TALLAHASSEE — Prosecutors spent the day layering undercover operations, wiretap recordings, and cell-site analysis against Donna Adelson, arguing that even without a direct confession, the evidence shows her knowledge and participation in the plot to murder Dan Markel.
The most dramatic testimony came from an FBI agent who posed as a gang member in 2016. He approached Donna in a staged “bump,” handed her a flyer demanding $5,000, and referenced “Katie” and “Tuto,” code names for the hitmen. The agent admitted Donna never paid, but prosecutors stressed her calm demeanor, failure to contact police, and coded follow-up calls with her son Charlie as signs of “consciousness of guilt.” The defense countered she was startled, confused, and never agreed to anything illegal.
Surveillance agents then described meetings at Dolce Vita and Matsuri restaurants where Charlie Adelson spoke in hushed tones with Catherine Magbanua and his father Harvey. Background noise initially masked the words, but forensic experts enhanced the tapes. Jurors heard references to “Yelp reviews” and a “TV,” which prosecutors say were code for payments and alibis. Defense lawyers urged caution, calling it speculation layered on speculation.
Attention then shifted to technical evidence. Sergeant Corbitt conceded that cell-tower data cannot pinpoint exact locations but testified that records consistently place Donna near Charlie’s home during key communications. The defense highlighted flaws — interference, tower load, and duplicate records — but the prosecution tied the evidence to Donna’s own text saying she was “outside your house,” framing it as corroboration.
The day closed with FBI Special Agent Pat Sanford explaining the broader structure of the conspiracy: Rivera and Garcia as shooters, Magbanua as the go-between, Charlie as the manager, and Donna as an active participant. Wiretap summaries introduced Donna’s role in micro-managing Wendy Adelson’s personal and professional life, with Charlie enlisted as fixer.
The trial stakes sharpened into two questions: Were Donna’s post-bump calls coded admissions or just family chatter? And does the combination of undercover ruses, surveillance, and cell-site data amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or only suspicion?
The jury will decide if circumstantial pieces — undercover approaches, coded conversations, and digital footprints — add up to conspiracy liability. Court resumes tomorrow with more FBI witnesses expected to deepen the government’s case.
Author
Latest entries
Donna Adelson Trial2025-09-05Donna Adelson Found Guilty on All Counts in Dan Markel Murder Case
True Crime2025-09-03Epstein Files: Survivors Break Silence on Capitol Hill
US2025-09-03Cardi B Assault Trial Verdict — She’s Not The Drama
US2025-08-30Jim Crow Era — Louisiana’s Split Juries Problem and the Limits of Retroactivity
