"You do understand essentially you were defrauding the Department of Children and Families to try and get insurance for your children?" "Yes ma'am" *DCF has entered the chat*
We've seen her say, "Bless you" multiple times throughout this trial to someone sneezing, yet she didn't bat an eye when Dan Markel's heart stopped beating due to her actions and her part in this, did she? Keep playing innocent honey.
Seems that way. I don't see Charlie going to Garcia directly. And the thought of Charlie going to Luis and Luis picking Garcia by chance as a partner is ridiculous.
Am I understanding this. Correctly that the main purpose for them wanting him dead was so wendi could take the kids and move? You can def see straight through these people. They need to arrest the family for sure ... they were all in on it
Wendi's really wicket. It's cruel of her to get rid of the kids dad and erase their surname. Hope their paternal grandparents will step in for the innocent kids.
The state and the IRS need to come after her for fraud. Cash tips are considered income and she should have to pay taxes and also shouldn't have qualified for any state assistance with how much money she had coming in!! Ridiculous
Ms katie very casually says he was the father of my kids n i go to him for help...yet she keeps running to charlie...so very easily...very obvious she is lying...n repeats question again before answering back.
I tend to agree … which complicates the situation. Possible this would be her normal behavior regardless of a homicide. And, obviously Wendi used Jeffrey as a decoy for police to chase down ("I see why he; Jeffrey would make a good suspect". Wendi in her police interrogation.) Thus, it has to be asked could Charlie have done the same? Wendi and Charlie both started dating these 2 at the same time; fall of 2013. Just after Charlie checked into hiring a hitman in the summer of 2013 (allegedly per his sister Wendi's confession to Jeffrey). Wendi 'breaks up' with Jeffrey the week of Dan's homicide. Charlie 'breaks up' or starts ghosting Katie around the time Rivera; the original JUNE hitman, is incarcerated. And, Katie's Adelson Institute checks stop at this time as well from Donna. The day after the homicide Katie receives a phone call from Charlie. He tells her his brother (in law) has been in an 'accident' and he needs to go to Tallahassee for a few days to help his sister. If she's the 'conduit' this phone call would be (strange) because she would already know about a murder. But, more (strange) than that is why isn't Charlie being honest with Katie … ? Who describes a murder or death as an 'accident'. No wonder Katie and or the co-worker probably presumed (car) accident. Most people might. Presuming they're being honest. Charlie Adelson is reportedly not in Tallahassee to 'help' Wendi. He did not attend his brother in laws funeral services. (Did he paint the town red w/ other females?) Tara Kawass and State's prosecution …. should be pulling Charlie's cell phone records for that time period ASAP. If Charlie never discussed the homicide with Katie (and she really never knew like Jessica Hernandez also claims she never knew) …. then Katie has to KNOW that Charlie is up to his eyeballs in this and their relationship was never real. But, (them) not talking about it could also look just as suspect. But, they continued seeing each other …. and that just seems a bit awkward? Thus, I can't forget what wire taps heard Garcia tell Katie; just before his arrest, when she asked what's going on? "The LESS you know the better". Thus, possible he may have never told her as well. Or, he's about to commit another (similar) crime …. and he DOESN'T tell her about them. Thus, GARCIA may have been hired by 'the lady' just as Rivera testified. [To bad Rivera can't say if 'the lady' was from Miami or Tallahassee. It would the State's job 'easier' to bring charges.] That's why the State wants Katie to spill the beans so badly. But, what if she doesn't have any beans to spill? Now, even Katie admits after listening to the evidence during trial that Charlie is probably involved some how but she has no direct knowledge. At one point Rivera let it slip out that he thought Garcia and Wendi had 'met' and that Garcia had been to Tallahassee on multiple occasions but, then back tracked and stated he wasn't sure. So, he didn't want to say for sure as part of his plea deal. That's HUGE … but, State doesn't want to take that route. Now, he points to …. Katie? With the State hanging other charges over his head. If Jeffrey Lacasse had a 'do-over' (besides perhaps contacting LE about the 2013 murder for hire confession) I bet it would be he wished he had at least asked Wendi for more details. Who? How? What kind of people did he meet with? Apparently, Charlie didn't need Katie in the summer of 2013; they hadn't met. But, within 3 months it appears Brother and Sister had a plan … if necessary. At the very least Wendi. (Just need to see who scheduled her TV repair appt.) The State can't discredit their own 'main' witness …. who is Rivera. And, Rivera claims Garcia was being hired by 'the lady'. Neither would call Katie 'the lady'. ("I'm fixing to get hired. This lady is going to hire me" so Rivera claims) Thus, the state would need to show that connection. Not Charlie - Katie - Garcia but, Wendi/Donna - Garcia - (Katie +/-) or Wendi/Donna - Katie - Garcia And, Wendi acts as if she can barely recognize or recall Katie until presented with a beach photo. And, recalls 1 dinner with the (4) ... Charlie, Katie, Jeffrey, Wendi. The trick is finding out how Donna or Wendi knew how to contact Garcia and how one or the other knew he was the person for the job. The answer to their problem.
@I LOVE YOU So how many times, have you posted this exact statement? I see it everywhere. And yet, so few acknowledge it. You really hate women, it is very obvious. I feel very sorry for you. I hope you will seek counseling. There are obviously deep wounds.
I would like to see what her appearance was when she worked as a bottle girl. The little girl with French braids and the glasses, no makeup, is for the benefit of the jury I m sure.
I came here to say the same thing! Maybe Georgia wanted to move it along so she kept quiet. Also, when Katie gives the wrong answer to the leading question, her attorney repeats the answer, and then Katie changes it to what it's supposed to be or suddenly can't remember. It's so odd. I wonder if this is why she was such a train wreck on the stand in the second trial, Tara wasn't testifying for her.
It’s insane to me that they thought they were gonna get away with this. Like if you’re gonna put a hit on someone how abt not renting the car you’re gonna use to do it with under your name or get someone who’s linked to you to do it and they pay them through checks lmao like they’re just not very smart man. Then Wendi drives to the scene lol like cmon man
This really looks so rehearsed and her lawyer is leading completely every question... she acts like she doesn’t know or like if she is thinking and then answers for example when they asked about the car just to cover her up!!! I don’t believe her she is lying!!
I think the problem is that she is a good liar. Most people can't take the witness stand in their own defense and remain this composed, which is why criminal defendants rarely take the stand. Georgia Cappleman is probably one of the top homocide prosecutors in that office, and she really did not get much out of Katie on cross examination. At the end of the day, two or three jurors voted to acquit. In my opinion, her testimony probably played a part in this.
@@russellmuscle7434 doesn't seem like she had much time for them and neither seemed like role models. Hopefully they are in a good environment now. Out of gang life.
She didn’t like looking a Sigfredo phone and seeing him communicating with other women but it was Ok for her to talk non stop with Charlie when she got back with Sigfredo.
She’s so full of it, on her best behavior here , not buying a single word she says. Guilty hope they lock her up forever! Just greedy & evil! RIP Danny Markel , Lord plz comfort his family & see that justice is done! 😞❤️🙏
She has no money for insurance for her kids but she does have money for implants. Both parents in jail for murder. Sad for the kids. She is clearly not a moral person but she doesn't seem guilty of anything other than stupidity. If all these people are in jail why is Charlie not there with them. Absolutely incredible!
@@nt9476 She waived her right to a speedy trial & was denied a pretrial release bond. 2nd trial start date is 10/4/21. Also if you’re interested- Crime & Justice by Mentor Lawyer channel posted the interview he did with 1 of the 2 jurors who deadlocked in this trial. 🙂
Health care cost on the ACA in florida during that time was about $700 per month. Not having the augmentation would have paid for 6 months of health care. She would have needed insurance in excess of what the surgery costs. But I understand your point. However, that is not evidence she was involved in a crime other that misleading the system so kids can have health care.
Lisa Pully My guess is so those details come out to the jury first under the controlled circumstance of her own attorney bringing it to light, rather than seeming like it was hidden and therefore “shocking” when the questions are first brought up under cross examination.
Agreed. Her lawyer did a horrific job of representing her. She shed negative light on Katherine every single turn! And, she did not follow it up with any sort of defense! Unbelievable.
When you listen to her wire tap conversations you know without a doubt she is a thoug from the other side of the tracks, innocent she is NOT. At times she repeated some of the questions asked giving her time to think of another lie.
This lady defense attorney gets on my nerves. She attacks everything.! Not a good tactic. Its almost like they are working fir Adelsons through this defendant.
Was Katie put on the payroll of Charlie's dental business so that her children would have Med. Ins. Cov.? Or, was this for the purpose of laundering Katies portion of blood money through his dental business. Donna writes the checks. Katie said she was to collect the rental payments of Charlie's tenants but because the tenants were difficult she stopped. We have only Katie's word. She's a liar but it's possible money was laundered. That is racketeering. 20yrs.1 I wonder how long she was doing this. Was it true or not. And was any of this money laundried Charlie did a FAVOR for Katie by covering her children under his employees Medical Ins. Cov. Katie better be an employee, otherwise it's illegal. Working for Charlie is BS. Pretense only to explain where the rain fall came from. Thousands of dollars in Katie's bank can't be explained away by favors and employment. Lexus too is a pay off. She can say she paid $1,700. I bet she paid zero. Gawd. Do they think they can outsmart the LE, DA's office and all the other experts on this case?
She admitted to three favors Charlie did for her hired her to help defraud the DCF for insurance, breast argumentation, a car for just 1700$ and god knows what else Like why would a guy your sleeping with occasionally do all this??
She got back with her baby daddy also stayed in contact with Charlie. They referenced an ex never mentioned her name. She was not the last ex girlfriend because she was never a girlfriend right? According to her in her whole testimony.
I hope Sigfredo didn’t do it- but he did. He seems very sensitive. He was crying in the last video, not sure why. They are all involved and the dumb and dumber murderers made too many mistakes on the road. Tickets, Shooting the gas line of their own car, text messages with coded numbers that correlate with the FBIs sting number. Geesh
What's surprising is the defendant and particularly her attorney seem oblivious to the cultural differences between the defendant and the jury and how those differences may be perceived negatively. Given the fact that the defendant's freedom, and possibly her life, were at stake, I would have guessed that they would have gone out of their way to minimize these differences and try to manage the perceptions. I can't imagine how they could be oblivious to the fact that repeated use of street slang ("ghosting"), and street nicknames ("Shrimp"), and casual use of terms referring to what are essentially illegal acts ("what did you make 'on paper'") feeds into negative stereotypes and are likely create a negative impression in the eyes of the jury -- impressions that could influence their deliberations. It is the responsibility, indeed the duty, of the defendant's attorney be aware of such factors and to take steps within the bounds of professional ethics to mitigate the risks associated with them. Strangely, it seems it was the defendant's attorney, more than the defendant herself, who engaged in the unnecessary and almost gratuitous use of street language. So I'm curious. • Are the concerns I describe above simply not anything to be concerned about in the first place? • Or, are they realistic concerns but the defendant's attorney was unaware of them? • Or, the defendant's attorney was aware of them but just didn't do a good job managing the issue? • Or, the defendant's attorney was aware of them and did do a good job managing the issue?
Dan Stewart Agrred. It’s called professionalism, or in this case, lack there of. A good attorney should attempt to make the client clear of all prejudices that could sway the jury in the opposite direction. Your observation and conclusion is dead on, no pun intended. The last thing any attorney should want for the client is your client looking or sounding guilty because of their vocabulary. It shows that she was definitely unprepared.
@@floydedwards3511 are you aware of the health conditions of her attorneys before the initial trial and the evidence that was withheld until late in process? For as bad as you describe she got a hung jury.
Barbara Delarwelle If the person is deemed a flight risk or danger to the community (usually in homicide cases or other violent crimes) the accused will be denied pre-trial release (no bond will be allowed) and the defendant will be in prison until trial. In this case, pre-trial took 3 years
Of course Katie knew what was going on when Charlie called her about that suspicious call. Katie knew darn will, but continues to straight up lie. Someone has to break her of these constant lies.
@@robhurt7968 that’s what I thought. I didn’t remember it being a Benz but I think it was older Lexus also and he might have been selling it to her for really cheap. Not saying that the extra money isn’t for the murder because it definitely is .
@@my1vice Yes, I know the values. My family has owned a new/used card dealership since 1941, that I worked in for over 10 years (sales and finance). Whether it was a Benz or a Lexus (I thought she said it was a Mercedes Benz, this was over a year ago though), that price was still low. We know what the difference went to.
That’s what’s wrong with the system, government is awarding people to work less or not working b/c if they make a certain amount they will not qualify for freebies so they rather stay home or work to make less than what the government guidelines and these people knows how to get around the systems.
To me, she comes off as quite credible. I typically believe the prosecution but I wonder about this one. She could be innocent. I will wait for cross before I decide for sure.
In order for her to be credible we have to believe that "Mr. Big" Charlie Adelson wanted Dan dead, and it JUST SO HAPPENS that the Ex of his ex-girlfriend goes and kills the guy, a complete stranger, for no reason. Charlie thought he was slick, but he never thought the plot would be uncovered so quickly. His trial should be next.
Did you hear the wiretapped calls? Every other word was F@#* and those conversations showed her true character. She’s a criminal. The defense trained her well. It’s their job.
Check day 7 parts 1-3. There are short calls then some more lengthy, and the repetitious conversation , very hard to keep listening....!!! Ms. M and Mr. A tend to fuel each other...But part 3 of day 7 is probably what you are trying to hear....jmo
@Vee Ay Who cares about the expletives in the call. We all say things differently when we think we are in private. My point was about her credibility on the stand. She obviously didn't hurt herself since the jury hung.
The FBI pulled the theory of Katherine being involved out of thin air. Then they suggested it to Luis who embraced it with open arms and here we stand today; an innocent girl charged with murder
How else do you explain the connection between a wealthy, professional family and 2 big gang members. She is the ONLY connection. There is ZERO evidence to show there was any other motive for the murder and ZERO evidence that there was any other connection at all except for Katy. She was clearly the middle man
@@MK-jt7dq Apart from the fact that I believe Katie 100% and Luis Rivera 0%, I can't see Katie wanting to be involved "Oh yes, Charlie, I'll ask my children's dad who hates you to go and kill someone for you". No way Charlie is asking and no way Sigfredo is agreeing to it. No, this was Luis Rivera's hit. Through Charlie's drug supply chain the king of the Latin Kings learns about the opportunity and as king he wants to prove that he is badass enough to be king For me, Sigfredo was no more than an unlucky, unwilling passenger and witness to the homicide. As for Katie, she knew nothing at all about any of it It's inexcusable that Georgia Cappleman and her Prosecution team haven't worked that out by now but they have invested so much time into pursuing the wrong person, they have been blinded by their own theory
Adelsons wanted Dan dead. “Friends” of Katie execute Dan. These “friends” didn’t even know Dan or where he lived. These friends also didn’t have any relationship with Charlie. Cash flow and communication spikes post murder between all 3 parties. She is the link. Without her, Dan would be alive. She is guilty AF.
I have a question: Does a Defendant have a right to have a trial that does not include co-Defendants? Do Defendants have a right to their own trial? Why would Katie Magbanua want to have her case tried alongside Garcia? And even more -- why would Garcia want to have his case tried alongside Magbanua?
@@patrickisidore7640 Yes I understand that from the States position they want to save their resources and only need to go through this process once. They want to get two birds with one stone and yes, the case is basically the same set of facts and evidence. So yes, I get it, the state wants to try them together. However, my question was do they have a right to have separate trials if they want that. it seems to me that there is a huge conflict of interest brewing where Katy would want to distance herself as far from sigfried as she could. She should have hung her hat on the statement by sigfried when he was on the phone with her and he said words to the effect, "You have no idea what is really going on". She could have said, "I thought sigfried and the other guy had done some work for Charlie whom Sigfried did meet with"... but she could have said she thought they did some construction project for him at the home or office... Then she could have said, "Yeah I dropped off a bag of money for them, but I never looked in the bag --- it was stapled shut. It wasn't mine, so I never bothered to look in it -- in any event I thought that it had maybe 4 or 5 thousand in the bag because they put in a sound system for charlie (or whatever it was) I was only dropping off the bag because I was headed that way. I had no idea there was closes to 100 thousand dollars in the bag, and I had no idea the job they did for Charlie was murder. I didn't know". Now for her to take that position she would basically have to point the finger at Sigfried, but what is the difference really? It seems to me that Sigfried's case was fairly tight around him. He had no chance of winning his case. So from a Defensive point of view I think that Caty would want to be tried after sigfried and if sigried gets convicted then point the finger at him - there is really no other choice. Another thing I wonder is this: Why didn't Sigfried take the stand and tell everyone that Katy had nothng to do with it - that she had no idea what was really going on - she thought we were putting a new back patio" -- something like that - anything like that at all -- and maybe his children would at least have a mom. So you see how the whole thing is a conflict of interest for the two Defences... Sigfried needs to deny that there ever was a bag of money... and at the same time if katy can explain what the bag of money was all about then she should be able to say she had no knowledge of a murder for hire.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
She's TRYING TO ACT innocent. She's lying thru her teeth. I hope she is found guilty. Justice for Dan
I'm hoping that through the phone calls, where she is her real self, the jury say to themselves, 'what a bunch of crock!'
Wendi was the least credible witness …. more so than Rivera. Jeffrey, Magbanua and expert witnesses were the most credible.
Hey, they didn't find her guilty so she must have done something right. I wasn't too sure what her lawyer, the female, was getting at half the time.
I agree we can lying criminal face, trying too hard to look innocent.
Lisa, Where can I listen to the phone recordings? I can't find them. Thanks
She knows what the term “Ghosting” means, but she claims she doesn’t know what the term “Burner phone” is . 🤔 she’s lying 🤷🏾♂️
That was laughable.
Did you give the car back?...”🤔I thiiink I did” ......TF!,
It wasn’t a book, it wasn’t a jacket....girl bye🤥
Lol
"I can make 1500 a shift in da club" but hits her b/f up for a job that pays 200/week....
LoL
"You do understand essentially you were defrauding the Department of Children and Families to try and get insurance for your children?" "Yes ma'am" *DCF has entered the chat*
DCF doesn’t have any use for her or any of them now!!😉
We've seen her say, "Bless you" multiple times throughout this trial to someone sneezing, yet she didn't bat an eye when Dan Markel's heart stopped beating due to her actions and her part in this, did she? Keep playing innocent honey.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Very true
She's a great actress
Narcissistic
Please tell me what did she do in relation to the murder? She acted as a go between but I am not sure how?
She can't even explain what personal assistant job she did for Charlie...more like working in his bed
She’s the only link between the two sides of the tracks. 🤷🏼♀️ No way she’s innocent.
Seems that way.
I don't see Charlie going to Garcia directly. And the thought of Charlie going to Luis and Luis picking Garcia by chance as a partner is ridiculous.
@@my1vice Plus Garcia hates Charlie for sleeping with Katie.
Am I understanding this. Correctly that the main purpose for them wanting him dead was so wendi could take the kids and move? You can def see straight through these people. They need to arrest the family for sure ... they were all in on it
I second that Allison
Wendi's really wicket. It's cruel of her to get rid of the kids dad and erase their surname. Hope their paternal grandparents will step in for the innocent kids.
I believe that Danny was going to go after full custody as well.
Katie described herself as being distraught! Katie you got yourself involved in a murder for hire so how do you think you should feel Katie?
Not right that the very people who arranged all this get away with everything.
Great point
She talks about the “bracket for insurance” but it sounds more like she was defrauding Medicaid.
Which is exactly what her lawyer said.
That is exactly what she was doing. As well as avoiding reporting the income to the IRS
Guilty, guilty, guilty
Earning so much in the night clubs, why looking always for other jobs?
The state and the IRS need to come after her for fraud. Cash tips are considered income and she should have to pay taxes and also shouldn't have qualified for any state assistance with how much money she had coming in!! Ridiculous
The 5 year statute of limitations was already up at the time of this trial. That's why she admitted to it.
Good god what difference does it make now? She is in jail for a long time. She has no means to compensate for this. You sound like a government hack
Happens 24/7 unfortunately
She got life anyway lol. Makes no difference now
OH YAY! She really did? I’m way behind in this case. I had a feeling, good to hear
Ms katie very casually says he was the father of my kids n i go to him for help...yet she keeps running to charlie...so very easily...very obvious she is lying...n repeats question again before answering back.
This girl is clearly an opportunist.
I tend to agree … which complicates the situation. Possible this would be her normal behavior regardless of a homicide. And, obviously Wendi used Jeffrey as a decoy for police to chase down ("I see why he; Jeffrey would make a good suspect". Wendi in her police interrogation.) Thus, it has to be asked could Charlie have done the same? Wendi and Charlie both started dating these 2 at the same time; fall of 2013. Just after Charlie checked into hiring a hitman in the summer of 2013 (allegedly per his sister Wendi's confession to Jeffrey). Wendi 'breaks up' with Jeffrey the week of Dan's homicide. Charlie 'breaks up' or starts ghosting Katie around the time Rivera; the original JUNE hitman, is incarcerated. And, Katie's Adelson Institute checks stop at this time as well from Donna.
The day after the homicide Katie receives a phone call from Charlie. He tells her his brother (in law) has been in an 'accident' and he needs to go to Tallahassee for a few days to help his sister. If she's the 'conduit' this phone call would be (strange) because she would already know about a murder. But, more (strange) than that is why isn't Charlie being honest with Katie … ? Who describes a murder or death as an 'accident'. No wonder Katie and or the co-worker probably presumed (car) accident. Most people might. Presuming they're being honest.
Charlie Adelson is reportedly not in Tallahassee to 'help' Wendi. He did not attend his brother in laws funeral services. (Did he paint the town red w/ other females?)
Tara Kawass and State's prosecution …. should be pulling Charlie's cell phone records for that time period ASAP.
If Charlie never discussed the homicide with Katie (and she really never knew like Jessica Hernandez also claims she never knew) …. then Katie has to KNOW that Charlie is up to his eyeballs in this and their relationship was never real.
But, (them) not talking about it could also look just as suspect. But, they continued seeing each other …. and that just seems a bit awkward?
Thus, I can't forget what wire taps heard Garcia tell Katie; just before his arrest, when she asked what's going on? "The LESS you know the better".
Thus, possible he may have never told her as well. Or, he's about to commit another (similar) crime …. and he DOESN'T tell her about them.
Thus, GARCIA may have been hired by 'the lady' just as Rivera testified. [To bad Rivera can't say if 'the lady' was from Miami or Tallahassee. It would the State's job 'easier' to bring charges.]
That's why the State wants Katie to spill the beans so badly. But, what if she doesn't have any beans to spill? Now, even Katie admits after listening to the evidence during trial that Charlie is probably involved some how but she has no direct knowledge.
At one point Rivera let it slip out that he thought Garcia and Wendi had 'met' and that Garcia had been to Tallahassee on multiple occasions but, then back tracked and stated he wasn't sure. So, he didn't want to say for sure as part of his plea deal. That's HUGE … but, State doesn't want to take that route.
Now, he points to …. Katie? With the State hanging other charges over his head.
If Jeffrey Lacasse had a 'do-over' (besides perhaps contacting LE about the 2013 murder for hire confession) I bet it would be he wished he had at least asked Wendi for more details. Who? How? What kind of people did he meet with?
Apparently, Charlie didn't need Katie in the summer of 2013; they hadn't met.
But, within 3 months it appears Brother and Sister had a plan … if necessary.
At the very least Wendi. (Just need to see who scheduled her TV repair appt.)
The State can't discredit their own 'main' witness …. who is Rivera.
And, Rivera claims Garcia was being hired by 'the lady'. Neither would call Katie 'the lady'. ("I'm fixing to get hired. This lady is going to hire me" so Rivera claims)
Thus, the state would need to show that connection. Not Charlie - Katie - Garcia but, Wendi/Donna - Garcia - (Katie +/-) or Wendi/Donna - Katie - Garcia
And, Wendi acts as if she can barely recognize or recall Katie until presented with a beach photo. And, recalls 1 dinner with the (4) ... Charlie, Katie, Jeffrey, Wendi.
The trick is finding out how Donna or Wendi knew how to contact Garcia and how one or the other knew he was the person for the job. The answer to their problem.
These attorneys need a basic resource that I have used since age seven: It's called a THESAURUS
lol
They’re terrible liars.
@I LOVE YOU So how many times, have you posted this exact statement? I see it everywhere. And yet, so few acknowledge it.
You really hate women, it is very obvious. I feel very sorry for you. I hope you will seek counseling. There are obviously deep wounds.
Charlie's mom never said Katie's name at first. So why would she be the ex-girlfriend that he automatically thought of???
Cause Charlie hired only one ex gf & that would be Katie lol to kill Dan.
I would like to see what her appearance was when she worked as a bottle girl. The little girl with French braids and the glasses, no makeup, is for the benefit of the jury I m sure.
narmrn she’s ugly
They did show a pic. She looks like the person she truly is
She’s ugly and extremely unattractive
Charlie seems to have dropped his standards with this one.
@@my1vice charlie was also a male prostitute 😂
This entire scenario w Katie is one big joke. She is acting so surprised, this is such a waste if time & lies w Katie.
Katie has the mouth.....
justice for Dan markel
Damn, just say it girl, "we were friends with benefits." Hell, not every woman can say she was able to "snag" a Doctor/Dentist.
Why is the prosecution not doing continual objections about this defense attorney?? She is leading the witness on almost every question!!
I came here to say the same thing! Maybe Georgia wanted to move it along so she kept quiet.
Also, when Katie gives the wrong answer to the leading question, her attorney repeats the answer, and then Katie changes it to what it's supposed to be or suddenly can't remember. It's so odd.
I wonder if this is why she was such a train wreck on the stand in the second trial, Tara wasn't testifying for her.
Because it was terrible defense that kept proving the state’s theory.
As Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Sometimes you want to wait and do it on cross. Some jurors think the other side must be winning if you object too much.
They want her talking. It’s to their benefit.
If your going to do criminal activity stay Off the phones smh
Guwop 313 use telegram . Cops can’t get them to reveal data
Always
"This was 5 years ago... you look different now. Why?" LOL
Jail puts weight on a person!!
It’s insane to me that they thought they were gonna get away with this. Like if you’re gonna put a hit on someone how abt not renting the car you’re gonna use to do it with under your name or get someone who’s linked to you to do it and they pay them through checks lmao like they’re just not very smart man. Then Wendi drives to the scene lol like cmon man
This really looks so rehearsed and her lawyer is leading completely every question... she acts like she doesn’t know or like if she is thinking and then answers for example when they asked about the car just to cover her up!!! I don’t believe her she is lying!!
I think the problem is that she is a good liar. Most people can't take the witness stand in their own defense and remain this composed, which is why criminal defendants rarely take the stand. Georgia Cappleman is probably one of the top homocide prosecutors in that office, and she really did not get much out of Katie on cross examination. At the end of the day, two or three jurors voted to acquit. In my opinion, her testimony probably played a part in this.
she’s gotten herself and her kids father in A MESS!! no one suffers more than the kids. the rest of their lives without their parents
I think given that these are they're parents..... those kids lucked out
@@russellmuscle7434 doesn't seem like she had much time for them and neither seemed like role models. Hopefully they are in a good environment now. Out of gang life.
The kids weren’t that important to either of them, getting involved with murder proves that.
She didn’t like looking a Sigfredo phone and seeing him communicating with other women but it was Ok for her to talk non stop with Charlie when she got back with Sigfredo.
Katie is very guilty of this crime
Pigface Magbanua polished to look innocent. Yes, we can see she is guilty but the jury seems like was sleeping.
She’s so full of it, on her best behavior here , not buying a single word she says. Guilty hope they lock her up forever! Just greedy & evil! RIP Danny Markel , Lord plz comfort his family & see that justice is done! 😞❤️🙏
Yeah she pure evil
Katie asks for these breaks w taxes because she has kids. Who made you have these kids?? Katie, you are no exception to the rules.
Yet she could fork out money for breast implants. Classy n
This lady is not A Good Liar!
She came across as flippant and detached. Definitely hurt her case
I don't believe a word this girl says.
Isn’t it her lawyer questioning her in the beginning.? Every question Katie answers she answers it as if it’s a trick question it’s so weird
Guilty better do a plea deal really a plea deal cuz u will get life
You can see right through the "gloss of decency" and know right away what was really going on. Disgusting lives.
I agree.
She has no money for insurance for her kids but she does have money for implants.
Both parents in jail for murder. Sad for the kids.
She is clearly not a moral person but she doesn't seem guilty of anything other than stupidity.
If all these people are in jail why is Charlie not there with them. Absolutely incredible!
Magbanua has not been convicted for murder. She is currently in jail awaiting her 2nd trial.
@@mimikay5421 what is she in jail for?
@@nt9476
She waived her right to a speedy trial & was denied a pretrial release bond.
2nd trial start date is 10/4/21.
Also if you’re interested-
Crime & Justice by Mentor Lawyer channel posted the interview he did with 1 of the 2 jurors who deadlocked in this trial. 🙂
I’m shocked you don’t think there is clear and beyond a reasonable doubt evidence of her guilt, because I do.
Health care cost on the ACA in florida during that time was about $700 per month. Not having the augmentation would have paid for 6 months of health care. She would have needed insurance in excess of what the surgery costs. But I understand your point. However, that is not evidence she was involved in a crime other that misleading the system so kids can have health care.
Lesson learned here. .never have too many hands in the cookie jar.
Why does it seem to me that her lawyer is throwing her under the bus asking her these questions? It's not making her look innocent at all 🤦🤷
Lisa Pully My guess is so those details come out to the jury first under the controlled circumstance of her own attorney bringing it to light, rather than seeming like it was hidden and therefore “shocking” when the questions are first brought up under cross examination.
@@SarahB-zj8rz Ditto
Agreed. Her lawyer did a horrific job of representing her. She shed negative light on Katherine every single turn! And, she did not follow it up with any sort of defense! Unbelievable.
The defense did basically work, though. It ended in a mistrial.
I hope they get her on tax fraud too. LOL
She’s in prison for life and indignant .
Her boyfriend had killed people before and she knew that. She is putting on an innocent act
for the jury.
she stumbled a lot when explaining what she did when she worked for the Dr
When you listen to her wire tap conversations you know without a doubt she is a thoug from the other side of the tracks, innocent she is NOT. At times she repeated some of the questions asked giving her time to think of another lie.
This prosecution could be better.
She is So Guilty!! 🙄 And most of her answers are , “ I don’t know, I can’t recall “… Life in Prison with No parole! 💯
Do you really think that Katie would be honest w you when saying anything about Charlie.???
LEADING LEADING LEADING -
Please ask Katie why she thinks she's entitled to all of the freebies & cash money & bennies she gets from the Adelsons.
She might say it was paid off for sleeping with charlie.
This lady defense attorney gets on my nerves. She attacks everything.! Not a good tactic. Its almost like they are working fir Adelsons through this defendant.
Was Katie put on the payroll of Charlie's dental business so that her children would have Med. Ins. Cov.? Or, was this for the purpose of laundering Katies portion of blood money through his dental business. Donna writes the checks.
Katie said she was to collect the rental payments of Charlie's tenants but because the tenants were difficult she stopped. We have only Katie's word. She's a liar but it's possible money was laundered. That is racketeering. 20yrs.1
I wonder how long she was doing this. Was it true or not. And was any of this money laundried
Charlie did a FAVOR for Katie by covering her children under his employees Medical Ins. Cov. Katie better be an employee, otherwise it's illegal.
Working for Charlie is BS. Pretense only to explain where the rain fall came from. Thousands of dollars in Katie's bank can't be explained away by favors and employment.
Lexus too is a pay off. She can say she paid $1,700. I bet she paid zero.
Gawd. Do they think they can outsmart the LE, DA's office and all the other experts on this case?
She didn't get medical while working for Charlie, it was mostly under the table so she could get insurance through the state.
Three years in pre-trial detention..."innocent 'till proven guilty" right 🤔
I know the lawyer didn't have much of a case, but she's awful.
Garcia got in a motorcycle accident & then she got into a car accident. Too bad they didnt get full karma.
She admitted to three favors Charlie did for her hired her to help defraud the DCF for insurance, breast argumentation, a car for just 1700$ and god knows what else
Like why would a guy your sleeping with occasionally do all this??
She even refers to them as favors. Even worked for Charlie’s “roommate”
He hired her to collect rent payment for difficult tenants. Why her? How was she suppose to accomplish that?
I mean she fraud her way through life that’s an indication of her terrible character.
She got back with her baby daddy also stayed in contact with Charlie. They referenced an ex never mentioned her name. She was not the last ex girlfriend because she was never a girlfriend right? According to her in her whole testimony.
She talks about dolce vita on 35:06
I hope Sigfredo didn’t do it- but he did. He seems very sensitive. He was crying in the last video, not sure why. They are all involved and the dumb and dumber murderers made too many mistakes on the road. Tickets, Shooting the gas line of their own car, text messages with coded numbers that correlate with the FBIs sting number. Geesh
They were drunk and coked up the entire trip so of course they made a bunch of mistakes. The Adelsons didn't get their money's worth.
What's surprising is the defendant and particularly her attorney seem oblivious to the cultural differences between the defendant and the jury and how those differences may be perceived negatively.
Given the fact that the defendant's freedom, and possibly her life, were at stake, I would have guessed that they would have gone out of their way to minimize these differences and try to manage the perceptions.
I can't imagine how they could be oblivious to the fact that repeated use of street slang ("ghosting"), and street nicknames ("Shrimp"), and casual use of terms referring to what are essentially illegal acts ("what did you make 'on paper'") feeds into negative stereotypes and are likely create a negative impression in the eyes of the jury -- impressions that could influence their deliberations.
It is the responsibility, indeed the duty, of the defendant's attorney be aware of such factors and to take steps within the bounds of professional ethics to mitigate the risks associated with them.
Strangely, it seems it was the defendant's attorney, more than the defendant herself, who engaged in the unnecessary and almost gratuitous use of street language.
So I'm curious.
• Are the concerns I describe above simply not anything to be concerned about in the first place?
• Or, are they realistic concerns but the defendant's attorney was unaware of them?
• Or, the defendant's attorney was aware of them but just didn't do a good job managing the issue?
• Or, the defendant's attorney was aware of them and did do a good job managing the issue?
Dan Stewart Agrred. It’s called professionalism, or in this case, lack there of. A good attorney should attempt to make the client clear of all prejudices that could sway the jury in the opposite direction. Your observation and conclusion is dead on, no pun intended. The last thing any attorney should want for the client is your client looking or sounding guilty because of their vocabulary. It shows that she was definitely unprepared.
Very valid and great point. I agree that the attorney should've avoided doing that at all costs and should have advised Katy to do the same
@@floydedwards3511 are you aware of the health conditions of her attorneys before the initial trial and the evidence that was withheld until late in process? For as bad as you describe she got a hung jury.
Once in a while you come across meaningful and educational comments this is one of them.
You're forgetting it's a jury of her peers (Florida jury) so likely gang bangers and financial scammers themselves 😆😆😆
So these guys took the fall for that family Jesus
They didn’t take the fall for anyone-they killed a man
and left his children without a father.
she fumbled a bit with what type work she did for charlie
I'm confused...how can a person be incarcerated for 3 years without being convicted of a crime?
Barbara Delarwelle If the person is deemed a flight risk or danger to the community (usually in homicide cases or other violent crimes) the accused will be denied pre-trial release (no bond will be allowed) and the defendant will be in prison until trial. In this case, pre-trial took 3 years
Welcome to the U.S.
We have more folks incarcerated than China and Russia combined.
You also have the right to a speedy trial unless the defense waives that right.
Of course Katie knew what was going on when Charlie called her about that suspicious call. Katie knew darn will, but continues to straight up lie. Someone has to break her of these constant lies.
She didn't know anything about the call because it has was an undercover cop that called.
Does anyone know what kind of speech issue they judge has? At first I thought it was old age, but when I saw him he is not old. Thoughts?
He died in 2023 from glioblastoma (brain tumor), so maybe his speech issue was related to that. I don't know really.
I would like to know what her diet is; this woman's memory is so bad and it's not working in her favor. She is wearing the banner of "GUILT"
Why is her neck so big,
Just listen and watch Luis Rivera's testimony.
$1700 for a Benz?
Come on! We all know the difference was for helping set to the murder!
Was a Lexus .
@@robhurt7968 that’s what I thought. I didn’t remember it being a Benz but I think it was older Lexus also and he might have been selling it to her for really cheap. Not saying that the extra money isn’t for the murder because it definitely is .
It was an LS430..... Lexus.
Today, in 2021, it has a value of 7,500. So in 2014/5? Maybe 11 or 12 thousand.
@@my1vice
Yes, I know the values. My family has owned a new/used card dealership since 1941, that I worked in for over 10 years (sales and finance).
Whether it was a Benz or a Lexus (I thought she said it was a Mercedes Benz, this was over a year ago though), that price was still low. We know what the difference went to.
They’ve owned a dealership since 1941? That’s awesome / interesting.
@snowblo1 She also snagged some serious criminal charges and prison time! Go going😉
This woman isn’t truthful about anything 🙄
Breast ugementation on the expense of someone's life???if it's true, thsts kind of cruel
Breast surgery. Money for kids?
Why is she locked up? 👀
The lawyer questioning her has a speech impediment.
I think it's a Caribbean accent
She cannot pronounce her “r” and it’s making me cringe!
@@Bump688 yes, it’s a Jamaican accent
Because she doesn't have an 'American' accent she has a speech impediment??
couldn't watch this fully uh
Is the prosecutor guyanese or something?
I think trinidad
That gyal been bad fa days boi
Did Katie confess to a crime?
She's not a bright spark....
i wonder why katy testified??
was she made too??
she is terrible on stand...
She did very well in her first trial in my opinion. She was a disaster during the retrial.
RIP professor
Always diffent senarios
Katy is the worst witness/ defendant I've ever seen...pityful
Why does she blink so much
Let GOD, be TRUE, and every man a LIAR!!
Jail doesn’t look good on Katie
Man ... !!! Love The Defense Counsel Accent ...... SEXY .. !!
And she's not playing with her! lol
@@abundantsunflower1107 lol
@@abundantsunflower1107 😂😂😂
She has a speech impediment. I guess there is a lid for every pot.
Long shot : Charlie was working for the FBI - baiting Katie ?
ึ
I like her hair braids 😍
That’s what’s wrong with the system, government is awarding people to work less or not working b/c if they make a certain amount they will not qualify for freebies so they rather stay home or work to make less than what the government guidelines and these people knows how to get around the systems.
what happened to cathy mom ....did she pass away
God has his own way to punish people. Dan's parents did not deserve their intelligent son was taken away by this evil bunch of people.
Yes she did
To me, she comes off as quite credible. I typically believe the prosecution but I wonder about this one. She could be innocent. I will wait for cross before I decide for sure.
In order for her to be credible we have to believe that "Mr. Big" Charlie Adelson wanted Dan dead, and it JUST SO HAPPENS that the Ex of his ex-girlfriend goes and kills the guy, a complete stranger, for no reason. Charlie thought he was slick, but he never thought the plot would be uncovered so quickly. His trial should be next.
Did you hear the wiretapped calls? Every other word was F@#* and those conversations showed her true character. She’s a criminal. The defense trained her well. It’s their job.
Check day 7 parts 1-3. There are short calls then some more lengthy, and the repetitious conversation , very hard to keep listening....!!! Ms. M and Mr. A tend to fuel each other...But part 3 of day 7 is probably what you are trying to hear....jmo
@Vee Ay Who cares about the expletives in the call. We all say things differently when we think we are in private. My point was about her credibility on the stand. She obviously didn't hurt herself since the jury hung.
Ih8brusselssprouts , Please do the country a favor and avoid jury duty using any means possible, because you don’t have a damn clue.
Lady Magbanua is a divine angel! Clearly, her innocence is only exceeded by her beauty. I’d gladly be her husband, and she my queen.
Loser !
WTF? Are you serious???
@@michellededmon6711 … no.
@@Delphi_Primetime thank goodness! I was worried for a minute! Lol
@@michellededmon6711 Lol
She is an innocent angel being persecuted by a runaway prosecutor. God will reward her!!!
The FBI pulled the theory of Katherine being involved out of thin air. Then they suggested it to Luis who embraced it with open arms and here we stand today; an innocent girl charged with murder
How else do you explain the connection between a wealthy, professional family and 2 big gang members. She is the ONLY connection. There is ZERO evidence to show there was any other motive for the murder and ZERO evidence that there was any other connection at all except for Katy. She was clearly the middle man
Idiotic original post.
So what's your theory? Two Miami bangers drive 600 miles and randomly shoot a professor in the face?
@@MK-jt7dq Apart from the fact that I believe Katie 100% and Luis Rivera 0%, I can't see Katie wanting to be involved "Oh yes, Charlie, I'll ask my children's dad who hates you to go and kill someone for you". No way Charlie is asking and no way Sigfredo is agreeing to it. No, this was Luis Rivera's hit. Through Charlie's drug supply chain the king of the Latin Kings learns about the opportunity and as king he wants to prove that he is badass enough to be king
For me, Sigfredo was no more than an unlucky, unwilling passenger and witness to the homicide. As for Katie, she knew nothing at all about any of it
It's inexcusable that Georgia Cappleman and her Prosecution team haven't worked that out by now but they have invested so much time into pursuing the wrong person, they have been blinded by their own theory
Adelsons wanted Dan dead. “Friends” of Katie execute Dan. These “friends” didn’t even know Dan or where he lived. These friends also didn’t have any relationship with Charlie. Cash flow and communication spikes post murder between all 3 parties. She is the link. Without her, Dan would be alive. She is guilty AF.
What a horrible person!
It's crazy that 2 years later they followed the same script as this. Obviously, this didn't work and her story does not make sense.
They hoped prosecution wouldn't be prepared too - similar to them 🤦🏻♀️ she'd be better off with public defender
I have a question: Does a Defendant have a right to have a trial that does not include co-Defendants? Do Defendants have a right to their own trial? Why would Katie Magbanua want to have her case tried alongside Garcia? And even more -- why would Garcia want to have his case tried alongside Magbanua?
They are co-conspirators and are basically facing the same charges that’s why
@@patrickisidore7640 Yes I understand that from the States position they want to save their resources and only need to go through this process once. They want to get two birds with one stone and yes, the case is basically the same set of facts and evidence. So yes, I get it, the state wants to try them together. However, my question was do they have a right to have separate trials if they want that. it seems to me that there is a huge conflict of interest brewing where Katy would want to distance herself as far from sigfried as she could. She should have hung her hat on the statement by sigfried when he was on the phone with her and he said words to the effect, "You have no idea what is really going on". She could have said, "I thought sigfried and the other guy had done some work for Charlie whom Sigfried did meet with"... but she could have said she thought they did some construction project for him at the home or office... Then she could have said, "Yeah I dropped off a bag of money for them, but I never looked in the bag --- it was stapled shut. It wasn't mine, so I never bothered to look in it -- in any event I thought that it had maybe 4 or 5 thousand in the bag because they put in a sound system for charlie (or whatever it was) I was only dropping off the bag because I was headed that way. I had no idea there was closes to 100 thousand dollars in the bag, and I had no idea the job they did for Charlie was murder. I didn't know". Now for her to take that position she would basically have to point the finger at Sigfried, but what is the difference really? It seems to me that Sigfried's case was fairly tight around him. He had no chance of winning his case. So from a Defensive point of view I think that Caty would want to be tried after sigfried and if sigried gets convicted then point the finger at him - there is really no other choice.
Another thing I wonder is this: Why didn't Sigfried take the stand and tell everyone that Katy had nothng to do with it - that she had no idea what was really going on - she thought we were putting a new back patio" -- something like that - anything like that at all -- and maybe his children would at least have a mom.
So you see how the whole thing is a conflict of interest for the two Defences... Sigfried needs to deny that there ever was a bag of money... and at the same time if katy can explain what the bag of money was all about then she should be able to say she had no knowledge of a murder for hire.
Did your tips increase Buahahahahahahaha