as the jury took their seats, and then Assistant State Attorney Sarah Catherine Dugan began her opening statement. She said that this trial, centers on the allegation that the defendant Donna Adelson participated in a plot to hire a hitman to murder her former son-in-law Dan Markell. Dugan also displayed an image of Donna from the time of the

crime in 2014, highlighting that more than a decade has passed since Dan's murder and emphasizing the long, drawn-out journey of this case. Dugan told the jury that in 2014, Donna Adelson's family faced a major problem, and that problem was Dan Markell. According to the prosecution, the so-called solution involved Donna's son Charlie because he had a girlfriend with ties to individuals willing and capable of committing murder. Dan, known to friends and family as Danny, was a devoted father and a well-respected law professor at FSU. Dugan described the day of his death as starting like any other.

Dan woke up, took his young son. to preschool and headed to the gym for a workout. What he didn't know was that two hitmen had come up from Miami with a single purpose to end his life. And what Dugan described as a scene resembling a horror movie, Dan was shot in the head while sitting in his car in his garage. A neighbor reported seeing a light-colored Prius speeding away from the house. Concerned the neighbor went to check on Dan and discovered a chilling scene. His car window shattered. His glasses and phone on the ground and Dan behind the wheel, injured and unresponsive. Police arrived to find him with a gunshot wound to the head.

Dan was rushed to the hospital where he survived for about 14 hours before being pronounced dead at just 41 years old. His two sons were only three and four years old at the time. Police immediately launched an investigation to determine who was responsible. Very little evidence had been left behind. No fingerprints, no DNA, no bullet casings, and nothing stolen, leading authorities to suspect a professional hit. The few clues they did uncover set investigators down two main avenues, tracking the light-colored Prius the neighbor had seen speeding away and uncovering a potential motive.

Both lines of inquiry eventually pointed to Donna Adelson. To understand the motive, investigators looked into Dan's personal life. At the time, he and Wendy Adelson, Donna's daughter, were in the middle of a bitter divorce and custody dispute. Wendy was attempting to move to Miami, where her parents, lived, but Dan, who lived and worked in Tallahassee, opposed the relocation. Emails from Wendy indicated that Donna was the driving force behind her efforts to move to South Florida. Dugan told the jury that Donna's influence over her children went beyond typical parental involvement.

She was highly controlling and had strong opinions on nearly every aspect of their lives, career choices, relationships, and even where they lived. When Wendy resisted, Donna would turn to her son Charlie to persuade, or manipulate her into following her wishes. The emails made it clear that Donna was desperate for Wendy to find a way to move to Miami and saw Dan as an obstacle standing in their way. Donna reportedly pressured Wendy telling her how much time she and her husband Harvey were forced to spend away from their dental practice to help Wendy and the children in Tallahassee.

She framed the move to Miami as absolutely critical, insisting it had to be Wendy's top non-negotiable priority in the divorce. In June 2013, the court ruled in Dan's favor denying Wendy's request to relocate and dismissing it with prejudice. This meant Wendy could not request the move again, effectively blocking any plan to take the children to Miami unless something happened to Dan. After the decision, Donna reportedly told Wendy that Dan hadn't, quote, beaten the Edelson family, end quote, and reminded her that they were a team and would keep fighting. According to D. Dugan, Donna made repeated attempts to sway Dan, even offering him a $1 million bribe to cover the boy's schooling and travel expenses. When that failed, she suggested ways Wendy could pressure or manipulate

Dan into a green. Dugan said Donna devised a strategy to frustrate Dan, making his life miserable. Because Dan was devoutly Jewish, she encouraged Wendy to pose the boys in front of a Catholic church, post photos on social media, and announced plans to have them baptized, thinking it would provoke him into compliance. Donna allegedly even joked that she didn't care of the boys had to be dressed in offensive ways as long as the relocation succeeded and Dan's control was undemined. She repeatedly told Wendy that the future of her life and of Harvey, Charlie, and herself depended on getting the children to Miami. According to the prosecution, Donna insisted she would never stop fighting for the move. Dugan said, quote, the evidence in this case will show that the defendant's

closest confidant was her son Charlie Adelson, end quote. She explained that Donna and Charlie spoke multiple times every day with Donna consistently venting about Wendy's situation. According to the prosecution, she often used extreme language, even referencing life and death and repeatedly described Dan as, quote, a crazy person. Well, Charlie, Dugan said, was the person Donna relied on to help solve her problem. During the ongoing divorce proceedings, Dan worried that Wendy was attempting to alienate him from his children. Both sides frequently filed complaints over violations of the custody agreement and tensions remained high right up until Dan's death. About a month before the murder, Dan claimed that Donna had been speaking negatively about him

to his children, calling him stupid and accusing him of trying to take the boys away from her. He asked the court to restrict Donna's unsupervised contact with the children, a request that was still pending when he was killed. Less than 48 hours after the shooting, Wendy and the boys relocated to Miami and moved in with Donna and Harvey. The children immediately started school nearby. Dugan said, quote, and just like that, their father was effectively erased from their lives, and the Adelson's so-called big problem had been solved, end quote. Dugan described the Adelson's as a very tight-knit family. Harvey and Charlie both work as dentists in the family practice while Donna managed the office and much more. She was the dominant matriarch who ran nearly every aspect of their lives.

After Dan was shot, police interviewed Wendy. She said she had been at home in Tallahassee getting her TV repaired when the shooting occurred. When asked if anyone might have a motive to harm Dan, she acknowledged that her family likely had more reason than anyone else. police allowed her to call her parents to inform them of the shooting. Afterwards, she reportedly told authorities that her parents, quote, acted surprised, so that's a relief. Law enforcement also questioned Wendy about anyone who might have committed the crime on her behalf. She mentioned her brother Charlie, who had joked in the past about hiring a hitman to kill Dan as a, quote, divorce present.

But ultimately, bought her a TV instead because it was cheaper. Ironically, that very TV repair appointment became Wendy's alibi on the morning of the murder a setup orchestrated by Donna and Harvey. According to Dugan, the investigation to Dan's personal life ultimately led authorities to the Aidelson's. Donna, who had repeatedly vowed never to give up on relocating Wendy and the boys to Miami and Charlie, whose joke about hiring a hitman took on a much darker significant, were both squarely in law enforcement sites. joke? Stop being a joke the moment a hit man actually carried out Dan's murder.

Police were also pursuing the second lead in the investigation, identifying the light-colored Prius the neighbor had seen lean the scene. Investigators retraced Dan's movements that day and uncovered surveillance footage showing that he had been following all morning. The Prius tailed him from the gym back to his home in Benton Hills. And using this footage, along with phone and Sun Pass records, authorities were able to relocate the car used in the crime. But identifying the vehicle wasn't enough. They still needed to know who was driving it and why Dan was targeted. Investigators painstakingly combed through digital evidence, a process that took far longer than a typical shooting investigation, essentially searching for a needle

in a haystack. Eventually, they traced a phone number that communicated with the cell tower near the gym where Dan had been working out. The number had a Miami area code and belonged to Siegfriedo Garcia. Examining Garcia's call logs, police discovered he was in frequent contact with another number present at the gym that morning, Luis Rivera, a longtime friend from Miami. Phone records showed that both Garcia and Rivera left Miami two days before the murder, traveled to Tallahassee and followed Dan on the day of the shooting. Minutes before the attack, both phones were turned off and remained off for about

an hour afterward, only to be reactivated as they headed back toward Miami. They were later seen using a bank ATM while still in the light-colored Prius. With this information, police had identified the killers, but the question remained, why would these two men who had never met Dan travel all the way to Tallahassee to kill him? What or who connected them to Dan and how did that lead back to Donna Adelson? Phone records revealed a crucial connection. Sigfrado Garcia's most frequent contact was a woman named Catherine Meg Banawa. She had a long on and off relationship with Garcia and they shared two children. Investigators also discovered that Catherine was one of Charlie Adelson's most frequent contacts. At the time of the shooting, Catherine was dating Charlie.

According to the prosecution, this connection created the perfect link. Donna had a problem. Dan Markell and Charlie, under his mother's influence, helped solve it. The hit man happened to be Catherine's axe creating a direct line to Donna's problem to the men who carried out the murder. Both investigative path, the digital trail, and personal connections pointed directly to Donna. But there was a third path money. Police examined bank records, employment files, and financial activity following the murder. They found that in the months afterward, Catherine, Garcia, and Rivera all made major purchases. The men bought motorcycles and cars while Catherine acquired a black Lexus that had previously belonged to heart.

and underwent elective surgery. Yet there were no legitimate sources of funds. Catherine's bank account showed a sudden spike in cash deposits around the time of the murder, far exceeding her normal income and she had no employment records to account for it. Two months after the murder, Donna added Catherine to the payroll at the Edelson family dental practice. Catherine begun receiving regular biweekly checks from the business despite not actually working there. Over the next two years, Donna personally cited 44 checks to Catherine, providing a steady flow of unearned income. Investigators also noted a deliberate communication pattern. Calls always follow a chain.

Donna to Charlie, Charlie to Catherine, Catherine to Siegfried. And back in reverse, Donna never directly contacted Catherine or the hitman, and Charlie never called Sechredo. If this was a murder for hire, conspiracy, the arrangement appears to have been intentionally designed to insulate Donna and Charlie from directly communicating with the killer. with Catherine acting as the middleman. This episode is sponsored by naked wines. You know that feeling when you're staring at a wall of wine bottles in the store and it's like a lineup of suspects? All these labels look good, but who's really guilty of tasting amazing?

I used to waste so much time trying to crack the case, reading clues on the back of the bottle, guessing which one wouldn't disappoint. Then naked wines swooped in like the lead detective. I didn't know I needed. They cut out the middleman, no shady distributors, no just okay. grocery store picks and connected me directly with the real masterminds. Over 90 independent winemakers around the world. And the evidence, undeniable. These bottles are incredible, up to 60% less than store prices, and every shipment is like getting a fresh stack of case

files, except the only thing I'm investigating is which one I'm opening first. The last one I tried was a smooth pino noir that could have been Exhibit A in Best Wine I ever had. And yes, I may have conducted a very thorough investigation that night. Now it was the time to join the Naked Wines community. Head to Nakedwines.com slash hidden. Click, enter voucher and put in my code hidden for both the code and password for six bottles of wine for just $39.99. By April 2016, law enforcement launched an undercover operation to uncover all members of

the alleged conspiracy. It had taken investigators two years to reach this point. They saw approval to tap the phones of Charlie and Kemp. Catherine to monitor their calls. By then, Charlie and Catherine had been broken up for over a year. Catherine was back with Siegfriedo Garcia while Charlie had a new girlfriend but remained in contact with Catherine. Luis Rivera already in prison on an unrelated charge and Donna was focused on caring for her grandsons. Everyone involved seemed to be living normally, believing they had gotten away with murder. And to get them talking again, authorities deployed an undercover agent posing as

someone working on Luis Rivera's behalf. The agent approached Donna with what was called, quote, unquote, the bump, a tactic designed to provoke a reaction. He handed her a piece of paper with a news article about Dan's murder, including a phone number and a demand for $5,000. He implied that because they were taking care of Catherine, they also needed to, quote, take care of Louise. Notably, he never mentioned Charlie. Donna, already understanding what it was about, tuck the paper into her purse without reading it and immediately called Charlie. Rather than expressing shock about being approached, her first words were, quote, I got some paperwork delivered to me, and I need to talk to you in person. It involves the two of us. You should bring cash to our meeting. The TV is probably about five, end quote.

The agent had referenced an ex-girlfriend, but Donna never mentioned Catherine by name. Charlie, knowing the code, understood that the TV referred to the alibi used in Dan's murder and that the ex-girlfriend was Catherine, the only ex he had ever involved in hiring a hitman. Immediately, after speaking to Donna, Charlie called Catherine the only ex he contacted and they did not report the attempted blackmail to the police. Their conversation sounded extremely cautious. They seemed aware that law enforcement might be listening and were wary of the bump. Following the call with Catherine, Charlie met Donna in person taking on the task. Donna now designated as his responsibility. He later called and met Catherine at the restaurant where an undercover agent recorded their meeting.

And during the conversation, Charlie expressed concern that the man who approached Donna might be an undercover officer or a legitimate blackmailer. He speculated whether it was someone seeking a quick profit or someone with inside knowledge of Donna's role in Dan's murder. Charlie reassured Catherine that if it was the police, it was actually a positive sign. It meant they didn't have sufficient evidence to press charges yet. He said, quote, if they had any evidence would already be at that airport, end quote. At the time, the only detail police had released to the public was the

light-colored Prius. While authorities knew the drivers were Siegfriedo Garcia and Luis Rivera, the public had no knowledge of that. This made Charlie's conversations with Catherine particularly revealing. He told her that police couldn't prove someone committed to crime simply because their DNA was found in a car using the offense. To secure a conviction, the suspect had to be placed at the scene when the crime occurred. He explained that crimes are difficult to prove unless there's a witness, a confession, or recorded communication about the act. Charlie's point was clear. As long as they remain quiet, they were safe. Next, Charlie discussed two options for handling the blackmailer. One was to report it to the police, but that risked drawing

attention and potentially promoting the blackmailer to talk, which they didn't want. The other option was to pay the blackmailer, making it clear that it was a one-time arrangement. He gave Catherine detailed instructions, call the blackmailer, say that the Adelson family had no knowledge of the situation, but offer the money as a charity gesture and warn that any further contact would result in police involvement. Charlie admitted he feared the blackmailer might come back for more money, and he suggested that the most definitive solution would be to eliminate the blackmailer altogether. He said he was willing to pay whatever it took. Afterward, Charlie called Donna to update her, using coded language to indicate the situation had been handled.

Catherine then contacted Siegfriedo instructing him to call the number listed on the blackmail note to identify the source. Following the undercover operation, both Siegfriedo and Luis were arrested and charged. Luis later cooperated with prosecutors explaining that Siegfriedo had hired him to help carry out Dan's murder. He described it as a job requested by Catherine in Tallahassee with a payment of $100,000. During their trip, Luis said Sycredo had a... photograph of Dan the intended target. After the shooting, Siegfriedo's first call went to Catherine, who confirmed that they would receive their payment the next day. And the next day, Catherine delivered the payment to Luis at his home. The cash was packaged unusually stacks

of $1,000 in bundles of tens, $100 bills stapled together at the top. Catherine was then arrested as well. According to investigators, the Adelson family routinely handled large amounts of cash through their dental practice, which offered cash discounts. They kept their money in stacks, often stored in a state. Charlie reportedly kept his own funds in similar $1,000 bundles the same way the money was delivered to Luis. Law enforcement continued to pursue the case in the years following the arrest. In 2019, Sigfrido Garcia was convicted. In March 22, Charlie Adelson was indicted, and two months later, Catherine went to trial. Catherine claimed she had no knowledge of the murder and suggested that the Edelson's had acted independently to hire

the hitman. After being convicted, Catherine chose in October 2023 to testify in Charlie's trial detailing her role as a middleman in the plan to kill Dan. She explained that Charlie had portrayed Dan as a terrible man causing stress for his mother and sister. On the night of the murder, Catherine went to Charlie's house to pick up their payment. Charlie told her that his parents had just left and handed her the money in stapled stacks. Catherine noted that the cash felt damp, and Charlie explained that Donna had washed the bills to prevent them from being traced. She then delivered the money to Luis and Siegfriedo. Police records later corroborated her account of the transactions that night, and during Charlie Adelson's trial, Duggan explained, he claimed that

Sigfrido Garcia and Luis Rivera had acted independently, coming to Tallahassee to kill Dan without his family's knowledge. Charlie asserted that he and his mother had been extorted by the hitman and Catherine. However, his account did not align with the evidence and he was ultimately convicted in 2023. Within hours of Charlie's guilty verdict, Donna Aylson reportedly began planning to flee the country to avoid arrest for her role in Dan's murder. She researched nations without U.S. extradition treaties and applied for an emergency visa to Vietnam. She was over her discussing placing her money into trust for her grandchildren and, along with her husband, purchased one-way tickets to Vietnam using the emergency visa. However, law enforcement intercepted her on the jetway at Miami International Airport before she could board and she was arrested.

Donna was subsequently charged with her participation in the murder. Following her arrest, authorities received reports from women in jail that Donna had attempted to bribe inmates to provide false testimony in her trial. She allegedly promised money, housing dental care, and prescription drugs in exchange for statements that contradicted Catherine's account of the crime. It's sounding like the last trial we covered, isn't it? Hello, James Craig. Well, one informant allegedly even supplied law enforcement with a script that Donna had written for the false testimony. The prosecutor Dugan urged the jury to carefully consider all the evidence they would hear throughout the trial. She explained that it would clearly show Donna working hands.

hand in hand with her son Charlie, who then turned to his girlfriend, Catherine, to set the murder plot in motion. Duke and emphasize that while Dan Markell's death may have solved what the Adelson saw as their problem, it came at a devastating cost. She ended by telling the jury that when all the evidence was presented, they would have no doubt about Donna's guilt. Let's listen to the state's conclusion. The defendant acted in furtherance of this murder plot that went beyond just thinking about it or just talking about it. And these acts make her guilty as a principle to first-degree murder, just as if she was the one pulling the trigger in the garage herself.

And while the defendant's choices helped solve a problem within her family, they came at a very high price. She took the life of a loving father of two little boys and caused a lifetime of grief for her. Dan Markell's loved ones. And at the conclusion of the evidence in this case, you will be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty. And at that point, we'll ask you for the only verdict that does justice in this case, which is a verdict that this defendant is guilty as charged. Thank you. Taking the floor for the defense, Donna Adelson's attorney, Jackie

Fulford began her opening remarks by directing the jury's attention to two easels, one holding a photo of Dan or Danny Markell and the other of Donna. She acknowledged the state had presented a detailed story but argued that none of it proved that Donna planned, arranged, or paid for Dan's murder. Fulford spoke about Dan's achievements as a respected attorney and law professor at Florida State University, noting that he earned recognition and success, but what he never earned, she said, was for someone to take his life in such a brutal way. She reminded jurors that Dan's main priority had always been his children. According to her, by the time of his death, the divorce proceedings and relocation disputes had ended, and no one was fighting anymore

over where the boys would live. Fulford pointed out that Donna had even helped facilitate video calls between Dan and his children, ensuring he could still see them when they weren't in his custody. Bulford told the jury, quote, These children were not deprived of their father by her. They were deprived because someone brutally stole him from them, end quote. Take a listen. You guys are way younger than me, so maybe you don't even know about this, but I guess there was a thing called Skype.

I don't even know if it still exists, but I guess it's like FaceTiming, but doing it on your computer. And that's how he wanted to talk to his kids so that he could see them when he wasn't with them while he spoke to them. Now, at three and four, it's kind of hard to wrangle them to sit down in front of a screen. So Danny came up with a really good idea.

When he Skype the children, it would be most of the time after the kids had their dinner and had their baths where they're kind of calmed down, they're not in their little running-around state, and he would read bedtime stories to them. He didn't have his little kids. He still wanted to know. that when the children went to bed, they didn't forget about Daddy.

And he made sure that didn't happen. These kids are not deprived of their father. Their father was brutally taken from them. Not just when they were three or four or five or six or seven or eight, but up into their teens. They lost the opportunity because someone took it from them to grow up with a father, to have his involvement and influence in their lives, to talk about what he did as a kid and share his experiences, all of that was stolen from him. That's very important.

Fullford reminded the jury that Donna was, in her words, a, quote, normal person just like all of us, end quote. At the time of the murder, Donna was 64 years old and those who truly knew her would describe her not as the villain the state had painted, but as a kind and caring woman. She also clarified that Donna worked at a dental practice owned by her son Charlie, not by her husband Harvey, as the state had suggested. Full forward acknowledged that the prosecution could prove certain elements of its case, including that Charlie Adelson orchestrated and financed the plot. But she stressed the state had no concrete evidence tying Donna directly to the crime.

She admitted that Donna had made some harsh and even vile comments about Dan during the messy divorce, but stressed that the evidence would show she did not treat him that way face to face or in front of the children. Instead, Fulford framed those remarks as the unfortunate byproduct of a bitter family dispute, something she noted that happens in divorces far too often. Fullford went on to portray Donna Adelson as a warm, selfless woman who always put others before her. She then turned to July 18, 2014. The day Dan Markell was killed, describing how six Fredo Garcia and Luis Rivera tailed him throughout the day before ultimately following him into his neighborhood and shooting him in the head with a revolver.

Fulford said, quote, in that moment, I cannot imagine the fear that man must have felt, end quote. She argued that the case against Donna was built far more on theories and motives than on hard evidence. The prosecution, she said, had painted Donna as the mastermind behind what she called an outrageous murder. But, Bulford added, quote, It's outrageous he was killed, and it's also outrageous that we're sitting here, end quote.

She urged jurors to carefully listen to every witness and wait only what the evidence proves, not speculation or assumptions. Bulford concluded by saying, quote, At the end of the case, because there's not going to be evidence that she did this, keep an open mind, listen to all of it. We're going to ask you to find her not guilty of every single count. Thank you. Quick word from this episode sponsor, moms, you do everything for everyone else.

And somehow your own wellness always gets shoved to the bottom of the list. And trust me, I get it. I'm lucky if I drink actual water before 2 p.m. That's why I'm obsessed with Live It Up Super Greens. It's my new one small thing that actually sticks. No hassle, no fuss. Just scoop, mix, and go. 30 seconds, and I'm done.

Whether I'm tackling school drop off back-to-back calls or staring down the laundry mountain, and that's all I do. I just stare at it. This is an easy win that supports digestion, energy, and immune health in just 30 seconds. Live it up, Super Greens is an all-natural blend of over 20 superfoods with organic veggies, probiotics, digestive enzymes, and zero junk. No sugar, no dairy, no gluten, nothing artificial. And that actually tastes good, not good for a green drink.

Good. Just good. Live It Up has become a quick and easy way for me to stay on top of my health. And the ripple effect is real. 96% of people who take it daily say it helps them eat more veggies. and feel healthier. Live It Up is offering you 15% off your first order, including subscriptions with code hidden. Plus, shipping's always free. Head to let's live it up.com slash hidden. That's let's live it up.com slash hidden and use code hidden for 15% off your first Super Greens order.

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose treat cure or prevent any disease. The prosecution wasted no time moving into testimony, calling their first witness James Geiger, Dan Markell's neighbor on Trescott Drive. Geiger explained that he and his wife had lived near the Markell since Dan and Wendy moved in as newlyweds. Though they weren't especially close, Geiger recalled that the couple seemed like a, quote, nice young pair. He also knew they were in the middle of a divorce at the time of the shooting. On the day of the murder, Geiger testified that he heard several loud bangs from inside his home. At first, he wasn't sure what the noise was, but when he looked at some,

side, he noticed a car speeding out of Dan's driveway. He said it was, quote, so fast it immediately caught my eye, unquote. At first, Geiger thought it might have been a break-in. He saw that Markell's car was still in the garage, the engine running and the door open, which made him think nothing had been stolen if Dan was still home, but something didn't sit right. He told his wife, quote, something just seems wrong. So when he went back to check a second time, he walked into the garage and realized the driver's side window of Dan's car was shattered. At first, he thought Dan might just be on the phone inside the vehicle, but then he noticed the glass, the blood, and Dan slumped over behind the wheel.

Geiger said, quote, I hollered, Danny, Danny, what's happened? Getting no response, he immediately called 911. Fier's then heard a portion of that 14-minute call. On the recording, Geiger can be heard telling the operator, quote, He's still alive. He's moving. It looks like someone maybe tried to shoot him, but I don't know what happened. Let's listen to that 911 clip. The prosecution's second witness of the day of emergency. It's right next door at my house, which is 2122, trust got a drive. So you beat that with her case.

Two one, two, two. Somebody tried the shooting. The prosecution's second witness of the date was David Sims, a retired sergeant with the Tallahassee Police Department. Sims was the first officer. to arrive at the scene of Dan Markell's shooting. He described finding Dan in his car, noting the broken driver's side window, shattered glass on the ground, and the positions of items in Markell's hands, a cell phone in his left and a business card in his right. Since testified that Dan was still alive when he arrived,

but only making faint, sucking sounds and never regain consciousness. Let's take a listen. Okay. When you got there was the vehicle running? Yes, it was. All right. What did you do when you first? arrived and observed the vehicle.

I walked up to the driver's side window. Mr. Geiger had told me that the homeowner's name was Daniel, and I saw someone in the car, and I spoke his name, said, Daniel. He didn't know there's no response. And I got a little closer and found that the driver's side window was broken kind of at an angle. Some of the glasses in, some had come out. But there was also a small rounded spot in that glass that was still in there. I said, Daniel again, no response.

He was slumped over and kind of gasping for air and it was just a sucking sound. I noticed that he had his set of eyeglasses, half of a set of eyeglasses was laying in his lap. He had a cell phone in his left hand. He had a business card in his right hand. Next, Sims recalled shutting off the vehicle before securing the scene and speaking briefly with neighbor James Geiger, who had heard the gunshots. As prosecutors presented crime scene photos, Sims explained what they showed, including the damaged driver's side window when asked by prosecutor Georgia Capelman, whether there were any signs of a burglary or a struggle, Sims confirmed there were none.

The prosecution, Nix called Joanne Maltese, a retired forensic specialist with the Tallahassee Police Department. With 15 years of experience, Maltese was responsible for processing the crime scene on Trescott Drive the day of Dan's shooting. She explained to jurors that she collected key evidence, including Dan's broken eyeglasses, which were photographed and placed into evidence. She also dusted for fingerprints, but found none that were usable for lab testing. As prosecutors displayed the photos she had taken, Maltese walked the jury through each image, from the shattered driver's side window to the two halves of Dan's glasses. She also introduced Dan's wallet, noting it was recovered at the scene with cash still inside underscoring that

robbery did not appear to be a motive. Maltese spoke directly to the jury, with a calm professional demeanor holding their attention throughout. But the courtroom grew emotional. From prosecutor Capelman concluded her questioning by showing a hospital photo of Dan after the shooting. The image of his bloodied, swollen face through audible gasps from the gallery. And even Donna seemed to break down in tears. Did you also go to the hospital? Yes, I did.

What were you asked to do at the hospital? Document and collect any evidence. evidence. At the time that you responded to the hospital was Mr. Markell deceased or still alive? He was still alive. I'm an approach and show you what I've marked as states exhibits 22 through 24. Do you recognize these exhibits? Yes, I do. How do you recognize them? I took those photographs at the hospital. Are they fair and accurate photos of how Mr. Markell looked that day? Yes. Move into evidence, states exhibits 22, 23, and 24, your honor.

Judge. There you are. States 22, 23, and 24 are admitted. Publish 22, please. This is how Mr. Markell appeared. Yes. And this was done on the 18th. Yes. Cross and down there. No question, John. Very well. Ms. Maltese, you may step down. This witness is excused, John. The prosecution's fourth witness was Dr. Anthony Clark, a former assistant medical examiner in Tallahassee, who now works in Georgia. With more than 8,000 autopsies during his career, Clark was recognized by the court as an expert in medicine and forensic pathology, allowing him to provide both factual and professional

opinions. Clark conducted Dan Markell's autopsy and walked the jury through his finding supported by x-rays and photographs from both the hospital and the autopsy itself. The images were graphic, showing two bullets lodged in Dan brain heavy bruising to his face and deep swelling around his eyes. The presentation drew audible reactions from those in the courtroom. According to Clark, the first gunshot wound was not immediately fatal. Evidence suggested Dan may have tried to shield himself by raising his arm. The second shot fired directly into his forehead. It was catastrophic and left no chance of survival. Take a listen. So the first shot would have been to the left cheek area, which traveled from the left cheek

just before the left ear, hitting soft tissues, fracturing the jaw, fracturing the left cheek bone. Again, this is maybe slightly incapacitating, maybe stunned him, but would not immediately put his lights out. Okay? So that is where all the pseudo-stipplings coming from, from that glass shattering. Glass is not there anymore. The second shot is to the forehead where the actual stippling. from gunpowder can strike the skin and the hand was raised somehow into vicinity of that cylinder gap.

And that's the second shot is the one that was not survivable? That's correct. And was there any amount of medical attention that could have assisted Mr. Markell, say that had gotten there sooner? Well, these are pretty devastating injuries, particularly the gunshot wound of the brain. Clark concluded that Dan's death was a homicide. Just before taking a break for lunch, Judge Everett addressed Donna Dundette. directly about her reactions during testimony. After briefly discussing the matter in a sidebar,

he chose to make his point in open court once the jury had stepped out. The judge cautioned Donna to manage her expressions and movements during the proceedings, noting that visible gestures or emotional outbursts could be disruptive. Judge Everett said, quote, it's very important that you are able to control your emotions, unquote. Edelson quietly responded, yes. The matter that we've discussed at sidebar concerning emotional responses. I do feel it is important at this point. Mrs. Adelson, when the testimony is occurring or the evidence, I know you may have a natural reaction, but as best possible, you need to control your reactions concerning any head movements, any expressions of disagreement, or any emotional outburst. The jury must decide this matter on the

merits, on the evidence. Do you understand those? very well i do not wish to do this in front of the jurors at all but it's very important that you are able to control your emotions do you understand what i'm saying exima is unpredictable but you can flare less with ebbglis a once monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema after an initial four-month or longer dosing phase about four and ten people taking ebbglis achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks and most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Lebrichizumab, LBKZ. A 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds

or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to ebbglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebbglis. Before starting Ebbglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebbglis. And visit Ebbglis.com or call 1800 LilyRX or 1-800 545-9709. Before I switched to Wealth Front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies.

Once I switched, chiching, with a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wellfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. 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 wealth front is taking care of me. Earn more on your uninvested cash with a wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached.

Get started today at wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. As of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds. 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. These in eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Court resumed with retired Tallahassee police investigator Craig Isam, taking the stand. He testified that he first spoke with Wendy Adelson at a restaurant roughly three hours after Dan was shot. He was wearing his badge during their interaction. Isam reassured her that she and our children were not any trouble. He emphasized that Wendy was neither detained nor under arrest and was not considered a suspect at the time. Isam walked the jury

through surveillance footage from the day of Dan's death is illustrating how hitman, Siegfredo Garcia, and Luis Rivera tracked him in the hours leading up to the murder. In addition, Isam detailed his investigation into the Aedelson's family's dental business, including his review of its payroll records. Did you as a result of developing Catherine Magbano as a potential suspect investigate her at all? Yes. All right. And did that include an investigation into her employment? It's correct. What was her employment status around the time of this murder? At the time of the murder, I believe she were. at another dental office somewhere but post murder she started receiving

compensation from the Aylson Institute what is the Aedelson Institute it's a dental practice according to online information operated by Harvey Aidelson and Charlie Aedelson. Okay, and were the two of them dentists? Yes, I believe Charlie is recognized as a periodontist. Did you come to learn what Donna Adelson's role, if any, was in that business? Yes, she was clerical and kept books for the business. Did you attempt to procure some employment records from the Aedelson Institute to verify Ms. Megbanelah's employment,

We did. All right, tell us about that. Myself and Special Agent Sanford from the FBI went to the office physically through the office in Broward County, Tamarack and served a subpoena seeking records for the employment of Catherine Magbanwa and we received nothing at the initial time. Later on, the best I could get from, I believe it was an attorney that represented that dental office, just a list of checks that were paid. Paid checks from the Adelson Institute to Catherine McVanel.

But no W-2, no responsibility for nothing that showed what she actually was. did as being employed at that institute. What was it regular business hours when you entered there physically? Yes. Was Ms. Magbanow present when you entered the building? No. Did the employees that you have contact with seem to know who she was or what it was that she did there? The initial, uh, the initial person that I spoke to at the desk, at the front, front desk, she had no idea who this person was.

who Magbanel was. The other person that came up to the front, she said she had, she knew the name, but did not know what her responsibilities were with the company. Depends attorney Josh Zellman began questioning Isam about his background and the investigation. Isam said he had been a detective for six years at the time he was assigned to the Markell case, and he agreed that thoroughness is critical in a homicide investigation. Zellman also asked about Donna Adelson's email practices, noting that she shared an address with her husband Harvey.

Reissom confirmed that some emails from that account were signed dad, while others were signed mom or mom and dad. He testified that while he had been contacted by someone identifying as Charlie Adelson's attorney, no one ever reached out to him on Donna's behalf. Before testimony could continue, Judge Everett called the attorneys to another sidebar over a prolonged dispute regarding evidence. The debate centered on divorce records between Wendy and Dan, along with emails referencing Dan's parents, Wendy's dating life, and other personal matters. Prosecutors argued that these materials helped establish motive, pointing to Donna Edelson's animosity toward Dan and his family, while the defense maintained that much of the evidence was irrelevant and risked unfairly

influencing the jury. Everett expressed frustration that the objections had not been resolved prior to court and warned that jurors' time would not be wasted. He suggested a line-by-line review of exhibits if necessary. Some evidence was ultimately allowed with redactions, including the removal of a racial slur to prevent prejudice, though much of the content remained restricted, and attorneys were instructed to narrow their presentations. Once the jury returned, I said resumed his testimony. He walked the jury through emails from the shared Donna Harby at gmail.m.com account, including messages with Donna's name attached and others signed by both Donna and Harvey. He also reviewed correspondence from divorce filings, highlighting emails in which Dan expressed concern over Donna having unsupervised contact with the children and messages from Donna emphasizing the importance of Wendy's relocation plans. Isam then addressed allegations regarding payments from the Adelson family dental practice.

Prosecutors have argued that Charlie and Donna used the practice to pay Catherine. Isam testified that Donna signed the checks to Catherine, but investigators found no other evidence of her employment. front desk staff had no knowledge of Catherine and there were no W2 records, schedules, or performance evaluations. While she appeared on the Adelson Institute payroll, there was no proof she actually worked there. Isam emphasized that the sign checks were the only tangible evidence connecting her to the practice. Defense attorney Zalman clarified that Isam had not reviewed employment records for other staff and only investigated Catherine. Take a listen. You don't know whether or not any of the employees had a written job.

No, I do not know that. You don't know if any of the employees' files had evaluations or job reviews? I didn't see that. I just, I would think with that type of business and working on people's mouths and so forth, that there would be a little scrutiny involved. But you don't know if they kept those records for any employee. I have no idea. I was just, I was only seeking and only had cause to seek for Magnawa. Zellman also questioned Isam about Catherine's arrest, with Isam explaining that shortly after the arrest, an attorney representing Charlie Adelson contacted him. He said, quote, it was shocking to me that within that short time frame, the only way that this person would have knowledge would be from Catherine's attorney, no media, nothing had been divulged, end quote. He confirmed that no one representing Donna Adelson had reached out either. Throughout the questioning, Judge Everett occasionally sent the jury out of the court. courtroom to handle ongoing objections. He warned the defense against repeated delays and asked

whether additional challenges were expected. Zellman and co-counsel Jackie Fulford continued reviewing evidence for potential objections during brief recesses. After completing the testimony on emails and payroll, Isam was allowed to step down, though he remains a retained witness and may be called back later. Convicted hitman, Luis Rivera took the witness stand next. Rivera, a member member of the Latin King's gang pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and agreed to cooperate with the state, providing testimony in every trial related to the Dan Markell murder. He is currently serving a 19-year sentence reduced as part of his plea deal. Rivera described how he and his childhood friend, Sigfrido or Tutu Garcia, were recruited to carry out the killing. Catherine, who

Rivera identified as Garcia's partner, connected them with a dentist who orchestrated the murder. Rivera testified that Catherine was romantically involved with both Garcia and, quote, the dentist at the time. He said they were hired to kill Dan Markell so that his wife could regain custody of their children. According to Rivera, he and Garcia made an initial trip to Tallahassee to scope out Dan, following him to locations, including the children's daycare. They returned in July 2014 to carry out the murder, renting a Prius and bringing a 38-caliber revolver. Rivera recalled that Garcia accidentally discharged the gun through the car's floorboard, hitting the gas line and forcing a temporary stop to repair the vehicle. The murder was carried out that day because Dan was preparing to leave town,

information they received through Catherine. Rivera described the events of the murder. They followed Dan as he dropped his children off at school and went to the gym. He said, quote, I pulled up right behind him and Garcia jumped out and shot him, and quote. afterward Garcia called Catherine to confirm the hit with Rivera listening in because Catherine coordinated their payment. Rivera said he received $35,000 in cash the following day, describing it as weird because it was stapled in bundles of hundreds. Garcia received $40,000

and Rivera could not recall Catherine's cut. A piece of paper with Dan's photo and address had been given to Rivera and Garcia when they were higher. The two men who considered themselves like brothers visited Tallahassee twice, delaying the first attempt to avoid killing Dan in front of the children. Rivera emphasized that he had no contact with the Adelson family. All communication went through Catherine. He also noted that before going through with the hit, he had suggested robbing the Adelson's for the money instead. On the day of the murder, Rivera drove the Prius into Dan's driveway while Garcia exited to shoot him through the car window. Garcia later disposed of the firearm in the ocean.

Rivera explained that after receiving the payment, he and Garcia used the money to buy new cars and motorcycles. And about a month later, despite his involvement, Rivera maintained that his only motive was to help a woman, Wendy, recover her children. Next, defense attorney Jackie Fulford began cross-examining Luis Rivera. During her questioning, she mistakenly referred to him as Garcia twice. And Rivera corrected her. Fulford asked whether it was Wendy Adelson, who wanted Markell killed, and Rivera, confirmed that it was. He further clarified that the motive was her desire to regain custody of her children. Rivera testified that to his knowledge, Donna and Charlie Adelson were not involved in the

plot emphasizing that Wendy Adelson was a person who orchestrated the hit. Hulford then had Rivera briefly recap key points of his testimony, including that he purchased the gun used in the murder but did not personally carry out the shooting. Using a photograph, Rivera identified Wendy Adelson as the person who wanted Markell dead, but he did not indicate any involvement by Donna or Harvey Edelson. And the second time that you came up, you knew he was going to be taking the children to school, and so you followed him to the school, correct? At daycare, yes. Yes. And then you knew he was going to be going to the gym, right? I didn't know he was going to the gym, but I just followed him.

You followed him to the gym? Yeah. Okay. And then you followed him to his house. Yes, ma'am. And that's where he was killed. Yes, ma'am. And the woman who wanted him to be, him to be killed past you and sigfredo and katie the woman who wanted to be killed was Wendy adelson correct yes ma'am it was she wanting her children correct absolutely mr garcia i'm going to show you what mr river oh i'm so sorry i am so sorry i apologize mr rivera i'm going to show you what's been marked as defendants exhibit 50 Could you take a look at that and tell me if you recognize that? Yeah.

And what is that? Like a profile of everybody's face. Okay. And did you make some marks on this for me and then sign it on marks the 11th of 2025? Yes, I did. Mr. Vera, when we met with you that day taking your deposition, and I presented that to you, you gave us information about what had happened pretty similar to what you talked about here today, correct? Yes, ma'am.

And when we were done talking about those things and some information about Sigfrado and Katie, I presented you with what's in front of you as defendants Exhibit 50, correct? Yes, ma'am. And I asked if you would put the number one and circle it next to the person you know as Katie, who you said it was in charge of this whole deal, correct? Yep. And did you do that? Yep.

All right. And then I said, would you put a number two next to the person you say did this killing? Yes. And you did that, correct? Yes, I did. And that was Sigfredo Garcia. Yes, ma'am. The first one was Katie Magbanwa.

Correct? Yes, ma'am. And then I said, would you put a number three next to yourself on the paper? And did you do that? Yes, ma'am. And you're the one who got the gun that was used to kill Danny Markell, and you drove the car that day. You didn't shoot him, right? Yes, ma'am.

Okay. And then I said, if you would, please put the number four next to the man who was killed and you did that with Danny Markell, correct? Yes, ma'am. And then I said, if you would, put the number five next to the lady that wanted a man killed. And did you do that? Yes, I did. And was that with Wendy Adelson?

Yes, I did. And then I ask you, if the two people on the top of the page who have their pictures there and the names Donald, I mean, Donna Adelson and Harvey Edelson, you see those on the top? Yes, ma'am. I ask you, as far as you know, were they involved in any of this? And you said no, correct? Yes, ma'am. So I ask you to put exes next to the people who on that page were not involved in this.

Yes, ma'am. And you did that. Yes, I did. Thank you. After completing this line of questioning, Rivera stepped down for the stand, though the state noted that he may be recalled at a later point. Judge Everett then announced that the court would recess until next week. He instructed all parties and the jury to return Monday morning at 9.15 a.m.

and warned against reading or seeking any information about the case over the weekend. The jury was then dismissed. Many spectators reported seeing Wendy Adelson at the courthouse, signaling that she is expected to testify soon, once again, under immunity as she has during the previous trials. But that concludes the coverage for day one, and we'll be back again on Monday to bring you what goes down on day two as hidden true crime continues to follow this trial.

So hit subscribe and hit notifications. And make sure again to check out our backstory on this case as we follow along. 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. How comes very. 3.3%. 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 Brokeridge, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank.

At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wealthfront. Cheching. 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 and 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 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 checking features of the cash account.