Hidden True Crime - State’s Case Under Fire?! | Donna Adelson Trial Day 7 Recap

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

After the prosecution rested on Friday, the defense is up next in the Donna Adelson trial. 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 For the full Surviving the Survivor interview, go here: https://www.youtube.com/live/NEu1uhfrOug 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. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably zero point one. Like it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched With a Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wealthfront 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 Wealthfront 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 test. testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary.

3.3%. Base APY as of January 30th, 20206, 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. These and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Hi, everyone. My goodness, day one of defense in the Aidelson trial that we've been

covering before we jump to everything that happened in court today. I'll be traveling all this week, a few different places and landing in Denver for CrimeCon. So I hope to see many of you there come up, say hi to me. I will not have a booth, but I will be there participating in a few things. And I will have some freebies for all of you, from pins to some fly source. waters from Aunt Vicky on the daybill case and a few other goodies. So I'll hope to see many of you there and meet you in person. Also, there is a new docu-series out. The first two episodes dropped last night or yesterday, September 1st, Ruby and Jody, the Cult of Sin and Influence. It's the third documentary, or not documentary, it's the second documentary on this, but the third

sort of main, main show about this case, the Ruby Frankie Jody Hildebrandt case. And I am in that one. I was also in the one about the curious case of Jody Hildebrand. So check that out. Anyway, let's just get to today, because today marks day seven of the Donna Adelson trial. And again, first day of defense, the family matriarch accused of conspiring to have her ex-son in law, Dan Markell murder. And on Friday, again, the state rested its case. So today begins testimony from the defense's witness list. And after we recap what happened in court today,

stay tuned. And to the end, I will share actually some very interesting information I recently learned about Donna's lead defense attorney Jackie Fulford. So stay tuned. There you go. Day seven began with the defense filing a motion for acquittal, something that's common in trials like this, even though it rarely succeeds. The defense argued that Donna never incited, encouraged, or assisted in the plan to kill Dan Markell. So there you go. Of course, they do. They emphasize that the men who carried out the murder, Siegfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera, were allegedly hired through Catherine Magbanoa, not Donna. They argue that the chain of communication ran through Charlie, not his mother.

They also pointed out that Charlie, not Donna, was the one who kept large amounts of stapled cash in a safe and that there was no evidence Donna ever had control of it. The defense stressed that there's no proof Donna knew about Wendy's comment to her boyfriend, Jeff, when she said the only way she could leave Tallahassee was if something happened to Dan. They also said there's no evidence that Donna was aware of Charlie's talking about hiring a hitman back in 2013 after Wendy's relocation request was denied.

According to them, all the jury has heard are assumptions and theories, not direct evidence of Donna's involvement. They argued that Donna's actions after the murder, like following Wendy's instructions on which last names to call her sons, don't prove she intended for Dan's death beforehand. They also said that payments made to Catherine after the fact, also don't prove premeditation. The defense downplayed Donna's emails and the so-called birthday gift, birthday gift, saying that her last hostile message about Dan was in 2013 and that the gift gift was simply part of a party for Harvey at a venue called the K-room,

not a coded reference to murder. And in closing, the defense leaned on legal precedent that argues that conspiracy alone isn't enough to convict. Her suspicious behavior, after the murder cannot prove intent or involvement on July 18, 2014, the day Dan was killed. Their bottom line was clear. Inferences aren't evidence. After the defense argued for acquittal, the prosecution pushed back hard telling the court, there is more than enough evidence for the case to go forward. The state pointed to Donna's own emails, which they say revealed her hatred of Dan and a clear motive. With him gone, Wendy and the grandchildren could relocate to Miami.

Out of everyone, Donna stood to benefit the most. And the state reminded the jury of Luis Rivera's testimony that he and Sikfredo surveilled Dan before the murder. They tied this to Donna's 2014 planner, which contained Dan's car detail, even his license plate number, which the state argued was a direct link to the surveillance. They also cited Catherine, who said Charlie told her that his mom had washed the money that was given to the killers. Phone records in Donna's one-hour gap driving toward Tallahassee on the night of the murder were presented as corroboration that she was at Charlie's house. The state also leaned on family testimony. Donna's oldest son, Rob, told jurors that she instructed him not to speak to the FBI.

And when he admitted that he had, she brushed it off by saying, quote, well, you don't know anything anyway, end quote. The state cast this obstruction as deliberate avoidance, which they argue points to guilt. Financial evidence was another focus. The state said Donna maintained large cash reserves and directly shared money with Charlie. So over two years, she personally signed 44 checks to Catherine,

even though Charlie could have signed them himself being the owner of the business. Prosecutors framed this as Donna's direct funding of the murder plot. They also highlighted the undercover bump video. After seeing an article about the case with Dan's pitcher, Donna immediately called Charlie and said, quote, this involves the two of us, end quote. The state labeled this as a direct admission of guilt.

Two inmates, Patricia Bird and Drina Bernhardt, also testified that Donna admitted her involvement and even tried to bribe them with things in exchange for false testimony. Burnhart said Donna went so far as to write her a script to study and recite in court. Finally, the state pointed to Donna's shifting defense. In 2016, she spoke casually about Catherine. It wasn't until Charlie's trial years later that she adopted his extortion theory. And just hours after Charlie was convicted, Donna texted Wendy, quote, I'm next.

But that won't happen. I'll take care of that. quote. She then scrambled to obtain an emergency visa for Vietnam, a country with no extradition treaty to the state. This wasn't coincidence. It was consciousness of guilt. So after hearing both sides, Judge Everett ruled that when the evidence is viewed in the light, most favorable to the state, both the circumstantial and direct evidence presented, are sufficient to move forward. With that, Judge Everett denied the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal on counsel one and three. And the defense then called their first witness, Anne Cunningham.

Let's get to Anne Cunningham. So Anne has known Donna for a very long time. Anne has known Donna since 2009. Anne explained that on Christmas Eve of that year, Ronald cracked a tooth during dinner. And because Ronald had gone to high school with Harvey, he reached out. And Harvey came into the office on Christmas Day to treat him. And that visit led the two men to. reconnect old high school friends and soon after they arranged a dinner that was the night

anne first met donna and from there the couples formed a close friendship they began spending significant time together traveling often and speaking regularly by phone and testified that she eventually met two of donna and harvey's children wendy and charlie as well as wendy's husband at the time dan markell the victim in this case as well as wendy and dan markle's children so next defense attorney fulford asked anne if over the years she had known donna she ever found her to be a hateful person while knowing her and anne's answered no she said donna was never aggressive towards anyone never threatened anyone never harmed anyone and never threatened to have anyone harmed if fulford then asked if from the time wendy began the divorce up until dan's murder if donna had ever said she

wanted dan killed and again said no she explained that donna did get up upset and bent it about the situation Wendy was in with Dan, but never in a threatening way. She described Donna as very supportive of her children. Anne also testified that, like the Edelson's and the Markels, she is Jewish and that she found Donna's way of raising her children to be consistent with Jewish traditions, and recalled that Donna called her the day that Dan Markell was shot and said she sounded extremely upset. Donna was crying, appeared surprise, and said she had just. learned what happened. Donna told her that she and Harvey were on their way to be with Wendy and

the boys because they were scared for their safety since they didn't know who had shot Dan. Anne added that Donna was very concerned about Dan being in the hospital. Later, Donna told Anne about Dan's memorial service, describing it as incredibly sad and heart-wrenching. Eventually, Anne became aware that Charlie had been arrested, but she explained that she didn't keep up with the case on social media and tried not to watch much of the news coverage during Charlie's trial. She allowed Harvey and Donna to stay at their home in Naples where they could watch the trial. After the guilty verdict, Anne asked Donna what she was going to do. And she said that Donna was extremely upset at the time, cried a lot and was deeply concerned about both Harvey and Charlie.

According to Anne, Donna was incredibly sad and seemed to be weighing her options for how to cope, including at one point taking her own life. She also mentioned the idea of just getting away for a while to clear her head. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to-ch-ching. With the 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%. As of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks.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. So Fulford then asked Anne if she knew about Wendy's youngest child's upcoming bar mitzvah in January 2024. And Anne said yes, and that she actually attended Donna's grandchild's bar mitzvah, Wendy and Dan's youngest child's bar mitzvah. and she explained that as a Jewish mother and grandmother, those traditions are very important and based on her relationship with Donna. She believed Donna would never miss it. She said Donna had fully intended to be there and was very excited about it.

On cross-examination, prosecutor Kauffelman asked Anne if she was familiar with the statement Donna made to Wendy that she could just bury her in the dress she bought for the bar mitza. Take a lesson. Are you familiar with the defendant's statement that she could be buried in the bar mitzah? the dress that she bought? No, I'm not. I guess if she was going to be buried in that dress, she probably wasn't, at least at the time she made that statement, going to be making it to the barmets, but would you agree?

No, she was always going to be making it to the barmets as far as I do. Even if she was dead and buried, she was going to make it. I never heard that. Okay. Was she suicidal when you spoke with her after Charlie's verdict? Yes. Okay. You were best friends with her?

Yes. Okay. And she would call and vent to you about Danny Markell. Sometimes. All right. And did she ever call him names? Not to my knowledge, not to me. Did she share with you that she was planning to offer a bribe to Mr. Markell to facilitate relocation?

I don't recall. Did she talk to you about plans to threaten or to convert the children to Christianity in order to strong-arm Mr. Markell? She mentioned that she had said that, and she said, that was so foolish. shouldn't they? When did she say that? I don't know whether we were together or on a phone call. I'm not sure. Next, Kaplanman asked Ann if Donna had ever told her that she was being extorted in connection with Dan's murder, Anne said that Donna did eventually tell her, although she couldn't recall exactly when, only that it came up while they were on a trip to Japan. Kaplanman pressed her on whether

this was before or after the FBI's undercover bump and whether Donna's writing of checks to Catherine was part of that extortion, but Anne said she wasn't sure. Kauffleman then turned to the night of Charlie's verdict, asking if that was when Donna called Ann and said she was worried and was considering self-harm. Anne confirmed it was, so Kaplanman asked her to provide her phone number, seemingly to verify the call. Anne added that she hadn't followed Charlie's trial closely until the very end, and during the proceeding, she and Donna did not discuss it much.

Kaufferman then handed Anne her text messages with Donna to review. And after the verdict, the two exchanged messages where Anne said she disagreed with the outcome and thought the jury got it wrong. When asked if that was out of loyalty to her friend, and said no, she genuinely believed the jury made a mistake. In one message, she wrote, quote, I know you are all. all in caps, all innocent, end quote. So with that all in capital letters clarifying in court that she meant Charlie, Wendy, Donna, Harvey,

and testified that she believes no Edelson had anything to do with Dan's murder. Kaplan was also asked if Donna had simply chosen to clear her head in a non-extradition country and said she wasn't aware Vietnam was non-extradition. Georgia press saying, quote, she was going to clear her head with a one-way ticket? And Anne replied that Donna and Harvey didn't know how long they would be staying or where they might travel afterward. Finally, Cabellman asked if Donna had ever told Anne she hoped to make it to the airport

before law enforcement could catch her, but Anne said she didn't recall. Cabellman then had Anne review some text messages between her and Donna in which Donna described Harvey as lying on the floor, crying like a baby after Charlie's verdict, and mentioned that Wendy hadn't even called them. Anne testified that she had offered to come be with them for comfort after that. On redirect, Fulford had Anne clarify that at the time Donna was said to be writing checks to Catherine. Donna never told her about any of that. When Donna spoke about extortion, she said that Charlie was being extorted.

Donna never said that she was personally being extorted. Fulford then addressed the state's implication that Donna was choosing to travel to a non-extradition country with the plan to not return. And Anne clarified that Donna never said she wasn't going to return and in fact had said she was definitely coming back for her grandson's bar mitzvah. Up next on the stand was Ron Gutterson who knew Harvey all the way back to high school and reconnected with him after that Christmas tooth incident in 2009 when Harvey saved the day, eventually again developing a close relationship between the couples. He described Donna and Harvey's relationship as very loving, warm, and close. And like

Anne, Ron became aware that Charlie had been arrested during the investigation into Dan's murder. During Charlie's trial, he testified that Harvey and Donna's state of mind was extremely upset, off the wall, off the wall, quote, does he put it? Which he explained was natural for loving and caring parents. Ron said he and Anne allowed Donna and Harvey to stay at their Naples home during the trial because they were being harassed by the media and bloggers at their own house. Their gated community provided additional security during that time. After the verdict, Ron said Anne spoke with Donna and both she and Harvey were extremely distraught. Ron testified that he was aware Harvey and Donna planned to travel temporarily to clear their heads

from November to January with the clear intention of returning for their grandson's bar mitzvah. He emphasized that under normal circumstances, they would have moved heaven, and earth to be there for that important family tradition. Next, defense attorney's element asked if, while Donna and Harvey were traveling, Ron had been asked to assist with their rental property business. Ron explained that if their handyman needed approval to purchase anything for the properties like a new AC or appliance, he would approve it while Harvey and Donna were away. He emphasized that this was only a temporary arrangement until their return.

On cross-examination, Cabellman focused on Ron's statement that under quote, normal circumstances Don and Harvey would have moved heaven and earth to attend the marbizvah. And she said, quote, obviously normal circumstances would not include a warrant being issued for their arrest for first degree murder. That would be abnormal circumstance, end quote. So Ron replied that he wasn't aware of any warrant at the time of their travel plans and there was none they knew of. Kaplan said that such a warrant might cause them not to return. And Ron responded, you might have to think twice. end quote.

Cowbleman then brought up a text Donna sent to Ron and Ann that said, quote, can't say exactly why, but we may need you guys to come here soon, and quote. Ron confirmed that this was simply for moral support. Donna also wrote, quote, Wendy isn't responding so we may have some issues we may need your help with,

end quote. Ron explained that this was in regard to needing assistance with the rental properties and as friends to help out. that's what friends are for. Next to the defense called Digital Forensic Expert Kelsey Gway, a senior digital forensic examiner with Roloff Digital Forensics in Spokane, Washington.

She introduced herself to the jury and detailed her background and training in digital forensics including a 2016 master's degree in criminal justice, experienced with the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office in Portland Police Bureau, and later managing a digital forensics lab. She specializes in call detailed records, cyber tips, internet crimes, and device extractions. Goy testified that she has reviewed close to 1,000 call detail record sets mapping for mini-cell site locations

and has completed over 400 hours of digital forensic training. Quay explained that her analysis focused on Donna's AT&T phone records, but she also reviewed Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile data as well. She explained documents spanning from January 1, 2014, through May, 2018. 2017, because they included seconds in the timestamps, allowing precise chronological reconstruction, she reviewed Sergeant Corbett's 350-page slide PowerPoint, focusing on slides 26 and 28, which contained frequency analysis charts, finding the raw daddy messy, Quay extorted it into exported it. There's a lot of extortion going on in this case, but Quay exported it into Excel rather than relying solely on PowerPoint tools.

She emphasized the importance of seconds and accurate UTC to Eastern Time conversions for reliable analysis and testified that she manually reviewed Donna's call records. For example, she found that instead of 80 contacts between Donna and Charlie in June and July 2014, the real number was 69, noting that law enforcement's failure to deduplicate calls had inflated the totals. Regarding July 18, 2014, Gway testified that Donna's phone never could. connected to a tower that could cover Charlie's residence, and there was no overlap with Charlie's handset on any tower that day. Prosecutor Sarah Dugan then cross-examined Guay and pressed on both her

methodology and conclusions. Dugan noted that Donna's phone pinged in North Miami at 835 p.m. and next at 10.57 p.m. north of Charlie's residence. Dugan also pointed out that no record exists for Donna being outside Charlie's house and that notation only appeared in Donna's eye messages, not in tower data. Dugan asked Gway if there was a call between Donna and Ann Cunningham the night of July 18, 2014. Goy said she didn't know from memory and was asked to check the raw records on her laptop. After checking, she said that she didn't see a call from Donna to Anne's phone number, but it's possible she called another day, as Ron said, during his testimony. Quay also clarified that Sergeant Corbett's charts did reflect the raw records but just failed to remove duplicate calls.

After recalculating, she found fewer actual calls, 69 versus 80 between Donna and Charlie in the key weeks before the murder. She clarified, however, that duplicates in the records don't erase the fact that Charlie was still Donna's top contact. Even with 69 calls instead of 80, the pattern remains the same. No change to the pattern. And the jury also learned that Gway earns $300 per hour and had earned about $10,000 for her work on this case. I think something the jury should always know. On redirect, the defense had Gway clarified that Donna's record showed 211 unique calls with Charlie, not 417. She emphasized that call detail records do not capture communications via apps like WhatsApp or Viber.

And on July 18th, Donna's phone was in constant. data sessions, which was consistent with the possibility that she was communicating with Ann Cunningham through an app like Viber or WhatsApp and not just text. And on recross, Dugan continued to press asking if Donna could have used WhatsApp to call Anne Cunningham. Why wasn't it reflected in the records if that was indeed what she was doing using WhatsApp? Dugan noted that on July 18th, Donna was making and receiving ordinary voice calls all night, meaning she wasn't attempting to avoid the network. And redirect, the defense pushed back with Gway confirming that Donna's July 18, 2014 records show steady call activity from 8.30 p.m. until 1 a.m.

The defense highlighted this timeline to argue that nothing was hidden and nothing unusual occurred. After lunch recess and Cunningham was brought back to the stand. It's always interesting when they bring witness back to the stand. She was brought back to the stand to clarify something from her previous testimony. and Fulford asked her which two apps, in addition to a regular phone service, did she use to communicate with people? And she said she uses WhatsApp and Viber. Fulford asked if she routinely used one of those apps to communicate with Donna. And Anne said yes.

They routinely used WhatsApp or Viber to talk to each other. Let's listen to Kaplan, ask her about this because it's clear she finds Aunt's testimony about using these apps a little fishy. Take a listen. You had gone to the airport after your last testimony, right? That is correct. And returned to the courthouse? Yes. To tell us what, that you used Fiber or WhatsApp to make that phone call?

Yes. So it wasn't a regular phone call? Correct. Okay, so you misspoke earlier or it just wasn't clear? No, I said she called me. Okay. And she called you and made a regular phone call on June 23rd, the month before the murder, right? I don't recall many phone calls.

And she called you on a regular line on July 20th, just two days after the murder. Do you recall that? If you say so. Okay, and July 21st. One question. Yeah, the witness is not being shown the evidence that she's being confronted with. I believe she is not asked to. She has not asked to recall or let me clear this up, this coming head.

Do you need to see the items that the state is referred to to to refresh your recollection? Do I? If I called it, if I spoke with her, I spoke with her. Okay, so you have no reason to contest that you spoke with her via regular phone call, June 23rd, July 20th, and July 21st. It's in the record, yes. And, but you're saying it was a WhatsApp or a Viber on the 18th. Yes, they were in the car and they often called on those apps in those car.

Would it surprise you to learn that WhatsApp didn't offer voice calls until March of 2015? Then it was on Viber? Must have been Viber, huh? Must have been Viber. Up next on the stand was Richard Chagrin. He explained that he met the Aedlesons about 37 years ago through a friend's nonprofit where he was serving as chairman at the time. Later, he and his wife formed a gourmet club, which Donna and Harvey joined. And over time, they all became close friends, spending more time together.

traveling. Richard noted that his wife is a real estate corporate and bankruptcy attorney. Defense attorney Zellman asked if Richard spoke with the Adelson's the day Charlie was convicted. He said no, it was the next day that he and his wife went to the Adelson's residence in Miami. He described Donna as extremely distraught and Harvey as being in shock. Richard explained that he is very experienced with booking trips and travel having visited 75 different countries and that the Edelson's asked for his assistance in November, 2023 to help obtain visas for Vietnam. And while Donna showed his wife, Susan, the dress she had bought for their grandson's

bar mitzvah, he and Harvey sat down to book plain reservations. Richard noticed that a round-trip ticket was much more expensive than a one-way ticket. Since they didn't know when they would return, he advised booking a one-way ticket and mentioned to Harvey that it would likely be cheaper to buy a flight home from Vietnam once they were already there. And in regard to the visas, Richard explained that there were only two options, a 30-day or a 90-day visa. He chose a 90-day visa for the Adelson's because they didn't know how long they would be gone, only that they intended to return before their grandsons bar mitzvah in January. Zellman then asked Richard if he knew why the Adelsoons wanted to leave town and he said they were being

be rated by the media, afraid to leave their condo, and simply wanted to get away for a while. Richard also noted that Donna and Harvey had visited Vietnam with him in the past and found it very relaxing. With great people, excellent food, Richard added that although Harvey technically booked the flight, he was sitting next to him, helping him choose, and advised that it made more sense to book a one-way ticket. He emphasized that they were all operating under the assumption and per their attorney's instructions that they were free to travel without any restrictions. Next, Zellman asked Richard to describe the type of mother and grandmother Donna was, and he said she was the ultimate Jewish mother, very involved in her children and grandchildren's

lives, and did everything she could for them. Zellman then clarified, asking if at a time he was assisting with booking their travel, the Aedlesons had decided, when they were. they were going to return. Richard said they were undecided other than being certain they would not miss their grandson's bar mitzvah. On cross-examination, Kaplanman asked Richard if, when they booked the trip, the bar mitzvah was less than 90 days away, and Richard said, yes, it was scheduled for January. She then asked if he recalled giving a deposition in August 2024, and he said vaguely, during that deposition, Kauffelman noted that he had been asked whether he made any decisions about when or how the Aitleson should travel or if he was merely a conduit for the technology.

At the time, Richard acknowledged he had just been there for him. And Kaplanman pressed saying, quote, but today you're saying you're the one who suggested they only buy a one-way ticket. And the defense objected claiming improper impeachment, but the objection was quickly overruled. Richard responded that making suggestions didn't mean he was making the travel decisions for them. Kauffleman then moved on to this more hot button issue.

Take, just take a listen to this. Let's watch us together. And you said that Donna Adelson is a typical, typical Jewish grandmother. Does a typical Jewish grandmother suggest dressing her grandchildren up in Nazi uniforms? Not to my knowledge.

No further questions. Yeah. There you go. That was an interesting moment. So on redirect, Zellman asked Richard again if in addition to being tech savvy he was more travel savvy than

Donna and Harvey and he said yes Zellman then asked if during his deposition Kaepleman had asked him whether he had made any suggestions regarding their travel while helping them book flights Richard said no and next on the stand was Eddie Varns a private

investigator with 27 years of experience and he was retained by Donna's original defense attorneys and tasked with speaking to Patricia Bird, one of the jailhouse snitches. Barnes introduced himself to Bird, saying he understood she might have information about Donna's case, and she confirmed she did. Burd told him she had information about things Catherine McBanwa had said to her while they were incarcerated together in 2021. She never told Barnes that Donna offered her any compensation to testify,

nor did she mention anything about land, a trailer, a car, veneers, or any other offer from Donna. Bird also never said that Donna confessed to her. Barnes testified that he did not record the interview with Bird as he had been instructed by prior defense counsel not to. Okay. He explained that Bird spoke extensively about Catherine, but never about Donna telling her to say anything. Barnes said he cautioned Bird against cooperating with Donna, warning that she would be a witness in the case and that the state might suggest she was given something by Donna to falsely testify. And Byrd reportedly replied, quote, they can say all they want, but this is the truth. And quote.

Barnes added that he was aware Bird was waiting for a plea deal in her own case at the time he spoke with her about Donna. And on cross-examination, Dugan asked Barnes if he decided to question Bird because Donna's previous defense counsel told him she might have information, noting that this was prior to July 2025 when she was officially listed as a witness by the state. Dugan brought up that Varns didn't record the interview, even though he technically could have. And Barnes said he had been instructed not to. Dugan then asked Varns to relay what Burt had told him during the interview. And Varns testified that Baird said Catherine told her, quote, After we had him killed, we tried to get the money because we knew her boyfriend and family had a lot of money.

We knew they had money because the family offered the man a million dollars apiece to move to South Florida. so why not kill him and get the money ourselves? And quote. And Byrd reportedly responded, quote, girl, that's crazy, that's extortion. And Catherine said, quote, my kids got to be raised and go to college as well. And quote.

Barnes said he sent a summary report of the conversation to Donna's legal team, but they didn't instruct him to go back again to record her statement for evidence. Dugan then asked if Barnes knew why Donna's defense didn't elispered as a witness. despite this information, and he said he did not, noting that he is not an attorney. On redirect, Zellman had Varnes reiterate that what he related related was exactly what Byrd said during the interview, not just his own interpretation. Zellman then asked about why Byrd was not placed on the defense witness list. Let's take a listen to that. Would it surprise you, sir, to learn that contrary to what the state implies,

I thank you to relevant as to what he was. Please let him finish his question first before you checked. Thank you, Your Honor. Would it surprise you to learn that the prior defense counsel, in fact, listed Patricia Bird on the witness list that they submitted prior to this case being set for trial September of 2024? Would that surprise me? No. Okay. And so contrary to what Ms. Dugan indicated on cross-examination, it was your understanding that Ms. Byrd was listed as a defense witness.

Yes, sir. That is correct. Just a moment, Your Honor. Up next was Leon County Deputy Josh Turner, and he testified that he interviewed the other jailhouse snitch, Drina Bernhardt, on December 18, 2024. And after that interview, he noted that State's Attorney's Office, to the State's Attorney's Office, that Drina had information pertaining to Donna Adelson. Turner attended a recorded interview with Drina at the state attorney's office. During that interview, Drina said she had spoken to Donna throughout the day and had purposely positioned herself in front of a camera in the pod so that the interactions would be captured on surveillance footage.

State's exhibit 105 was a recording from within the pod, which Turner reviewed for court. And after the interview at the state attorney's office, Turner downloaded the surveillance video. And Drina and Donna are on the far right of the screen. at the round table. Can you explain to the jury what Ms. Bernhard just did? It appears she took a piece of paper out of her notebook and is showing Ms. Adelson something on that page.

It appears that something's already written on that page? Potentially, I can't tell. Now Ms. Bernhardt's writing on a piece of paper. Correct. 1446, my client takes the paper and starts writing, correct? Correct. We can see both women writing on the paper, but when asked if Donna dictated and Drina wrote, Drina testified no, Donna wrote. However, Drina could be seen writing on papers and talking to Donna as she wrote some things,

which could suggest that Drina was dictating to Donna what to write, or at least cast some doubt on Drina's story. Well, on cross-examination, Kavelman noted that during his interview with Drenna, she said she was, she not only had information about Donna, but also that Donna was trying to solicit her to give perjured testimony during the trial. Turner testified that he relayed this to the state's attorney's office where a more detailed interview with Drenna was conducted. And in that interview, Drenna brought a pinkie. notebook containing the script Donna allegedly wrote for her to recite at trial. Turner explained that they had to photograph the notebook rather than seize it because Donna had allegedly instructed Drenna to copy the script in her own handwriting and then return the notebook. Kaplanman asked if Drina said when the original script was written by Donna and Turner

said she indicated December 19th the video of which he had downloaded and was just played in court. Kaplan then asked if the video appeared to corroborate what Drina told investigators that day, and Turner said it did. Kaplan pointed out that the defense argued both women could be seen writing in the notebook, but Turner said he wasn't sure if both actually wrote the script and deferred to a handwriting expert's testimony. He noted that the handwriting expert had concluded that the script was in Donna's handwriting. Interesting place, right? I was like waiting for more at that moment, but that's where court ended for the day, a little

earlier than usual. So we'll have to wait. I'll be back tomorrow. But before, you know, as I promised, I have some interesting information to give you regarding Donna's defense attorney Jackie Fulford. Let's be honest. Buying cannabis shouldn't be complicated, sketchy or low quality. That's why I want to tell you about mood.com.

That's M-O-O-D-D. Com. Mood ships federally legal cannabis straight to your door. No medical card, no hassle. And here's the kicker. The quality is better than anything you'll find at your local dispensary. Yeah, I said it. Whether you're into edibles, concentrates, flour, or just looking to explore, you'll find it all at Mood. And it's not just the variety that makes them stand out. Every product is sourced from small American-owned family farms that care deeply about what they grow. It's cannabis you can trust, delivered to greatly and ready to elevate your mood. And because you're a listener, you get 20% off your first order. Just head to mood.com. That's M-O-O-O-D.com to get started. Now, I had heard rumors that Fulford

was an ex-judge, but what I hadn't heard is that actually she's possibly a disgraced ex-judge. So Jackie Fulford was once a respected prosecutor and later became a circuit court judge after being appointed in 2009 by the governor. She oversaw the second judicial circuit, which encompasses Tallahassee in nearby areas. However, her judicial career faced serious challenges in 2015 when the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a formal misconduct allegation against her.

Now, these allegations, these charges, what they included were abuse of office, conflicts of interest, coercion, and using her judicial authority, to benefit her personal interests. So one notable controversy arose during the 2012 sheriff's election. Fulford openly supported the incumbent and personal friend David Harvey, even displaying a life-sized cardboard cut out of him in her office.

While judges, they're allowed to have political opinions. Problems emerged, though, when a courtroom bailiff supported Harvey's opponent. And Fulford allegedly, Fulford alleged. Fulford allegedly told the bailiff she would not work with anyone who backed the opposition and the bailiff was subsequently terminated. Well, allegations of coercion also surfaced in one case. Fulford was overseeing a matter in which a defense attorney had a major motion pending and during this time she allegedly asked the attorney for a personal favor, which was to represent someone she knew in an unrelated case pro bono. So the attorney reportedly felt unable to refuse due to Fulford's influence over the outcome of his client's case, which carried a potential 15-year sentence.

So critics argued that she exploited her position to secure a personal benefit. So Fulford's involvement in her partner's family matters further complicated her record. So in 2013, her partner's son, Trey Young, was arrested on Demandum. battery charges and Fulford allegedly contacted the prosecutor handling the case someone who had previously worked for her and advocated on Trey's behalf. She reportedly helped draft a deferred prosecution agreement attending meetings and even visit him in jail after hours after hours. The judicial committee considered her actions a clear overstep of professional and ethical boundaries. So they believe this because she effectively, if this is all true, inserted herself into a case involving someone close to her.

So despite the seriousness of these allegations, Fulford never faced a public trial. As the investigation gained momentum, she went on medical leave and stepped away from the bench. Medical evaluation concluded she suffered from a quote, permanent disability that impaired her ability to perform judicial duties and based on the finding, the committee recommended involuntary retirement, which the Florida Supreme Court approved in September 2015. So some legal professionals speculate that Fulford may have used the disability claim to sidestep the ongoing misconduct proceedings. I can see where minds go there. So while the disability paperwork is sealed, we don't know what exactly caused her to be permanently disabled, there was someone who recently spoke on the surviving the survivors podcast with Joel who may know more about this. Surviving the survivor has been covering this Adelson case for years.

They do an excellent job over there. So the person that spoke about this is Stephen Webster, who is actually one of Dan Markell's former divorce attorneys and is reportedly on the witness list for Donna's trial. And while, we already heard from all of the state's witnesses, and I'm not sure in what capacity he could be used as a defense witness. So maybe he's no longer being called, right? I don't know. But regardless, he also knew Jackie Fulford personally. So let's see what he had to say. Take a listen to this guy doing us a

huge favor. Stephen Webster coming to us from across the pond while on vacation. That's how amazing our best guests are. He is a Tallahassee defense attorney. He's also Dan Markell's post-divorce attorney, and he's also on the witness list to testify at this upcoming trial. So a very special guest to have this evening, and certainly last but not least, we've got Dr. Melissa Hamilton. She was once a corrections officer, once a police officer. She hails from the great state of Florida, and now she is a professor of law at the University of Surrey in the UK. First off, Stephen Webster, thank you so much for doing this while you're away. And a lot of people said to me, hey, this guy is testifying soon, isn't he?

Why is he coming on STS? So Stephen Webster, why are you coming on surviving Survivor? Because I want to speak for Dan Markell. And I talked to the Markels before I ever did any media. I reached out to them and I said, do you mind if I do some media? It was actually 2017, and I was kind of concerned that nobody was ever going to be held accountable. And, you know, frankly, I knew Jackie, you know, for a long time when she was faking cancer. She had me believing she was dying of cancer for years, me and my wife, while one of our mutual best friends was actually dying of cancer.

And she had us believing she was dying of cancer. It turned out that wasn't true. Okay. So, you know, frankly, she wants to take a shot at me. Like, she'll never hold me in judgment ever because I have absolutely no respect for that woman. Okay. Kathy Ray was a prosecutor we worked with that was one of Jackie's dearest friends. One of my wife's dearest friends, one of my dear friends, somebody who was

amazing human being. Kathy Ray thought for the little people. She, she, she like prosecuted the most horrific cases. And one, she was amazing and she was dying of cancer. While Jackie had me believing she was also dying of cancer, which it turned out that there was no evidence to ultimately support that. So anyway, so you asked that question. That's a long-winded answer, but I wanted to get that off my I came here tonight to say that here and now. Yeah, so I was a young prosecutor. I was old. I went to law school later in life,

but in terms of my professional career, I was young as a lawyer. And she was my supervisor, and she was honestly a great supervisor. I'm not gonna lie, I mean, Jackie was a great trial attorney. She was, I felt like she did the job with, high level of ethics. I remember I had a case that involved methamphetamines and when we were like all about taking down meth people and I didn't think I could establish a prima facie case of guilt.

I went to her and she was my supervisor and she said you need to drop the case, which took a lot of courage for her to say at that time. But anyway, so we were, we worked closely together. I mean, as anybody can probably understand, you know, when you work in any sort of environment, you know, you become more than just co-workers. You become colleagues and ultimately, oftentimes friends. And we believe that she was our friend. She officiated my wedding. She read the vows at my wedding. And in the midst of this, it was kind of when Lance Armstrong was going through his cancer stuff. But she had us believing that she had cancer. And she would leave and be out of the office for what we believed were cancer treatments and things like that.

It just kind of like went on and on. And like, I didn't think anything of it. You know, I'm not a doctor. So I don't know how that works. And I know cancer can raise its head in many various forms. So it went on and on. And as I already spoke about, one of our colleagues and friends loved ones, Kathy Ray, actually got cancer. And it was a pretty vicious cancer and took her out, unfortunately, a couple of years.

And like, while that was going on, you know, Jackie had us believing that she was also fighting a similar battle. And, you know, as I haven't reviewed her medical records, but when it all came out, and I do believe it was part of the complaints with respect to that were filed with respect to her sitting as a judge that ultimately she stepped down from the bench as a settlement involved those false allegations. and I believe there was some sort of mental health counseling that was required as part of the settlement. But no, you know, it's never, it doesn't sit right with us over here, okay? Those of us that knew Kathy, right? Like, first of all, it's gross, period. You know, just as a human being, any of us who've lived, we've known people that, you know, that were either afflicted with cancer, died of cancer, their families were affected by it.

So, I mean, just there and there, like it stops, but for us, it's much deeper because while we were watching Kathy fade away from us and we were losing her, we came to realize at the same time, it appeared that there was the sham going on being perpetrated by Jackie at the same time. So, yeah, so she can take shots at me if she wants, but she'll never hold me in judgment ever. Surviving the Survivor, SDS, is deeply plugged into this case, and we have a link to that full interview in the description of this episode. So go head over to Surviving the Survivor. Like I said, they are fully in this case knowing a lot of people personally when it comes to this case. And while Fulford is no longer a judge, despite her permanent disability that we don't know about, because it's sealed. She is back in private practice based in Tallahassee taking criminal defense clients that include Donna Adelson. I'm not sure whether any of this will impact

Jackie's ability to represent Donna and what I've seen she and Zellman have been handling things pretty well. Honestly, I feel that they're doing what they can to challenge the state's case, highlight any potential weaknesses or holes doing their best, right? Doing their best. I just found this background information interesting, but I would love to know your thoughts. I'd also like to know your thoughts about what you think about day one of defense. I saw some great comments in chat. I'm curious. It's always good to see what you guys are thinking after a day of a Donna Adelson trial and day one defense. It's been interesting. That's all we have for tonight. Of course, I'll be back again tomorrow, despite being out of town. I'm here to bring you what happens on day eight.

And if the defense can actually bring anything with substance, we'll see. We'll see. All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a great night. And we'll see what defense attempts to bring on day two. I'm looking forward to it. We'll see you guys. Bye. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably zero point one. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched to 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 Wellfront 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% base API why as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program program.6% 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. eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Before I switched to Wealthfront, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to chitching... With the Wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust wealthfront 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 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 wealth front brokerage LLC member finra sipc not a bank