Dan Markel was a bright and talented young law professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee he had 2 children with his wife Wendi Adelson but when Dan and Wendy's marriage broke up things got very bitter, especially concerning the custody of their children, Wendy wanted to relocate 400 miles away in South Florida where her parents, Harvey and Donna lived in ran the families very successful dental practice when these brother Charlie also lived there was also a dentist in court. Dan was winning and the judge was not on board with Wendy's plan to move the children away from their father and away from Tallahassee but in the end when deeded moved to South Florida with the children. That's because Dan was shot and killed in his driveway, it was murder for hire Wendy's brother Charlie was sleeping with a woman named Katherine magbanua who was also sleeping with the father of her children sigfredo Garcia Charlie paid Catherine to get sick for a tow and his friend Luis Ribera to drive from South Florida to Tallahassee to commit them murder all 4 have been convicted and now Wendy's mother. Donna has also been charged tonight we take a look at newly obtained divorce documents and what they reveal as we continue our investigation into the murder of loving father and law professor. Dan Markel. >> I'm Vinnie Paul Dan thank you so much for joining us tonight here on closing arguments. Let's begin the way I always begin when we talk about this case this story this murder for hire. The victim Dan Markel was a loving father that's why he died. That's why he was murdered. Because he would not compromise. Would not compromise when it came to spending time in being there for his children. I was going to be bought off by money. He was going to do everything he could to make sure he was they're physically mentally spiritually financially to support his children. His act and her family wanted those kids 400 miles away. His ex brother-in-law hired 2 guys to drive 400 miles to shoot him and kill him in his own driveway. It was murder for hire and all 4 of them have been convicted now you're talking about Charlie Adelson. The ex brother-in-law is a dentist, the woman he was sleeping with Katherine who sort of acted as the broker to to get her. The other man she was sleeping with the father of her and to get his friend, the Latin King and in take care of dad. That's that's how this went down. They've all all for being convicted they're done. They're done. Yeah they can file appeals. But right now they are done. Center of all of this and we go back. Is what happened between Dan and Wendy d I V o r c e. It was a divorce, it was bitter. It was not pretty. There was a divorce and there is also a custody battle as well as to how and where these children should be raised. And that is really the epicenter of everything that happens here. It's it's what I'm calling the case within the case. Right. We're covering the criminal case cases now now and trials. But they all I from this this this divorce. And the question now has ex mother-in-law Donna Adelson. Charge for all this. Was this her. And OT. I ve motive. For all of this was she the one pulling the strings. Was she the one whispering in Charlie's here to get this done. That's a prosecutors are alleging. And tonight what we're doing is we're going through some of the divorce papers and things that were filed to get a sense for what was going on and would this be enough. To take someone from you know litigation over. You know custody of children happens all around the country every day in court houses from coast to coast. But in this particular case that things get soaked personal so he did so bitter. That it would compel. A grandmother to have her grandchildren's father murdered. That's the case. And prosecutors approving it against the ex broke law now the question is can they prove it against Donna Adelson so I want to take a look and this is. A real significant part it was talked about during the course of the The motion. That were that were filed by Dan in all of this. Let's put the first one up on 3 specific locations, this is alleged by Dan Markel on 3 specific occasions in November of 2013 the children informed Mister Markel that stand Baugh which is But Grandma says you're stupid. When queried as to why Grandma, the maternal grandmother were talking to Donna Adelson I would say such things the children reply jointly that it is because quote she says you meaning Dan are trying to take her sun shines away from her. In December of the youngest son further stated to his dad Mister Markel in front of his former wife. >> Grandma says. >> She hates you. >> So here's the allegations that. Grandma Donna Adelson is influencing her grandchildren. To not like and to be influences what they think about their father. Dan in his motion was trying to prevent that from happening any further take a look Dan Markel moves for the following relief meaning this is what he wants to the judge to order in the case in join the former wife, Wendy from allowing maternal grandmother, Donna to have unsupervised time with that children consistent with the right. The first right of refusal and to impose impose up appropriate limitations to safeguard the children from being subjected to disparaging comments about their father. Now if you're the grandmother, Donna Adelson. >> How personal you're going to take this and is this one of those things that kind of takes her from grandmother badmouthing her former son-in-law the father of her grandchildren. 2 whispering in her son's ear to get somebody to kill Dan. That's what prosecutors are saying here. And the more you read in the more you get into this. It seems very plausible from the evidence that I saw in the trial of Charlie Adelson. Donna's got her trial coming up she's presumed innocent right now. But let's see how all that plays out, but I want to get more insight into what was happening here special guest joining us tonight from Toronto Ontario. Dan's mother and the author of the book the unveiling a mother's reflection on murder grief and trial life. I'm definitely worth Ruth Markel is with us again route a great to see you tonight, thank you so much. >> Thank the pleasure to be here and happy New Year to you happy New Year happy New Year. >> So I want to go back to this the divorce and when Wendy and Dan are would you do it described the moment you found out that this was shocking. What were you blindsided was was Dan blindsided by Wendy deciding to end this marriage and filed for divorce. >> No he wasn't blindsided the way she did it. He was blindsided now make its tension in this summer of August of 2012 ending at and then we're up north with us in our country cottage in Ontario with the boys, I'm Wendy said she had to get a job interview with Human Rights Watch she ix stand in her stay about going to New York so they were up there for about 2, 3, weeks. she came back and in that period of time reading there are clear that there was going to be a serious situation and I certainly to felon idents father and now we were considering and so is that the that he didn't like the idea that she's wrong. This interview a week before they left to come to Canada and it was and he had no idea and also she had made other arrangements prior to that that we found that later which was that he had take in the parent has stabilized nation program which is a. Course in ad Tallahassee in July which already meant that she was planning, I'm very major upheaval which she did. So this was August in September down was away. And she called him on the telephone when he was that factoring in New York City about to start a lecture on and that she said I want to leave you and I want to break out and I was shocked because that's how you do it so he canceled his his life sure I got on a plane and we and they call this right away so we were we're talking to him as he went to the airport and when came home to Tallahassee he got on the phone with us again as he entered the House and she had a really disrupt that the whole House this was a big separation which already told you that this is not going to be a pleasant divorce and she many of the major. You know pieces of furniture between them. She also acted out her half of the bank House and the upstairs the bedrooms with the kids slap that was devastating started to cry when he walked in there was totally no resemblance of the children's life in the House and the cup where small close like if they were for 3 at that time they she may be left them in the coverage sides to accept enough you know the distinctions but smaller clouds there was nothing really that was useful. He was devastated what happened upstairs. What anywhere downstairs to the master bedroom and they would divorce papers on that so that was like that. Total shock and not with equal custody at that moment and the children were in tow and nobody knew where they were and where was Wendy. >> And there was nothing was there like any moment that precipitated this like sometimes couples can get into a big fight there be accusations of this is that was was any of that happening like like one big moment yet lot so she's got to she's got to get out of the House. >> Now no it wasn't a mile below up in this period was actually a very first serious signal in 2011 I down was was says speaking in Israel and when he came home back to Florida and we were there because it's Christmas break. And when they came from Florida and I found out Donna and whether you have been there together. I have given the children the shrimp on the had given them all the kinds of foods and bacon that are not part of the Jewish dietary law. And you could tell they read he knew it ready then that there was some really really serious staff and Donna had actually had some Kosar a turkey for American Thanksgiving, but by the time the kids come back after a whole month everything was totally disrupted and sabotaged and after that that and when they went to town asked city and they started to have marriage counseling so I wouldn't say that there was a blow-up prior to the September event the bank. His Pearl Harbor but there certainly was a lead-up and in the earlier months. >> As everyone who's been following this story knows if your son Dan brilliant attorney. A law professor how involved was he. In the day today, litigation of his let's begin with the divorce. And and the and the custody issues was how involved was he in terms of figuring out what motions to file and what they should allege pix cetera. >> No he was very involved. He took it seriously and started Wednesday for that matter they were both lawyers. It was not a compatible as situation all the way to the point of the divorce from the separation. There were many disputes coordinating practices from the court about if that eye was able to see the kids or talk to the kids after the 3rd night or 4th night, whatever they had agreed upon. On to see the children on face time with the DNI was make herself available. There was a lot of stuff happening and there were disputes and and certainly both of them through their lawyers on their own and that respect I initiated quite a few of the attempts to get things resolved that they really weren't resolving. >> Yeah, what troubles me. It just seems that too smart people who are have children that there would be some all right. We're splitting up. Let's have a mean how do we how do we break this to the children and how do we make it as smooth as possible for them rather than this abrupt just up and leave that part really really bothers Did that bothered and you are today. >> No you started at the show tonight realistically we actually talking about Don and and on it went the major interference, a case of this is this is not in normal relationship now it's like you know, and just Diana said there were 3 in the marriage. There were 3 in the marriage and that is the problem when that's when Donna and then Wendy and Danny had agreements to take kosher food to to the day care. Donna was the one you can manage to do you're giving them. Tofu hot dogs don't do that and it takes them to make to McDonald's and gives them cheeseburgers and then she disrupts the activities and that so you're not dealing with a cup. Well you're dealing with a threesome. And I like to call the Donna definitely you know all all of the activities of the family I would say if you're writing us him She wrote the stories she was the conductor actually also played everybody's instrument. So I think that you're not there and with the normal rift in their relationship. >> A whole lot of different part of of one of the motions that was filed in this take a look at the screen everyone and again this is from papers are filed by day in July of 2012 prior to the separation is Adelson had gone to the safe deposit box and without permission or notice to Mister Markel took whatever she wanted including various pieces of valuable jewelry from Mister markel's family. The former wife, Wendy declared that if professor Mark Els 96 year-old uncle. Lives are Lapidus asked for the jewelry back that had belonged to his deceased wife, a Holocaust survivor, MS. Adelson would quote give it back to him. Professor Mark L sent former wife a letter from his uncle was are asking for the jewelry back. Former wife currently refused to return the jewelry claiming that it was not part of the marriage settlement agreement. What can you tell us about this piece of jewelry and this significance and what happened here. >> Well Wendy still has it that's the bottom line and she did take it out of the box without any conversation and it's a very unfortunate situation because my uncle. I was able to be saved coming out of Germany and as many people might know or they don't know people brought back dive Francis portable this time and came back as part of his entrance into can and then they gave it to his wife as part of her engagement ring on the arm and here is that it gave it to Wendy and Wendy. >> Toward a little bit but on the wedding day when they have their own grandmothers. >> Rain actually wanted to wear it which everybody agreed to do so we have another other against an engagement ring that it was not something that she specifically needed this Diamond for it had no real emotional value to her. And basically she took it for the money. >> To me that speaks volumes to speaks volumes about and the fact that this was her original ring she got a different one which was the grandmother's I get is that something you think the Donna wanted was she was she part of that conversation. >> I'm sure Don it was very much respect both her mother and you know, I mean there is something sometimes if you have some kind of emotional attachment to that and when the actually I believe the grandmother lived with them a little while so she also might have had some emotional attachment that nobody was challenging that I mean that was nothing that and even raised and no none of us fish or not we were not even around at that point. So there was no mission really of what during Wednesday could wear and she could choose to wear whatever she wanted to. But it had no no real personal value to her. Other than a financial one probably despite >> Yeah, I'm sensing some of that a lot of that as we read through all these papers. Ruth I want to thank you so much for joining us tonight always great to speak with you. The unveiling a mother's reflection on murdered refund trial A great read especially for Court TV viewers because you watch these trials and and you see how victims and their families are impacted. But to really get insight into what it's like. It's worthwhile to read that book drew thank you so much. >> Thank you so much and thank you for keeping light on this. >> Horrible story we absolutely will. All right folks when we come back, we're going to bring in our own experts take a look at more of this plus coming up next hour. >> In Las Vegas, Nevada, the man who leaped over the judge's bench back in court facing brand-new charges and prosecutors are calling it attempted murder, we have the latest you're being charged with not one that effort. Some 60 years of age or older a felony. Count 2 that are affected person resulting in substantial bodily harm victim >> When did you separate from professor Mark, how and the fall of 2012. Whose decision was it to separate. It was my decision to recognize the exhibit I do that a fair and accurate copy of your divorce file, it looks like it. Yes, and is it fair to say this was a contentious litigation process that you had with your acts it was. >> It was contentious to say the least yeah Marc L and Wendi Adelson the divorce and then the ensuing custody battle that continued past the divorce. Take a look at I want to give you a flavor for what was going on here and how really it all started. At least officially started on the weekend proceeding Monday, September 10th 2012. While Mister Markel was away for a short business trip. MS. Adelson abandoned Mister Markel and their marital home. Taking with her the couple's 2 toddler children and with the help of her parents and professional movers. Whichever furniture and belongings. She wanted for herself and the children she left I know address for the children know pajama bottoms or clean socks, no diapers no white tonight, even a bed for their eldest son just a crib mattress on the floor she took numerous non marital items such as the former husbands tennis racket and family jewelry as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and equities from their bank and investment accounts among the things she left behind on the bed, however were divorce papers dated September 5th 2012 5 days before all this sign before Mister Markel even went on this trip. This abrupt and cool departure shocked Mister Markel 26 year marriage unmarked by any abuse addiction or infidelity was devoted to his wife. That during the course of this custody battle. Wendy's brother. Hired people to murder. Dan we know that the jury told us let me bring in my guests joining me tonight in Orlando, Florida, psychotherapist CEO of life counseling solutions doctor Jamie Lacey in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania family law attorney Jennifer Brandt and in mckinney Texas prosecutor defense counsel creator of jury trial jury trial mentor. Youtube channel called Steinbeck who knows everything about this case inside and out trust me okay let me begin here, I'm Jennifer Brandt, how normal is what I just described to you. There's no abuse in the House knows getting beaten up. You've got children, someone goes way for a business trip or all of a sudden everything's gone. >> I would say it's routine is not the normal to force that there certainly situations where this the exact type of scenario. Way started to force because it that's why you're starting out. A real chance at least in this. >> Le let me ask you this operation. If you can one parent just grab the kids and take them and not let the other or know where they are and take all the stuff I don't get yeah. It sounds like kidnapping you know say it's not kidnapping company. >> To people writes the kids either parent can take the kids anywhere. I mean you can take your kids on a trip you can take your kids to the fans. >> Without telling you where they are was. We've got to change those was just for what's going on. And usually punish the parent. >> It who does that take things so it's a big no no if you're if you're starting out a divorce. >> All right doctor Jamie, lace your thoughts about what happens to let's begin with young children. Wendy for whatever reason didn't want to have a conversation with Dan about how to explain what was about to happen to the children and figure out a smooth way to do it. What what could it do to children just being ripped out of your house and and gone and separated from your father like that. >> What the age that the children were when all this was going down. It's a very very important developmental time because they're not necessarily may not know what's going on, but they're going to feel it right so whether its the anxiety whether it's the tension all of that stuff gets caught in these children's nervous system so we know that they would be in effect for these children regardless if they knew what was her happening or not and not having that level of consideration for them and not understanding what's happening that confusion that anxiety and depending on how mom was positioning the stories and narratives to the children could have a short term as well as the long-term effect based off of everything that they've probably experience firsthand. >> Cole Steinbach something that jumps out to me in this part of the divorce papers that we're taking a look at tonight. With the help of her Paris it's and professional movers. >> How much of a role. >> Did Donna Adelson have in all of this in in in the U.S. in the divorce in the separation and the way you all went down. >> She played a key key role in this whole thing she generated a lot of the vicious hatred and cruelty directed not only towards stand, but it also appears that way towards the kids as well because the kids have really pretty much for the most part been cut out of the Markel family tree and so I think this is really going to backfire on them when this goes up for jury you bring up that denial visitation it really strikes home for Donna and especially will strike home for Wendy when she faces her trial. >> Let's take a look at this now you're ready Jennifer you you're watching I'm watching okay, former wife filed a false and misleading financial disclosure form the financial affidavit which is required to be produced under the relevant Florida rules suffered from the following major errors omitting the former wife's retirement account. Worth a $145,000 meaning an account that at the time of separation at Charles worth $50,000 listing the value of the car, the jewelry in her possession and all their personal property at 0. Understating heard then salary by several $1000. >> OK I get it right, you're getting divorced, you want to get as much as you can, but you do have to be kind of honest about what you have like. Sure take on on why alleged errors like this would be made are they made on purpose of these like big obvious ones that like anyone separating all right, how much money you're making. What counts the haves a pretty normal or do you think this could be an honest potential error that was made. >> I mean you do have to disclose all of your assets, your finances here in Cannes and these things are usually rally known to you and me how much is in your return to the candy ahead return in a can I mean even if you're not aware of it is really are told by your attorney and the court to find out what what is it that you have. Certifications financial certifications financial disclosures are actually saw it. So your sinus certification or verification and that this is true and correct just like you would testify in court that it true correct and that sometimes it carries the same penalty as a contest if you're. So yes, people make a misstep a core you know slightly mistake, something work forget it happens. But this sounds like a litany of things that are forgotten or misrepresented. So it sounds like a there was some dishonesty in his disclosures. >> But wait there's more. Take a look at this. >> Or allegations made by Dan and. >> This divorce papers, the former wife is not a helpless character in this drama. She's a 34 year-old public interest lawyer. The winner of numerous national fellowship some prizes who simply help yourself to $600,000 in cash liquid equities and other assets upon separation, she makes 6 figures in the low cost city and has wealthy parents who placed her in a financial Cook Koon and upon a belief by paying her legal fees they allowed and encouraged her to take the most aggressive and unsubstantiated legal posture is possible. Because there would be no financial consequences for her doing so if you want to leave the marriage because she thought of love that is one thing but you could have done so without taking more than the necessities. So that a proper and fair distribution could have immediately followed so doctor Jamie Lacey my we're not looking at cases that I've studied through the years. Of divorces the the bitterness between people manifest itself in 2 ways. In the in the in the divorce money in custody. Money in custody. Did you think. Is it greed or is it being just trying to take as much as you can from him or is it like I deserve this where do you think it's coming from in this in this scenario. >> We look at the scenarios that are very similar to this it's not in how the relationships begin to see how they and the people true character shines brightly but when we're looking at the statement that there was no addiction there is no and Della T right and then we're looking at her actions were going to look at this as emotional manipulation with this kind of telling us that there was probably a strong lack of input. The at this place for her to be so calculating in to do things and to blindside right, it's a chess move when we look at the emotional manipulation happens between couples and you're looking at the struggle for power and control and getting these things on the upper hand by eliminating things manipulating things right so we're looking at that there Howley was of these things that are at play that my sumptuous be that she had a play long before she pulled the carpet underneath and that he was blindsided for because that emotional manipulation is use the app showing their hand it's more passive aggressive behavior in the relationship dynamics that we see that turn as as this relationship did. >> Where do you think the bitterness was was come do you think it was Wendy or do you think it was kind of in Wendy's here for all through this that's going to be perhaps the allegation by prosecutors that that Don is the one really fueling the bitterness in in what is happening here between Wendy and an. >> All right I think Donna had more the uncontrolled rage towards Dan. But one he was the one that was feeding are all that details to get her to that point of rage and a point of wanting to get Dan murdered and I executed in his own garage. So if you really think about who was starting the whole chain of events that was really Wendy more than anybody. >> Fast and she hasn't been charged just has always got to my folks know she's been a witness. With some level of limited immunity when she testifies but she has not been charged. Yet and we shall see art everyone stay where they are when we come back, we'll talk about the other big big issue in this case which is custody. And the relocation of the children. >> Was that the M o t I V e for >> And that's the filing in reference to your motion for relocation and yes paragraph he references. The job offer the wife also desires to relocate to South Florida and in order to provide a better quality of life for the children by increasing their access to close family and providing more stability consistency. Who is the close family in South Florida, the close family would have. >> Then my mom and my dad and my brother which brother is that my brother that's here today. Charlie Adelson that's correct. >> It's what it's all about. Want to get those kids down to South Florida away Tallahassee who wants to live in Tallahassee we live in South Florida. As for Grandma is an uncle Charlie. O all right so let's take a look here this is order that was filed by the judge in response to the wife Wendy's petition to relocate to South Florida with the minor children, this court does not that find that wife has met the burden of proof that a relocation is in the best interests of the minor children. The court orders, the parties to mediation to resolve the remaining issues pending final hearing in this case currently set for July 31st and August first of 2013. Let's take a listen to more of Wendi Adelson now talking about an email other center. >> It reads however the rest of your life and consequence Lee dads mine and yes, even sure Charlie's will be affected by how well you can perform slash act before July 31st. You need to be a good actress win, or you can be a good actress when you want to I've seen you in action you need to put on the preferred 4 months of your life. Rivers hasn't beaten the Adelson family yet whose jumpers. >> Timbers she's referring to Danny, so in the U.S.. >> Again your mom is referencing how everyone's life is being a affected by this relocation including your brother, Charlie you agree with that that is what she said yes. >> All right and your mom over protective of you. >> Yes, all right and as far to say she is. >> We know that on the controlling side. >> I think she's controlling but he's definitely over-protective. >> All right Karl karlsen that what you see is the significance of this email from Donna to Wendy. >> All right I think the email shows a level of hatred to desperation early they had to win this tulsans were not going to lose the it'll since had to win against an and they were going to lose badly against this judge. This judge was going to see 3 exactly what kind of shenanigans when he was playing but she was not acting in the best runser so the children I think Dan went into a lot of good details explaining how he was the night that first right of refusal for visitation for the 2 boys and so you get this whole flavor that things were just really viciously intentionally directed against and just to really get under his skin and just really to upset him. you know you think of the irony of it it's like that. tulsans Harvey and they could easily moved up to Tallahassee they're pretty much ready to wind up their practice and whatnot so instead of doing that they thought you know it's better to kill. Dan Markel to get the kids down there and everything worked beautifully for many years for them that way. >> Let let me ask you a doctor J Lacey. One relationship between mother and daughter Donna. >> And Wendy and. How you can get to that point because at a minimum Charlie ordered this hit. How do how do you go from a battle in the courtroom. To hiring a Latin King in his buddy. To perform a hit and a drive like how the emotionally to someone get there. >> Well emotionally people do get there and they start with that as we just heard Michael panelist mention with this hatred and then they almost look at this person as an object to be removed this lack of in that the in this dehumanization of them that can occur and what we hear What happened with with Donald right we're hearing that she's putting this fight is almost as if that her getting divorced and when you get to this place you going to win all costs and when you win at all costs but also told me that she potentially had this mindset long before a windy had met Dan and then we looking at her daughter being guilt 8 and her shaming her and kind of using her in a sense of probably being in control and and created this dynamic this narcissistic family dynamic from these when they were very very young so her getting to this place now this place is probably not lost a lot of things in her life so to speak and been able to use money power and control to do that and as we heard the language she was taken on this fight as if it was her own. You've tried many of these cases. >> Been in the middle of a been in the trenches how common is it. The in-laws to play such a prominent role in the litigation in the battle the custody battle the divorce. >> There is the biggest problem. And trying to influence your client and and and say what they think is right. Dangerous and a divorce because there. The day today aspect of course that they're you know they're emotional. They want to control the situation and grandparents are prime suspects, especially when it comes to grandchildren. Time to close relationship with the grandchildren. I want to be involved in the grandchildren's lives and they're fearful that they may not be is involved, you know because the other parties going it have the children part of the time so you know there's a lot of inflow it's a big have another person and it really can disrupt the whole proceeding. Unable to agree because you have these other people whispering in their ear telling them what to do and trying to control the so and this. She really sounds like she was country all of it and even her own daughter mentioned you know that she's over per over protective and you get the e-mail hearing those emails like us against. We need to win I mean these kind of sentiments really don't belong in a custody, proceeding or a divorce proceeding. >> Carl having studied all this watch the trials and in red all the evidence here what's what's your take what is your gut tell you about the Adelson family was it was it about entitlement they're just used to getting what they were want was bitterness because things got very personal like I I I I think all of us have the difficulty trying to understand how a family that had so much and the opportunity to do so much and provide so much could get to the point of of ordering a hit. >> Right I think if you look at their history. This wasn't the first conflict they had their life on a major scale. But what has happened is in the past they could always when the conflict through money and political connections and that's what I think they're banking on they thought there's no way that Dan Markel despite him being a highly successful highly respected. Professor of international fame despite him being gunned down they can overcome that they had no fear in fact even Charlie in his own trip trial. We heard from the joke calls had no fear of losing the case at all he thought he had won he thought his attorney done a great job and lo and behold he suddenly loses and he says absolutely baffled by this
