Law&Crime Sidebar - 6 Most Intense Moments in Charlie Adelson’s Heated Cross-Examination

Episode Date: November 3, 2023

The alleged mastermind accused of orchestrating the brutal murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel took the stand and faced a fierce line of questioning from the prosecutor seeking a conviction against him. Charlie Adelson fired back numerous times, prompting the judge to intervene, while attempting to stick to his story, which contradicts the state’s evidence. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down the six most intense moments from Adelson’s testimony under cross-examination.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Check out YouGov to make easy cash! Click our link: https://www.inflcr.co/SHJUw #YouGovPartnerHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Have you ever heard the saying that the simplest explanation is always the most likely? Have you heard that? I've heard that theory before you. Was your explanation to the jury over the last, a little over a day? The simplest explanation? It was the truth. Do you, I mean, you have a thorough explanation.

Would you agree with that? I told you what happened. Do you agree that the only problem with having an explanation for everything is that there's just so many explanations? There's no explanation. I explained what happened. Things get heated. when Charlie Aedelson faces some tough questions by the prosecutor as his testimony continues in the murder trial of FSU law professor Dan Markell. We break down six major moments.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. I said it. I said it. Wait for the cross-examination in the Charlie Aidelson case because I tell you, it has been something. So Charlie Aidelson, this is the man accused of orchestrating the plot to murder. FSU law professor Dan Markell. He took the stand in his own defense. He's accused of first-degree murder, conspiracy, solicitation. The theory from the prosecution, remember, is that Markell was in this

bitter custody dispute with his ex-wife, Adelson's sister, Wendy Adelson, and this caused a lot of problems for the family. And investigators believe that Charlie was the one who orchestrated the killing, facilitating the payment of $100,000 to be shared by Catherine Magbanoa, Sieg Fredo Garcia, and Luis Rivera, his alleged co-conspirators. or cohorts. Now, investigators say that back on July 18, 2014, Markell was shot to death in his garage at his home in Tallahassee, Florida, by hitmen Rivera and Garcia. Garcia and Rivera were recruited by Adelson's then-girlfriend Catherine Magbanawa, the mother of Garcia's children. This all ended with Luis Rivera pleading guilty back

in 2016 to second-degree murder, not first, in the killing of Dan Markell. He received a 19-year prison sentence. It was to run concurrently with a federal sentence on an unrelated case. It was a deal that was worked out because he ended up testifying against Garcia, Magbanoa, and now Adelson in this trial. Garcia, whom Rivera claims was the actual shooter, was convicted of first degree murder of Markell and sentenced to life in prison. As for Magbanawa, her first trial ended in a mistrial. Her second trial, she was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy, and solicitation, and she, too, like Garcia, was sentenced to life in prison. Now, in this trial, Charlie Adelson's defense team has said he's innocent.

that he is not a cohort. He's not a co-conspirator. He didn't plan this. But he is actually the victim here, that he is a victim of an extortion plot at the hands of Catherine Magbanawa. The theory is, is that after Markell died, Magbanawa told Adelson, I know who killed Dan, but it's my fault. I spoke to freely about all the problems your family was having. I spoke too freely about how much money your family has, about how much money you have, how much cash you have lying around. I spoke to the the wrong people. They killed Dan Markell. And now they want you to pay up. And if you don't pay up, they're going to kill you and your family. So he wasn't part of the plan to kill Dan Markell, but that he was wrapped up into this after the fact. Okay. So after he laid this out in his direct testimony, and it's important for him to take the stand to explain this extortion plot. It helps explain a lot, actually, of what he did and said, including some suspicious comments that he made on secretly recorded conversations by law enforcement. I want to take a minute right now to thank UGov for supporting us here at Sidebar and sponsoring

this video. So what is UGov? Well, if you're looking for a way to earn a little extra money, it is a side hustle where you get paid for giving your opinion. No joke. Free to join, easy to use, you get this extra cash. How it works is as a member, you earn points for giving your real opinions on topics in short surveys and polls.

Everyone's got an opinion, so why not get paid for them, right? You might answer questions about, let's say, politics or personalities or pop culture, animals. And you earn points, and then you use those points for gift cards and cash incentives. And you could do these surveys and polls whenever you got some downtime. For me, I can do them when I'm waiting for our court feed to start up or waiting for our new sidebar to be posted on YouTube. All you have to do is click the link in the description box below, and then you can start making some extra money on your own schedule.

However, with any defendant taking the stand, you know that the prosecution has an opportunity to cross-examine that person. So here with that is assistant state attorney, the prosecutor, Georgia Kaplanman. This is her opportunity to cross-examine or question Aidelson. And he starts off by explaining, look, under Cross, I know now Catherine Magbana was the one who extorted me, but I can't say for sure who she partnered up with could have been Siegfriede Garcia. Don't know for sure.

Now, the first part of the cross-examination focused in on how Edelson's behavior, his actions, his rationale after finding out his former brother-in-law was murdered and now he's being threatened and extorted, all this may not add up. Did you have any contact with the thugs that were getting your money for two years? No. Did anybody put a gun to your head? I was told that I would be killed in 48 hours if I didn't pay up. I heard you say that, but my question is, did anyone think? put a gun to your head. Did you ask me, did anyone pull a gun on me?

That's what I asked you. Is that your question? No, nobody pulled the firearm on me. Were you led to believe or told that the bad guys are outside, right outside your apartment, or your residence? No, but I was led to believe what they did to Dan they were going to do to me. I heard you say that, but my question is, did she say, like, the car is running, I'm going to take the money out there to them right now? No, she never told me that they were waiting for me outside my house. In fact, she stayed the night with you, didn't she?

Yes, she did. And didn't exit your house with your $138,000 until the next day, right? Correct. The text messages that were exchanged between yourself and Catherine McBanawa on the morning after this exchange of money were inconsistent with your extortion theory. They were inconsistent with how it was feeling. they don't appear to look like you just gave her $138,000 under duress, do they? She told me the last thing she said to me before she left the house is can we just pretend like this never even happened. So when I sent her that message, I was trying to show her like, I'm trying to forget, trying to forget all about it.

So the text messages aren't what they appear to be. It's a beautiful day. I'm going to the pool. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the gym. None of that is what it appears to be. it's something else. I absolutely did not go to the gym. I was trying to show her that I

was, you know, pretending like nothing ever happened and looking past it. And there's nothing on the wire. All those hours of you talking. There is nothing on the wire about the extortion, this layer one of extortion,

because she told you not to talk about it, right? She told me to never talk about anything to anyone or her. But nowhere. Even in the midst of this whole second extortion, it's happening again. It's an extension of the same thing. Do you mention anything about this layer one of the extortion?

Do you? Yes, actually I did. Okay. If you pull up the video from Matsuri when I was sitting with my dad and I said it, and the funny thing is, that's what I whispered in his ear. Right, but we can't hear that. Right, because that's my point. I never wanted anybody to hear what had happened.

I never wanted the police to come talk to me. The only time you mentioned the extortion, it's in a whisper that is not picked up by the microphones, right? Intentionally, yes. Yes. And that was intentional at the time, but it sucks for your defense, right? Because that would be a huge piece of evidence for you to show this jury, wouldn't it? No, I think you'd come up with a reason why that I said it anyway. Okay, so was his life really in danger?

Catherine Magbanoa hits you with the news that it was her fault for getting Dan killed because she spoke too freely and now tells you your life is ruined, basically. And you let this person sleep over and then you give her the money? You send all of these messages the next day seemingly happy, seemingly happy as can be, but you just do this to give off the appearance as if I'm okay, I'm putting this behind me. Now, the other way, of course, to make sense of all this is that you are acting as a co-conspirator who carried out the murder of a man that was causing your family trouble and now going on living your life and paying your accomplices.

And then, of course, the word extortion never really comes up until this trial, even though he admits he told people, but it's not on the recording. And that brings me to another piece. So Adelson's secret recordings, as I mentioned, they were played back to him, conversations that he had with Magbanoa after Dan's killing. And the prosecution argues that what he says sure sounds like someone who's afraid to be caught by police because they killed Dan Markell. As you'll hear from Aedelson, though, he has a different reason for why he's saying what he's saying.

Sounds like you're saying even if they track down the Prius, even if there's DNA or fingerprints in the Prius, meaning like they can link someone to the Prius. That's not going to be enough evidence to make any arrests in this case. Is that what you're saying? No, not at all. what I was saying to Katie is that the information she had just told me in the car about Sigfrato not being there

when the crime was committed. She told me that Sigfrato was high on drugs at the hotel and that Louise had rented a car and that he's the one who killed Dan. And I'm restating to her that I don't have any knowledge of what went on and that

all I know is that Sigfrato wasn't even there when this happened. So that's what I'm restating to her. That Sigfrato can't be caught, even if he's connected to the crime, to the car? I know that Sigfredo wasn't the one who killed Dana. Okay. Wouldn't it be good for you?

Because you know now that Sigfredo is the extortionist, right? She just told you that in the car? Siegfried, yeah. Okay. And wouldn't it be good for you if the police investigation into the Prius led to the arrest of the killers slash extortionists? if they arrested the people that killed Dan? Yeah. I know the extortion would stop.

As long as I kept my mouth shut, I'd be safe. Right. So why are you trying to argue to her that, like, the car is not going to lead anywhere, and they're not going to be able to do anything with the car? That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that I know that wasn't the one who killed him. Did you say on this recording, if they're a bad guy, there's two ways of dealing with it.

Go ahead and contact the police. They'll contact him, the blackmailer, and arrange a setup. Take him down and he'll proffer 10 years and now tell us everything you know or else you're going to serve 10 years in prison. Next thing you know, this person is singing. He's calling out your name. My parents are going to have to say. Going to have to tell the story of what happened. Singing about what?

About the extortion? No, I think you're reading it wrong. What would they have to sing about? The second extortion would be singing and talking about the first extortion where they learned their information from. Who cares? That doesn't have anything to do with you. Well, when they catch the first extortion, Katie's tied to them and I'm tied to Katie. They're going to come talk to us, and we're going to be in danger when we tell them what happened. you gave very precise instructions to katherine my banel on what she was to say when she calls the phone number right

did you do that absolutely and then you say quote you'd better kill him because he's going to be a big problem and he knows who you are if he can't do it i'll have someone else do it aren't you telling her that if Garcia can't handle this problem and kill whoever's behind this, you will have someone else do it. You're reading it totally wrong. It's a yes or no question, sir. No, you're wrong. So what the jury's going to have to consider is, is this a guy who was worried about his life, worried about his safety? If he's talking to police, you know, the bad guys might end up killing him.

He's a victim of extortion. Or is he the mastermind of this murder for hire plot? Now, to play devil's advocate, for those of you who don't believe any of this. Let's say Adelson's telling the truth, because if he's telling the truth, you have to imagine, imagine you were in that situation, how upset would you be if the state is charging you with a crime that you didn't commit? How upset would you be if your family is being implicated in the death of Dan Markell? Because that's a big part of it. Investigators believe that it's not just Charlie, but there was other members of the family who were part of this, even though no one else's charge. So during his cross-examination, there are points where he gets a bit heated and he gets a bit annoyed at the version of the state's case.

including, and he mentions this, how they're making a lot of a comment that he made, where he said to Wendy, his sister, that it would be cheaper to buy a TV than hire a hitman. Now, he said this after Dan and her broke up. This is before Dan was ultimately killed. Not a great comment. But you'll even hear when all this back and forth happens, the judge gets involved. Do you remember yesterday saying, you were telling a story about

Katie coming in from having had some kind of altercation with Garcia and she had reported that the necklace had been pulled off her neck. Do you remember that? Yes, I do. You said he roughed her up. That's accurate.

And that put my antenna out because that roughed up, roughed them up, is the exact same phrase that Catherine Magbanoa said in her proffer that you used on Halloween 2013 when you first approached her

about, does she know anyone who can rough someone up? No, I think getting roughed up is an adjective, but what you're doing is the same thing you did with your TV theory. It's like you heard TV mentioned multiple times, so you put the whole case

together with the TV. Okay, we'll get to the TV. And you're putting the whole case together with the word roughed up. Yeah, I mean, I'm not putting the whole case together. One moment. Don't speak over each other. Please wait for him to answer, then you can ask your next question. What did she mean when she said Dan Markell was trying to take her sun shines away? Do you know?

My mom never said that. Did your mom refer to the children as her sun shines? No, the kids were three and four. A three and four-year-old can't repeat a conversation. And remember words six hours later and repeat it accurately. I have a five-year-old son. Never seen a three- and four-year-old do that. So it was made up, and now you're repeating it.

Now, keeping with this theme of the family for a moment, so Kaepleman questions Aidelson about Wendy and her alleged role in all of this. Because let's not forget, she is considered by investigators to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the death of her ex-husband Dan Markell. So, was Wendy involved? Can we agree that she obviously knew something about this crime? I'm talking about the murder, Dan Markell. She knew something, right? I mean, it's not a coincidence. She went to the crime scene, is it?

She never went to the crime scene. She was going to buy a bottle of liquor that, coincidentally, the person sent her a stocked a bar party for a buy a bottle of bourbon that she was going to pick up. She wasn't driving to a crime scene. She exposed you all to some degree by those actions, didn't she? No, not at all. And then she threw you under the bus in her interview, didn't she? Nobody knew a murder was going to take place. she knew her husband had just been shot and they were asking her who would want him dead and she said your name are you mad about that no she said a lot of people's names well she said yours in the first 25 pages of a five hour interview are you mad that Wendy hasn't been charged and you have no I'm mad that I got charged for a crime that I didn't commit do you have any innate anger with Wendy over that fact no not at all okay now focus

upon the people who were actually charged in the crime. Kaplanman then questions Adelson about why he is continuing to keep Katie happy and doing things for her. Is that the work of a terrified extortion victim or a co-conspirator trying to keep her quiet? What's the purpose of keeping Katie happy? Was she going to sick the Latin Kings on you if you made her unhappy? She was protecting me

I didn't know what would happen And she was keeping my mind Like when that extortion never went up And I just I thought that she wasn't part of it And she was protecting me I mean you're complying with everything They've asked you to do, right?

I'm doing everything that was asked to do And that I said, yeah So why reach out and say Hey can I get you a trip to Key West To go with that extortion money? I never said can I get you a trip to Key West Do you recall all those conversations? Oh, yeah, for sure.

I was trying to do nice things for her. Did you pay for a trip or offer? I guess offer to pay for a trip to Santo Domingo for Catherine Magbanoa and Sigrader Garcia to visit his parents? I didn't know who she was going with, but I paid for it. You're talking about airline tickets? Yes. Yeah.

Did you offer to buy Catherine Magdanoa and her mom accrues? Yes, Katie had mentioned to me that she was. always wanted to be able to take her mom on a cruise can we agree in general that it's important to maintain positive feelings between co-conspirators if you're a co-conspirator with someone in a crime you want to keep positive relationship with that person will you agree with that i'm not a co-conspirator with her were these gifts these things that you provided to katherine mabanawa and her mother and Sifredo Garcia payment for the murder? Okay, I never got Sikfredo a gift in my life.

The guy absolutely hates me, he wants to kill me. Did you receive a text from Catherine Magbanawa that reads, Next time, don't be such a dick to someone who has done something for you? Yeah, she's protecting me, and she's mad at me over something. Are these gifts what it took to secure her silence for so long? No, absolutely not. I was never trying to get her silence. I was hoping she'd tell the truth.

It's up to the jury, folks. It's up to the jury to determine what to make of his explanations. I will tell you it is a bit different. It is a bit strange that he's being so nice to Katie, considering for a moment, even if he didn't know that she was the alleged mastermind behind the extortion plot, according to him, that remember, she told him it was her fault

that she got him roped into all of this. Wouldn't he want to distance himself from her? That's what Kaplan impressed Adelson about. You weren't interested in marrying her. Why are you doing all of this? Why is she in your life? But I'm going to leave you now with the final moment of his cross-examination that I want to call out. So it's actually the number one question I have been asked since Adelson came forward with his theory that he is the extortion victim.

Why would the killers go through the trouble of killing Dan to get money from Charlie Adelson? Why did Garcia and Rivera, or whoever did it, I guess? I should say, why did whoever did it need to kill someone to extort you? You got to ask them. Why couldn't they just come put a gun to your head and say, give me all the money in your safe? Thank God they did. Thank God they didn't.

Thank God they didn't. I would have gotten killed. If Garcia hated you, why would he drive to Tallahassee twice to kill someone you hated? he was it sounds like he was part of the extortion or katie put him up to it i still don't get how killing dan mark hell advances the ball for them to extort money out of you do you yeah i have a theory they could extort me for life and i don't think they knew exactly how much i had in the safe and she knew i had a lot of money in the safe but this way i can get extorted for life and that's what happened and i was paying stuff paying three thousand dollars a month but you could have gotten extorted for life just by the threat of

Death by Latin King, couldn't you, doctor? This was as real the threat as you get. I mean, these guys aren't messing around. All right. You didn't report this after Garcia was arrested, did you? Did not report this after Garcia's arrest? No, not at all. Okay, you did keep paying Catherine Magbanoa after Garcia's arrest?

No. I never saw her again. Did not report this after Magbanon. Anawa's arrest, correct? Correct. Did not testify in either of their trials, correct? Was never contacted, too, but yes. You were okay with the possibility of them getting away with killing Dan Markell. I thought the truth was going to come out in 2019.

How? If the witness who knows something doesn't come forward. Katie knows what happens and knows I was extorted and her trial was in 19 and I was expecting the truth to come out then. And instead, I found out that she was having this affair with him on me, and she lied. And all this money was going to her. So if her defense had been, I was an innocent conduit to an extortion, you would have backed her up on that? If she would have come in and told the truth and you, yeah, for sure, you would have heard the same story. Okay, yeah, a few things here.

Why killed Dan Markell to extort Charlie Adelson? Does that make sense? Maybe it's to show that, hey, we're serious people. Maybe it's to frame Charlie Adelson somewhat. The other point, and this was a common theme under cross-examination, was that, Charlie, you never came forward with your supposed truth when the killers were arrested. Wasn't the danger gone? You didn't come forward and you knew Magbanawa was innocent when she was arrested.

You could have exonerated her. You could have done something. But you just let her rot away, someone you cared about? Sure, sure. Now you claim that she was part of this plot to, extort you, but when she was first arrested in 2016 and you claim you didn't know that, you didn't come forward. You could save their life.

And I'll couple that with another theme. You were so nervous to not go to police about this because you were afraid for your life and your family's life. You didn't go to prosecutors for the same reason, but you end up telling your mom? Yeah, he testified that he told his mom that he was being extorted, which on one hand doesn't make a whole lot of sense because now you are wrapping her up. you're wrapping your mother in all of this, potentially endangering her life if this extortion plot is real. But he claims, on the other hand, that he wanted her to know. He wanted someone

to know because if he gets killed, at least someone would know the truth. So again, it goes back to this idea, do Edelson's actions make sense? Is his story credible? We're going to see. We still got closing arguments and then we'll hear that verdict for ourselves. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.

You can binge all episodes of this Law and Crime series. Add free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.