This is third judge since Dan Markel trials began way back when. First 2 judges each has unique qualities that added to interest in the case. This judge promises to be quite interesting as well.
Tomorrow I suspect the coverage may be in silence at times, as prospective jurors are sometimes being referred to by their names. No numbers assigned during this voir dire.
She may not be ‘your type’ but IMO she is a beautiful women in many ways, intelligent, beautiful and I suspect potentially good fun and loyal. In my eyes all the things you wish for in a partner.
Innocence In A Nutshell What a nightmare for Katie - The Undercover drops her name, Charlie unwittingly pulls her into his mess and the FBI mistake concern for her friend's family with complicity in a murder - Nightmare! In the wiretaps Katie tells us she wasn't involved: ¨I don't know the rest of whatever it is, or if my name is really on anything, or if they're even talking about me ...¨ ¨... and I don't know if it's me they're really talking about¨ ¨ ... and I really feel bad if they're not even talking about me" You can throw every other piece of evidence for and against her in the trash. If she doesn't know if The Undercover is talking about her, she isn't involved And you hammer this point home to the jury in closing: "Deliberation should only take you five minutes because there is only one question to ask yourselves: "Why does she not know?" But surely it's not that simple!? Yeah! it is! The FBI planned The Bump meticulously. Its first goal was to make sure that anyone involved knew The Bump was about the murder. And Katie doesn't know The FBI asked the question, set up The Bump and wiretaps, then totally ignored the answer - truly unbelievable! Katie not knowing acquits her outright, just as DNA evidence has done in other cases Katie talks to Sigfredo: "I don't feel secure because you take care of everybody else. Where's my security Tuto? When are you going to step up for me? ... ... because I feel like everybody else gets the special attention. And then Katie you go figure it out, you go figure out the kids, you figure out life, you figure out your apartment" In Katie's eyes this is not Sigfredo's problem. Why? Because she wasn't involved! She has no idea her two 'boyfriends' have conspired to kill someone. She is oblivious Look at it from Katie's perspective: random strangers extorting money from Charlie's family, possibly using her name to do it. That's terrifying for her. She tells us exactly why she wants Sigfredo's support: "Look, can you do me this favour? Because it's like, I'm not a guy and I don't know if it's me they're talking about" Do we listen to her? Not a chance! We fall into the trap of assuming she's talking to Sigfredo as a co-conspirator. That's inexcusable She tells us why she is helping Charlie: "Look, you gotta understand, like someone doing this to my mum, someone doing this to your mum" "But the mere fact that I don't like anybody disrespecting your family, scaring your family ..." "I'm trying to get whoever's threatening your family, and helping you guys out" Unfortunately, like complete idiots, we ignore her. We refuse to believe the truth staring us in the face Katie simply can't understand why anyone would be using her name to extort money from Charlie's family: "Why am I being thrown into something?" "... imagine, like, look at this, I'm picking up somebody else's, you know" You would think these two sentences alone would be enough to rubber stamp her innocence. Alas, we choose to remain ignorant Katie continues with super clues for us: "For all you know, it's a patient. Maybe they've seen me in the dental office in the beach before" "Did you take his teeth out or what? ... Is he a patient? You run across so many people every day" If Katie is involved she knows it's not a patient! Evidence of innocence everywhere, and we continue to deny, deny, deny! Sigfredo to Katie: "... the less you know the better ..." Katie is alleged to be the "go-between" in this murder-for-hire. She would know a lot more than Sigfredo about everything. The above is something you say to someone who has no knowledge of the real situation and you want it to stay that way Charlie to Katie (Dolce Vita): "When everybody was there the next day, did any of you take any money? ..." This question must be taken in context. From murder to bump Charlie wonders if Sigfredo tells Katie about the murder. But Charlie can never ask Katie because, in asking, he's admitting to murder, using the father of her children as his hitman After the bump, all bets are off. The Undercover drops Katie's name, confirming to Charlie that Katie knows. Now he thinks he can talk to Katie semi-freely - she a witness to Sigfredo's involvement You start to see how insidious the name dropping is. It is everything in this case because it allows Charlie to use an innocent friend in his investigation of just who is behind The Bump Katie's innocence is established further when we compare the conflicting stories of Charlie and Luis regarding the day after. Charlie talks of people taking money, whereas Luis tells of Katie distributing money. Charlie's candid words to Katie decimate Luis' lies It's heartbreaking to see Katie in court being double teamed by the equally blind FBI and state attorneys. As Chris DeCoste, her attorney, so aptly described it: "They can't see it, they can't understand it, that she's innocent, she wasn't involved" They can't see because they don't wish to see. They had Katie pinned as guilty and tunnel vision crippled logical thought The only thing standing between Katie and freedom is state attorneys being humble enough to admit they missed crucial indicators to her innocence
A jury already rejected that argument. You're correct to say that it is POSSIBLE to conclude that she was not involved, but the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, and the jury did not regard that slim possibility as "reasonable doubt'. If she was uninvolved, why was she the first person Charlie called after his mother called him to report "the bump"? Why did she rent a car for her ex and his friend, and why did Charlie try so hard to convince her that the car rental wasn't evidence of her involvement in the murder? Her self-serving denials aren't convincing. In fact, they may not even be denials. If she is telling Charlie that she is sorry if "they" (her ex and his accomplice) are talking about her, it's a confession. The "maybe he's a patient" remarks are about whether the bump was law enforcement or a blackmailer. Charlie is checking to see if she knows who would have approached his mother, and of course she doesn't know who it was, because it was an FBI agent.
@@ruppertale3319 I've presented a paper to both prosecutors, Dugan and Cappleman, and Judge Wheeler also Unfortunately all three have travelled so far down the wrong road, they can't see Katie wasn't involved and, of course, didn't even know about it I also presented the same paper to Judge Everett. He probably can't help Katie, but it will give him a better understanding of Charlie's case
@@hittheheadlines2942 Someone pointed out the obvious logical failings of your diatribe, and your only response was "I sent it to the prosecutors and judges but they don't believe me either." Yeah, no kidding.
According to Charlie and his lawyer, Katie was part of a scheme to frame and blackmail Charlie by killing Dan Markel. Either way, she is the only person who could have connected Charlie Adelson to the two men who killed Dan Markel. @@hittheheadlines2942
Thanks for the detailed coverage of the carpet
True, love the intricacies of the weave, but check out the Florida seal.
LOL
@@GeoTime402😂
😂
😂
This is third judge since Dan Markel trials began way back when. First 2 judges each has unique qualities that added to interest in the case. This judge promises to be quite interesting as well.
Why would u even waste memory recording 10hrs of court room floor? 😂
Over 21,000 views
What the hell was this hours of Carpet? Lol
Tomorrow I suspect the coverage may be in silence at times, as prospective jurors are sometimes being referred to by their names. No numbers assigned during this voir dire.
Georgia lookin good 😏
C;mon Donna, you are the next accused on the murder was wrong!
the Honourable Philip Banks
Georgia looks beautiful, that girl's hair is gorgeous.
Prosecutor looks great! Wow
She may not be ‘your type’ but IMO she is a beautiful women in many ways, intelligent, beautiful and I suspect potentially good fun and loyal. In my eyes all the things you wish for in a partner.
@@MrTrapper28 I disagree with you and IMO she does not possess those qualities in my eyes. beauty and intelligence are relative and subjective.
@@Tendertroll1 I appreciate that we all see different qualities in the same person.
They need to shampoo the carpet
that's a massive judge, 0:37
So you filmed the floor for over 10 hours 🤦♀️ got nothing better to do 🤔😂😂😂😂 ffs
Innocence In A Nutshell
What a nightmare for Katie - The Undercover drops her name, Charlie unwittingly pulls her into his mess and the FBI mistake concern for her friend's family with complicity in a murder - Nightmare!
In the wiretaps Katie tells us she wasn't involved:
¨I don't know the rest of whatever it is, or if my name is really on anything, or if they're even talking about me ...¨
¨... and I don't know if it's me they're really talking about¨
¨ ... and I really feel bad if they're not even talking about me"
You can throw every other piece of evidence for and against her in the trash. If she doesn't know if The Undercover is talking about her, she isn't involved
And you hammer this point home to the jury in closing:
"Deliberation should only take you five minutes because there is only one question to ask yourselves:
"Why does she not know?"
But surely it's not that simple!?
Yeah! it is!
The FBI planned The Bump meticulously. Its first goal was to make sure that anyone involved knew The Bump was about the murder. And Katie doesn't know
The FBI asked the question, set up The Bump and wiretaps, then totally ignored the answer - truly unbelievable!
Katie not knowing acquits her outright, just as DNA evidence has done in other cases
Katie talks to Sigfredo:
"I don't feel secure because you take care of everybody else. Where's my security Tuto? When are you going to step up for me? ...
... because I feel like everybody else gets the special attention. And then Katie you go figure it out, you go figure out the kids, you figure out life, you figure out your apartment"
In Katie's eyes this is not Sigfredo's problem. Why? Because she wasn't involved! She has no idea her two 'boyfriends' have conspired to kill someone. She is oblivious
Look at it from Katie's perspective: random strangers extorting money from Charlie's family, possibly using her name to do it. That's terrifying for her. She tells us exactly why she wants Sigfredo's support:
"Look, can you do me this favour? Because it's like, I'm not a guy and I don't know if it's me they're talking about"
Do we listen to her? Not a chance! We fall into the trap of assuming she's talking to Sigfredo as a co-conspirator. That's inexcusable
She tells us why she is helping Charlie:
"Look, you gotta understand, like someone doing this to my mum, someone doing this to your mum"
"But the mere fact that I don't like anybody disrespecting your family, scaring your family ..."
"I'm trying to get whoever's threatening your family, and helping you guys out"
Unfortunately, like complete idiots, we ignore her. We refuse to believe the truth staring us in the face
Katie simply can't understand why anyone would be using her name to extort money from Charlie's family:
"Why am I being thrown into something?"
"... imagine, like, look at this, I'm picking up somebody else's, you know"
You would think these two sentences alone would be enough to rubber stamp her innocence. Alas, we choose to remain ignorant
Katie continues with super clues for us:
"For all you know, it's a patient. Maybe they've seen me in the dental office in the beach before"
"Did you take his teeth out or what? ... Is he a patient? You run across so many people every day"
If Katie is involved she knows it's not a patient! Evidence of innocence everywhere, and we continue to deny, deny, deny!
Sigfredo to Katie:
"... the less you know the better ..."
Katie is alleged to be the "go-between" in this murder-for-hire. She would know a lot more than Sigfredo about everything. The above is something you say to someone who has no knowledge of the real situation and you want it to stay that way
Charlie to Katie (Dolce Vita):
"When everybody was there the next day, did any of you take any money? ..."
This question must be taken in context. From murder to bump Charlie wonders if Sigfredo tells Katie about the murder. But Charlie can never ask Katie because, in asking, he's admitting to murder, using the father of her children as his hitman
After the bump, all bets are off. The Undercover drops Katie's name, confirming to Charlie that Katie knows. Now he thinks he can talk to Katie semi-freely - she a witness to Sigfredo's involvement
You start to see how insidious the name dropping is. It is everything in this case because it allows Charlie to use an innocent friend in his investigation of just who is behind The Bump
Katie's innocence is established further when we compare the conflicting stories of Charlie and Luis regarding the day after. Charlie talks of people taking money, whereas Luis tells of Katie distributing money. Charlie's candid words to Katie decimate Luis' lies
It's heartbreaking to see Katie in court being double teamed by the equally blind FBI and state attorneys. As Chris DeCoste, her attorney, so aptly described it:
"They can't see it, they can't understand it, that she's innocent, she wasn't involved"
They can't see because they don't wish to see. They had Katie pinned as guilty and tunnel vision crippled logical thought
The only thing standing between Katie and freedom is state attorneys being humble enough to admit they missed crucial indicators to her innocence
A jury already rejected that argument. You're correct to say that it is POSSIBLE to conclude that she was not involved, but the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, and the jury did not regard that slim possibility as "reasonable doubt'. If she was uninvolved, why was she the first person Charlie called after his mother called him to report "the bump"? Why did she rent a car for her ex and his friend, and why did Charlie try so hard to convince her that the car rental wasn't evidence of her involvement in the murder?
Her self-serving denials aren't convincing. In fact, they may not even be denials. If she is telling Charlie that she is sorry if "they" (her ex and his accomplice) are talking about her, it's a confession.
The "maybe he's a patient" remarks are about whether the bump was law enforcement or a blackmailer. Charlie is checking to see if she knows who would have approached his mother, and of course she doesn't know who it was, because it was an FBI agent.
@@ruppertale3319 I've presented a paper to both prosecutors, Dugan and Cappleman, and Judge Wheeler also Unfortunately all three have travelled so far down the wrong road, they can't see Katie wasn't involved and, of course, didn't even know about it
I also presented the same paper to Judge Everett. He probably can't help Katie, but it will give him a better understanding of Charlie's case
@@hittheheadlines2942 Someone pointed out the obvious logical failings of your diatribe, and your only response was "I sent it to the prosecutors and judges but they don't believe me either." Yeah, no kidding.
According to Charlie and his lawyer, Katie was part of a scheme to frame and blackmail Charlie by killing Dan Markel. Either way, she is the only person who could have connected Charlie Adelson to the two men who killed Dan Markel. @@hittheheadlines2942