Adelson GUILTY On All Counts, Cardi B’s Legal Victory, New Murderous Mom Emerges

Summary

MK True Crime — Detailed Episode Summary

Episode Title: Adelson GUILTY On All Counts, Cardi B’s Legal Victory, New Murderous Mom Emerges
Podcast: MK True Crime
Host: Phil Holloway (with Dave Ehrenberg & Jonna Spielbore)
Release Date: September 5, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode breaks down three hot, headline-making legal cases:

1. The ongoing Donna Adelson “mother-in-law murder” trial in Florida, as the case nears verdict with explosive closing arguments.
2. The courthouse drama and brash victory of Cardi B, who prevailed in a civil suit filed by her former doctor’s office security guard.
3. The chilling Utah case of Corey Richards, a mother and children’s book author accused of murdering her husband—the same death that inspired her book.

All three hosts, drawing on experience in prosecution, criminal defense, and law enforcement, provide expert commentary, vivid analysis, and unfiltered reactions to courtroom antics. The episode also features highlights from entertaining and sometimes unbelievable trial testimony, closing arguments, listener Q&A, and the co-hosts’ signature rants.

---

1. The Donna Adelson Trial: “Mother-in-law Mastermind Murder”

Background & Setup (02:42–04:09)

• Donna Adelson is on trial in Leon County, Florida, accused of orchestrating a murder-for-hire plot to kill her former son-in-law, Dan Markel, after a protracted divorce and custody battle with her daughter, Wendy Adelson.
• Phil Holloway sets the stage: "We are nearing the end of the Donna Adelen trial, the so called mother in law mastermind murder trial currently underway in Leon County, Florida." (02:42)

The Defense’s (Weak?) Strategy (04:12–11:33)

Key Witness: Kristen Adamson (Wendy’s Divorce Lawyer)

• Adamson testifies the Adelson/Markel divorce was not highly contentious compared to other cases.
  • Kristen Adamson:
    “I wouldn't describe the divorce as particularly contentious... I think it was like any divorce where there were ups and downs... for the most part, we kind of settled it.” (05:02)
• Hosts and legal experts thoroughly doubt the effectiveness and credibility of this testimony.
  • Phil Holloway:
    “How are they supposed to be the ones who are the arbiters of what is and isn’t contentious?... It’s a subjective sort of descriptor.” (05:55)
  • Dave Ehrenberg:
    “Maybe to the garbage man, the trash doesn't smell. But to the resident who's not used to picking up trash... it reeks. Okay?” (06:38)
  • Jonna Spielbore:
    “I call bullshit... You don’t file motions over where your children are going to lay their little heads without it being contentious.” (08:40)

Sequestration Drama & Second "Expert" (11:33–14:56)

• Defense’s next expert (Linda Bailey) violates the rule of sequestration—she viewed another witness's testimony when she was supposed to remain outside the courtroom.
  • Judge:
    “There has been a second violation of the rule of sequestration by the defendant... Ms. Bailey should have not sat in the courtroom.” (11:33)
• The prosecutors express frustration:
  • Georgia Kaplan (prosecution):
    "I'd like them to stop violating the rule of sequestration. That would be the remedy I would seek." (12:36)
• Phil and Dave agree: Legal drama aside, the defense strategy is off. Bringing in legal experts to opine on the “normality” of divorce is weak:
  • Dave:
    “This shows the weakness of the defense.” (13:44)

Cross-Examination Fireworks (14:56–15:54)

• Georgia Kaplan shreds the “not-contentious” narrative on the stand:
  • “People's lives are impacted by the decisions that go on in court, which for you are routine... What is no big deal to us is a big deal to these litigants. Right?” (14:56–15:39)

The Defendant’s Dilemma: Testify or Stay Silent? (18:06–23:41)

• Donna spent weeks vacillating on whether to testify, despite having ample time.
  • Judge:
    “You had a whole lot of time. You had years. You had this entire trial.” (19:57, 24:08)
  • Dave:
    “Donna, with all of her hubris, wanted to testify... but cooler heads prevailed. Her lawyers won out.” (21:06)
• The moment she declines:
  • Judge:
    “What is your decision?...”
    Donna: “[At] this time I do not want to testify.” (22:59–23:19)
  • Jonna:
    “This would have been suicide by cross-examination.” (24:08)

Closing Arguments and The State’s Powerful Points (26:39–30:53)

• Prosecutor Georgia Kaplan evokes emotion, focuses on Markel as dedicated father, and hammers that the divorce was contentious to him, no matter what lawyers say.
  • Kaplan:
    “His downfall was brought about by the fact that his number one priority was maximizing his time with those little boys in the wake of a bitter divorce... Not contentious to whom? It was contentious to Dan Markell.” (26:59–27:36)
• Kaplan points to direct evidence:
  • Wiretapped call (“Does it involve me or other people? Well, probably both of us.”)
    “If anyone in that jury room wants to acquit her, make them tell you how that is not a confession.” (29:39–30:30)
• Dave Ehrenberg:
  “The strongest direct evidence is the license plate. Why did she have Danny Markell's license plate in her planner?” (28:03)
• The hosts agree the “run-of-the-mill divorce” defense has no weight:
  • Jonna: “That was a very powerful piece of her closing argument... If a jury is tuning out during closing, they probably already have an idea of what they're going to do in this case and it's just a matter of formality at this point.” (30:35)

TAKEAWAY

Verdict watch was underway as this episode recorded—hosts predict a conviction, and decisively critique the defense strategy, the witness antics, and Donna’s refusal to testify.

---

2. Cardi B’s Civil Trial — Victory and Courtroom Comedy

Case Background (32:43–33:36)

• Cardi B was facing a civil suit from her ex-security guard, alleging assault, battery, emotional distress, negligence, and false imprisonment after a verbal incident at her doctor’s office.

Trials & Testimony Highlights (34:15–41:46)

• Jonna:
  “This case should not have been brought... Some celebrities are now standing up and saying, I'd rather pay my lawyer than write a check for 2 cents on a frivolous case...” (38:57)
• The plaintiff describes a heated confrontation, claiming she was “body shamed” and threatened, but only a scratch as injury.
  • Plaintiff:
    "She started walling out. Like, this hit me... I'm looking at like, girl, I can't even hit you if I want to... I'm. You're bigger than me, and you're pregnant." (34:29–35:23)
• Jurors heard testimony about altercations, finger-pointing, and insults—but hosts note that no viable physical harm or actual damages were proven.
  • Dave:
    “The plaintiff sued for $24 million based on a scratch on her cheek, which she said needed surgery... but you have to show more.” (36:14)
  • “Cardi B plays into what is now being prized... authenticity. She is real, she is authentic, and she connected with the jury.” (41:46)

Funniest and Most Memorable Moments

• Examination about physical size—body-shaming turns into self-parody:
  • Phil:
    “So she's overweight, right? In your opinion.”
    Plaintiff: “No, I was calling her a...” (40:24–40:35)
• Silly courtroom questions:
  • “Yesterday you had black hair, short hair. Today it's blonde and long. Which one is your real hair?... They're wigs.” (42:15)
• Marker-throwing incident—Cardi B’s volatility versus provocation is played for laughs:
  • Cardi B fan: “I still love you even though you just threw some stuff at me.” (43:12)

TAKEAWAY

Hosts mock the suit’s premise and predictably celebrate Cardi B’s “authentic” and entertaining courtroom presence: The jury delivers a lightning-fast defense verdict.

---

3. Utah’s “Murderous Mom” Case: Corey Richards

Setup (45:46–46:43)

• Corey Richards, mother of three, stands accused in the upcoming “murder-by-poisoning” trial after her husband’s 2024 death.
• Post-mortem, she authored and promoted a children’s book about grief, discussing her loss on TV:
  • Corey Richards:
    “So my husband passed away unexpectedly last year... my kids and I kind of wrote this book on the different emotions and grieving processes that we've experienced...” (46:47)

The Charges and Alleged Evidence (47:28–49:49)

• Prosecutors say she poisoned her husband with fentanyl, tried and failed previously (e.g., poisoning sandwiches), and performed damning Google searches such as “how much is a lethal dose of fentanyl?” and "How long do life insurance companies take to pay?” on burner phones.
  • Dave Ehrenberg:
    “[Searched for] what is a lethal dose of fentanyl... very normal stuff for an innocent person.” (48:13)

Defense Analysis

• Multiple financial and fraud counts are mixed with the murder—defense will have to separate financial motive from actual murder.
  • Jonna:
    “A defense attorney is going to have to say... it's a big leap to go from being financially poor... to killing your husband and father of your three kids, who you love so dearly.” (49:49)

---

4. Listener Q&A and “Closing Arguments”

Adelson Fallout & Prosecution Predictions (51:20–52:53)

• Will more Adelsons be charged?
  Dave predicts that if Donna is convicted, Wendy Adelson will be charged next—possibly even Harvey, but his advanced age and minor role make this less likely.
  • “If Harvey is not charged, then I think he will not be charged at all... Although I think he was involved... he was a minor player.” (51:20)

Defense’s Trial Performance Critiqued (52:53)

• Listener Sonya: "Is it normal for what appears to be chaos and lack of preparedness by the defense?”
  Phil admits the presentation seemed disorganized and underwhelming, echoing the YouTube chat sentiment.

Cold Case Teaser (54:14–55:31)

• Jonna previews a 1992 Springfield, Missouri vanishing of three women (“The Springfield Three”)—a case ripe for future deep-dives: “Literally nobody has seen them since.”

---

Host Rants / “Closing Arguments” (56:07–62:05)

1. Dave Ehrenberg:
   Firmly predicts a guilty verdict for Donna Adelson:
   “There is no chance that Donna Adelson will be found not guilty... the mountain of evidence is there.” (56:07)
2. Phil Holloway:
   Highlights the legal significance of “advanced DNA” allowed in the Gilgo Beach case:
   “This ruling is significant because prosecutors can use this non-traditional DNA evidence, combining it with cell phone data that will link [Heuerman] to the crime scene.” (57:41)
3. Jonna Spielbore:
   Humorously campaigns for harsher penalties for “disturbing the peace”—namely, her own by new, rowdy neighbors:
   “I propose we elevate disturbing the peace to an offense with a punishment more in line with the level of pain it inflicts... punishable by... yeah, death.” (59:28)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• Dave Ehrenberg:
  “Maybe to the garbage man, the trash doesn't smell. But to the resident who's not used to picking up trash... it reeks.” (06:38)
• Jonna Spielbore:
  “I call bullshit.” (08:40)
• Georgia Kaplan (Prosecution):
  “If anyone in that jury room wants to acquit her, make them tell you how that is not a confession.” (30:15)
• On Cardi B’s authenticity:
  “She is real, she is authentic, and she connected with the jury.” (41:46)

---

Key Timestamps

• [04:59–05:55] — Defense witness claims the Adelson divorce “not contentious”
• [11:33–12:48] — Sequestration violation and judge’s ruling
• [14:56–15:54] — Cross-examination fireworks over emotional impact of divorce
• [19:42–23:41] — Donna’s indecision about testifying; final refusal
• [26:39–27:36] — Kaplan’s closing: Dan Markel’s perspective, not lawyers’, matters
• [29:39–30:30] — Kaplan on wiretap “confession”
• [33:36–39:41] — Cardi B lawsuit play-by-play and host reactions
• [46:47–48:13] — Corey Richards case: on-air book pitch & evidence review
• [56:07–57:41] — Dave’s rant: Adelson conviction “no chance” to avoid

---

Tone, Style & Delivery

Throughout, the hosts blend incisive legal breakdowns with lively, sometimes irreverent banter. The tone ranges from deeply analytical (breaking down evidence and trial tactics) to self-aware and comedic—most evident during the Cardi B and closing argument segments.

---

Summary Takeaways

• Donna Adelson’s Defense Flounders: The effort to minimize the volatility of the Markel divorce badly misses the mark with jurors and panelists alike; circumstantial and direct evidence against her is overwhelming.
• Cardi B Triumphs in Court: Her case is a master class in fighting frivolous celebrity lawsuits, with her wit and authenticity delighting even the judges and jury.
• Corey Richards’ Case Looms: Her murder trial is set to be a true media spectacle—a true-crime author who may have written her own confession.

Listener mailbags and comic rants round out a highly engaging, thorough true crime episode, leaving listeners fully up-to-date on three of the most notorious cases in the country.

Transcript

[Phil Holloway]

Department of Rejected Dreams.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

If you had a dream rejected, IKEA.

[Phil Holloway]

Can make it possible.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

So I always dreamed of having a man cave, but the wife doesn't like it.

[Phil Holloway]

What if I called it a woman cave? Okay, so let's not do that.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

But add some relaxing lighting and a comfy IKEA hofburg ottoman.

[Phil Holloway]

And now it's a cozy retreat. Nice.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

A cozy retreat, man.

[Phil Holloway]

Cozy retreat, sir. Okay. Find your big dreams, small dreams, and.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Cozy retreat dreams in store or online at ikea. US Dream the possibilities Foreign.

[Phil Holloway]

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway, your host for today. Those of you who may not know me, I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm a former prosecutor and I'm an ex cop. I have been in and around the justice system for the better part of 40 years now. And what I can tell you is that we have a lot to talk about. We've got a great show lined up for you, so take a look at what's coming up on the MK True crime docket.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

This time I don't want to test it.

[Judge]

Ms. Bailey should have not sat in the courtroom.

[Corey Richards]

So my husband passed away unexpectedly last year.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

I will say it in my deadbed. I did not touch that woman. I did not touch that girl.

[Georgia Kaplan]

Anyone in that jury room wants to acquit her, make them tell you how. That is not a confession.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

You might think home security was just an alarm that goes off after a break in in. You know, scaring the intruder off and getting a neighbor's attention if you're lucky. But that is a reactive approach. By the time an intruder is in your home, it's too late. Your feeling of safety is shattered and your safety is shattered. That's why real security should stop a crime before it even starts. So this is why Simplisafe was born. Their system is designed to be proactive, not reactive. I don't know how somebody didn't think of this before. They use smart AI powered cameras to identify threats lurking outside your home and immediately alert Simplisafe's professional monitoring agents. These agents intervene in real time before the break in even begins. Join the more than 4 million Americans who trust Simplisafe with their home security every day. And with a 60 day money back guarantee and no long term contracts, Simplisafe earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every day. Visit SimpliSafe.com Megan to claim 50% off a new system that's simply safe. It's spelled S I M p l I safe.com Megan there's no, safe, like simply safe.

[Phil Holloway]

So as you can see, we've got a lot to get to. We are nearing the end of the Donna Adelen trial, the so called mother in law mastermind murder trial currently underway in Leon County, Florida. That's Tallah. Closing arguments in this case started on Thursday, which happened to be the day that we are recording this show. So when it drops, we're going to be in verdict watch. Plus we have Grammy winning rapper Cardi B who was in court this week where a jury has found her not liable in a crazy lawsuit brought against her by a former security guard at her doctor's office. And finally, we have a case out of Utah involving Corey Richards, who's a mother of three who wrote a children's book about how to cope with grief following her husband's death. But here's the thing. Was it merely a death or was it murder? Because she has been charged with murder and her trial is coming up in early 2026. I'm joined today by my fellow MK True Crime contributors, Dave Ehrenberg, also known as the Florida lawman, and he's also the former Palm beach county state attorney. And of course, we've got the lovely, the talented, the wonderful Jonna Spielbore, former prosecutor, current criminal defense attorney. And she also happens to be our resident eyewear expert here at MK True Crime. Good afternoon, guys. Welcome. And how you doing?

[Jonna Spielbore]

Pretty good. Good afternoon to you too.

[Phil Holloway]

Hey, look, I know we've been talking a lot online and offline about this Donna Adelson trial. So I want to get into that. I want to talk about the closing arguments. But before we get to the closing arguments, let's back up just a little bit. And I want to talk about the defense case. And we've got some video of some of that that I want to play. And then I want to discuss Kristen Adamson, who was a lawyer for Wendy Adelen. The defense has called her as one of their witnesses. She testified, among other things, that she would not describe this divorce as contentious. And of course, that's a big piece of this case. That's a big part of the motive that the prosecutors are alleging. Let's play SOT1 and then we'll get into that.

[Georgia Kaplan]

Would you describe this divorce as contentious?

[Kristen Adamson]

I wouldn't describe the divorce as particularly contentious at all compared to most of the divorces I had. And we settled it. I don't settle a lot of my cases where we actually go to week long trials over things of that nature. I think it was like any divorce where there were ups and downs of moments where it was contentious and not fun. But for the most part, we kind of settled it. We settled it after mediation, and it wasn't a problem. I do think that this whole issue of the enforcement got a little contentious. I really didn't understand it because he paid the first 50,000 fine, and then all of a sudden, he decided not to pay the rest. And I didn't really get it. And know why he was doing that, because the parenting stuff didn't come up for, like, several months afterwards. So none of what he was doing made sense. I think he just got upset with Wendy or something. I don't know what it was.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, guys, look, I want to get your thoughts on it, but let me tell you real quick some of my thoughts. I'm. I question this testimony. I mean, look, it's a divorce case. These lawyers are coming into court saying that, you know, divorces are not contentious, but how are they supposed to be the ones who are the arbiters of what is and is not contentious? I mean, that's a subjective sort of descriptor of how the parties get along or don't during the process. And I don't know how they're supposed to be in the minds of all the players, deciding what's contentious and what's not. Dave, you're a Florida. Florida lawyer. What do you think about this, and is that a good defense strategy?

[Dave Ehrenberg]

It's a terrible defense strategy. Phil. You're talking about lawyers who are really experts in this area of family law that have had many, many cases, and yet we're supposed to take their word that this is not a very volatile case, it's not a contentious divorce? Well, it was to them. Maybe to the garbage man, the trash doesn't smell. But to the resident who's not used to picking up trash on a daily basis, it reeks. Okay? And that was an example that Georgia Kapman gave, and she was right. And that's why she was so hot on this witness and going after on cross, because it really is a poor defense when your whole thing is to put one over on the jury to make them think that there's nothing to see here, that this was just a run of the mill divorce. Really, in run of the mill divorces, do you tried to first bribe them for a million doll and then threatened to dress the kids in Nazi uniforms and then end up sending Hitman up to kill them. Now, of course, the defense is saying, well, there was no, not the hitman part. Everything Else is true. Okay. I've never heard of a custody relocation battle that got this nasty. And besides, even if it is run of the mill to the lawyer, to these individuals, it is impossible to claim that it was just ho hum to them. To them, it meant everything.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, and that's. Look, I briefly, in my legal career, I took in some family law cases, did some stuff, and it became very obvious to me very quickly that people are emotionally invested in the subject matter and they wanted me as their lawyer, to be as emotionally invested as they were, which is why I can't do it anymore. Because I can't. I can't get that much into their emotional stuff like that. But, you know, they've got this witness, Johnna, who's testifying that compared to other divorce cases, she didn't call it contentious, but that doesn't really. I don't think that's going to play well with the jury. Jona, your thoughts?

[Jonna Spielbore]

I call bullshit. And here's something else. If I'm representing Wendy Adelson as her divorce attorney at some point in this, and we know that Wendy Adelson has mysteriously not been charged, and in any of this crazy crime, you would have to not just subpoena me to come and testify, you would have to haul me in with a police escort while I'm grabbing onto the leg of my desk, because I am not going to go willingly. I wouldn't want any part of this case. I don't care who wanted me to testify. So why this attorney chose to take the stand knowing full well that the motive in this case, the motive that the prosecution is trying to present is that it most certainly was a contentious action. You don't fight. You don't file motions over where your children are going to lay their little heads without it being contentious. Don't try to pull one over on the jury by bringing in a lawyer to say, no, no, you know plenty. No, it was fine. It wasn't fine. So not only was this a bad witness for the defense, it was a bad idea for. For this lawyer.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, they didn't stop there, did they? Because we had more testimony from another lawyer who they qualified as an expert. But before we get into that, they had an issue over the. What's called the rule of sequestration. So let me set the stage on that. So the rule of sequestration, each state has some slight maybe differences in how it's applied, but what it means is that witnesses aren't allowed to be in the courtroom to watch other witnesses testify. They can't even be in the courtroom. Maybe if they get released from their subpoena, they can come in. There are some limited exceptions to that, but the idea is that you don't want one side's witnesses all getting their story straight and sort of making sure their testimony jives and overlaps just properly. So that's called the rule of sequestration. There's an exception. If you have an expert witness, the judge can, in the judge's discretion, permit an expert to be in the court courtroom to watch the testimony of another expert so they can compare whether or not they agree. So that's an exception. But, guys, we had another attorney who was going to be testifying for the defense who was in the courtroom for Kristen Adamson, Wendy's lawyer's testimony, and she wasn't testifying as an expert. So we had. Well, we had some drama. We've got SOTs 2 and 3, and can we play those back to back? And when we finish with this video of the judge and how he deals with this rule violation, I'm going to talk with my panel about it.

[Judge]

Concerning this issue of the testimony of Linda Bailey, the court is going to find there has been a second violation of the rule of sequestration by the defendant. The matter that was discussed, discussed at sidebar brought up the issue of witness sitting in court. However, the state made no agreement beyond an adverse expert listening to the testimony or reviewing the testimony of their expert, with no other ruling being made on the issue. Ms. Bailey should have not sat in the courtroom, as I recall. I believe it was discussed that she would be permitted to be in the courtroom whether or not there were any other matters that were discussed along with that. I cannot completely recall at this moment.

[Phil Holloway]

But.

[Judge]

Overview and a minimum. Ms. Cattleman Exclusion is always the most extreme of remedies, and that is disfavored by Supreme Court and the appellate courts.

[Georgia Kaplan]

Remedy I could pursue. Judge, I was the only one that comes to mind if.

[Phil Holloway]

I'd like them.

[Georgia Kaplan]

To stop violating the rule of sequestration. That would be the remedy I would seek.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, she would like them to stop violating the rule of sequestration. I could go several years in any kind of courtroom proceeding that I deal with, and this never comes up because it's always followed. Very rarely do you see a violation. And it's usually something that's rather minor and usually not on purpose. But I can't tell if this was a purposeful violation or not. But Dave Aronberg, this was setting up for Linda Bailey. Now, Linda Bailey is A family law attorney. And look here, she was hired by the defense to determine whether this was in fact, a highly contentious case. This seems to me like something the jury can sort out, Dave, on its own, whether it's contentious. We don't need a lawyer with decades of experience in family law who is used to this kind of stuff. We don't need that person to tell this jury whether it's contentious.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Do we know this shows the weakness of the defense? First, they start off with character witnesses. That's not usually the foot you want to lead with. That's usually the thing you do on the back end after you've shown some defense. But that's the best they had. And then they followed up with these two lawyers. Now, just to correct earlier, I said that Georgia Kaplan just eviscerated the lawyer on the stand. This is the one. This Bailey, the second lawyer. That's the one she went after in a big way. It's like she took it personally. And I think essentially what this witness was trying to say is to the jury, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? Because the jurors understand that this was a contentious divorce, and no matter how many times it can get wrapped up in legalese, they're not going to be swayed by this. And I think it's a poor defense to try to convince these jurors that this was a run of the mill divorce when there's ample evidence, a mountain of evidence that says otherwise.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, since you mentioned it, can we call for SOT4, which is the cross examination? Skip ahead a little bit. This is Georgia Kaplan, who, you know, goes after this witness, and then we'll. We'll see what Johnna has to say. But let's roll slot four.

[Georgia Kaplan]

People's lives are impacted by the decisions that go on in court, which for you are routine. Would you agree? In this instance, they reached agreement on.

[Phil Holloway]

All issues, so they had complete control of what was coming out of the court.

[Georgia Kaplan]

Ma', am, could you please answer my question? Are people's lives impacted in drastic ways by routine matters that we see in court as lawyers?

[Phil Holloway]

People's lives change after divorce, certainly.

[Georgia Kaplan]

So, like, I may think I've got a bag of stinky garbage, but the garbage man might not think it's stinky at all. Do you get the reference?

[Jonna Spielbore]

I don't.

[Georgia Kaplan]

What is no big deal to us is a big deal to these litigants. Right? You can't agree with that. You can't agree with it. Strike the question.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, so just strike the Question, Johnna. I think she did a good job making her point. But setting aside the issue of the failure to ask leading questions on cross examination, I guess that's just her style. She's a great lawyer. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but she asked open ended questions and got this so called expert who is clearly serving more in the role of an advocate versus a just an expert witness. She allowed her to get some extra material in there. That was really not what the prosecutor wanted to get out of her because she failed to ask leading questions. But that's my miniature rant. Jona, so what is your take on all of this? Should this witness have been allowed to testify as an expert and what do you make of her testimony? Because remember she says that she can glean whether or not this was contentious or not simply by reading the cold paper filings in the course file.

[Jonna Spielbore]

Yeah, I'm very surprised that she was allowed to testify at all. This is not really a traditional subject of expert testimony, number one. And what the prosecution was trying to point out is a very valid point that look, you can't sit here and sort of coldly textbook this because it's going to be different for everybody. But let's even, let's go bigger than that. This point that the defense was trying to make, I guess I think what they were trying to do is say, look, this really wasn't a contentious divorce. So there's no motive for Donna Adelson to want to pay anybody who's not on her payroll. To want to have a hitman come and kill her son in law, to want to pay him a million dollars if he'll just relent and let the children move to southern Florida. It wasn't contentious. So there's no motive for that. Motive is never an element of any crime. So the defense did not hammer home that there was a lack of motive. So why did they even look at Donna Adelson? There are so many other dots that the prosecution I feel successfully connected that this motive issue is really a nothing burger. As much as I hate that phrase.

[Phil Holloway]

No, it really, it really is because see the prosecutor has said that Donna Adelson, she's the defendant in this case. They said that she had motive to kill because there was a pleading filed that sought to have to limit her visitation with the grandkids to something where, you know, no, no unsupervised visitation. So that was basically a missile fired in this litigation directly at Donna. So the, the prosecutor saying that's the motive. The defense is rebutting that by saying that Wendy had no motive because Wendy's divorce was not contentious and it's like apples and oranges. And the whole thing is now so convoluted. But I do think the defense has missed the mark on that one. Look, we've got other crazy things that happened before we get into the closing arguments. I don't know if you guys saw this, but Donna Adelson, all defendants have to make a decision whether or not they're going to testify. Okay? They have a right to testify. They have a right not to testify. And the judge will instruct the jury if they don't that the jury is supposed to draw no adverse inferences from someone exercising their constitutional right. But she's had years to think about this. She's had weeks and weeks of trial. She's had pretrial motions. In fact, several weeks ago, I think she said that she was going to testify. But at the moment of truth, are you or are you not going to testify? She couldn't make up her mind. Let's take a look at site 5 and listen to that and then we'll talk about it on the other side.

[Judge]

What are you asking for?

[Jonna Spielbore]

I'm asking for additional time to be.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Able to go through all of the.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

Testimony and evidence with our client so.

[Jonna Spielbore]

That she can make a fully informed decision as to whether she wants to continue to remain silent or testify in this case.

[Judge]

Ms. Fulford, concerning that that has been provided by the court if she wishes to testify. We do need to go through the colloquy if she does not. It's a simple matter, but there has been time pre trial to prepare for this moment. There's been time during trial and specifically we recessed court early for you to address any issues of witnesses or whether your client would testify.

[Phil Holloway]

Yep. Yesterday when you. So what the judge is talking about there is the colloquy, which is a question and answer session that judges have to have with the defendants in open court on the record. And they say, look, are you aware that you've got the right to remain silent? Are you aware that you can testify? Are you aware that they can't hold it against you and the prosecutor can't talk about it? And have you had a time to talk with your lawyers and all this stuff about it? And she's had a lot of time and. Well, before we talk about what her decision was, Dave, let me go to you. How long does it normally take? And should it have taken this long and should they have been ready to answer this Question before it got to this.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yes. In fact, the defense lawyer intimated that she would be testifying. He said that at the beginning. He suggested it. He didn't explicitly say it. But from the beginning, even the pre trial hearings, the defense lawyer was saying that she would be testifying. She did testify in a pretrial hearing and it went poorly. And I think that was part of the consideration that the defense lawyer didn't want her to testify. So I think the reason for the confusion or the delay is because Donna, with all of her hubris, wanted to testify. She, just like her son Charlie, thought they could put one over on the jury. And Charlie saw what happened with him. It failed miserably. And that would have been Donna's fate. I would. I was hoping so badly she would take the stand. I could not wait to see Georgia take her on and destroy her on the stand. But cooler heads prevailed. Her lawyers prevailed on her. And I had heard that even after she said that finally she's not going to testify, that that evening, the buzz in Tallahassee was that she was reconsidering. It, was trying to tell her lawyers that she wanted to do it, and the lawyers were telling her not to. So in the end, the lawyers won out. I think it was a good move for her because not only would she have been destroyed on cross examination, but if she would have testified, it would have eliminated her best case on appeal, that the evidence wasn't legally sufficient to find her guilty. Or once you take the stand, that argument is over because then the jury can judge you based on your own credibility as a witness. And so that's why I think the defense lawyers made the right decision to keep her off the stand.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, here's. Here's the magic moment. When Donna makes her decision. Let's. Let's roll slot four. And then I want to ask Donna. Johnna, Not Donna, sorry. I want to ask Janna how she makes this decision with her clients. SOT6, please.

[Judge]

Mrs. Adelson, the question remains, as it relates to your right to remain silent and your right to testify, what is your decision concerning these two rights.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

At this time? I don't want you to.

[Judge]

Well, as I previously stated, the jurors will be instructed that your silence cannot be held against you in any way. We will bring the jurors back out. The defense will rest its case on the record.

[Phil Holloway]

Okay. So I think for our own purposes, greedy purposes, maybe, we, we wanted her to testify. We. We think it would make for great viewing and great listening material here at mk. True Crime. But alas, it was not in the cards. She doesn't testify. Jonna, why was she asked to make this decision, though, before she finished putting up the rest of her witnesses? Because they called several witnesses after that.

[Jonna Spielbore]

You know, that's. That's a great question. Why did they do it a little bit prematurely? And I don't know if there was something going on behind the scenes between Donna and her attorney that they wanted to maybe get her in there to specifically counter something that had come up. In any case, it's a bad idea. If I could just sort of, you know, mirror what. What Dave was saying. You know, we hear that phrase suicide by cop when somebody wants to get shot by the police. This would have been suicide by cross examination. And I don't know if. I don't know if Donna's attorney was trying to talk her out or in to testifying, to be honest with you. And I also found it interesting. First, I've never seen a situation where an attorney has said to the judge, look, we need more time to make this decision, because as the judge pointed out, you had a whole lot of time. You had years. You had this entire trial. You know, you. I know before I even call my first witness, whether or not my client is going to testify 99% of the time, and 99% of the time that answer is no. I found it interesting that Donna said, at this time, I do not want to testify. Well, you know what, Donna? This is your time. Do it or don't. But you don't get another time.

[Phil Holloway]

No. And we. We were all, like, on the edge of our seats wondering, okay, is she going to come back? And later say, oh, I changed my mind. And I think the judge would have let her. I think he probably would have had the letter, but he would not have been happy about it. There was more video that we don't have time to show. But the judge was clearly exasperated with these defense lawyers. He kept saying to them, look, this is what every criminal defendant, you know, has to decide. The time is upon you. I'm going to give you five more minutes, but that's it. It's like, you've had plenty of time. You're not. You're not special. You don't get special treatment. But look, I want to get into closing arguments here in the A block in this show. So we've. We've got to the end. Each side has rested. There's no testimony by the defendant. So each side gets to make closing arguments. State goes first, then the defense, and then the state gets a rebuttal. So we've got Georgia Kaplan for the state making the closing argument. And she starts out also on this theme of whether the divorce was in fact contentious. And honestly, I wish they had sort of moved on from this question, but this is how they started. Let's, let's go with SOT 18 and then we'll talk about it when it's over.

[Georgia Kaplan]

Well, this is Dan Markell. He's the victim in this case. A son, a brother, a colleague, a mentor, a professor, a friend, but most of all, a father, an abba, a.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Dad.

[Georgia Kaplan]

A dedicated and loving father whose downfall was brought about by the fact that his number one priority was maximizing his time with those little boys in the wake of a bitter divorce from their mother. Defense called witnesses to come in here and give you an expert opinion that his divorce and the subsequent litigation was not contentious. Not contentious to whom? It was contentious to Dan Markell.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, Dave Ehrenberg, Florida lawman, what, what is your take on the theme that we're finally seeing coming from the prosecutor? I've been critical of both sides because I've not seen much of a theme, but they, in their clothes, in my opinion, they, they gave what would have been a pretty decent opening argument going through all the evidence somewhat in chronological order. But I'm curious to know your thoughts, Dave.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

I thought prosecution did a good job throughout. I think at the end of the closing argument they went on a little too long. After an hour, you're going to lose jurors. And I wasn't in the courtroom, but I had heard that some of them were doing the yawning thing and went and started to turn tune out. I think that the die was cast going into closing. I don't think closings are going to influence these jurors. I think they got who these people are and I don't think they like the Adelsons. I know they don't like Charlie, who ended up not testifying because the prosecution somehow got in a very damaging phone call between Charlie and his mom where Charlie talks about how he won't date women over 25 years old or that if even a 37 year old Victoria's Secret model is too old for him. I mean, talk about poisoning the jury pool and Donna with just the way that she wanted to dress her kids, the kids in Hitler uniforms, that kind of stuff means they don't like this woman. So then the question is, is the evidence sufficient? And there's plenty of evidence here, circumstantial evidence. Can be just as good as direct evidence. And there is direct evidence here. And I think the strongest direct evidence is the license plate. Why did she have Danny Markle's license plate? Her ex son in law who divorced her daughter two years prior. Why did she have his make, model of his car and license plate in her planner? So I think this case rises and falls on the evidence. And the evidence is strong.

[Phil Holloway]

It sure does. And before I get to Johnna real quick, can we play SOT20 which is part of Kaplan's closing where she talks about this call following the now infamous bump.

[Georgia Kaplan]

What she does say on the wire, which by the way is direct evidence. I know y' all like that. Some direct evidence. When Charlie asked Donna on states 99 call a.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Galaxy.

[Georgia Kaplan]

Does it involve me or other people? Well, probably both of us. That is direct evidence. If anyone in that jury room wants to acquit her, make them tell you how that is not a confession.

[Phil Holloway]

Make them tell you how that was not a confession. 30 seconds. Jonah, your take.

[Jonna Spielbore]

That was a very powerful piece of her closing argument. And you know, this is a case where maybe it's not going to be win or loss on closing argument. If a jury is tuning out during closing, they probably already have an idea of what they're going to do in this case and it's just a matter of formality at this point.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, we'll leave it there on Adelson. And as we go to break, jurors are presently deliberating and we are on verdict watch. We will likely know after this show drops on Friday. We'll recap the cardi b trial for you after the break. And of course, if you have any questions or comments, we want you to email us. Our email address is mktrucrimecaremedia.com mktruechrimelma.com we'd love to hear from you. And we do love answering your comments and questions during the show. So reach out. We'll be right back.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

We talk a lot on this show about personal freedom. Well, part of that is owning your privacy. And let me tell you, if you have ever googled your name and found your home address, your phone number, or even your income floating around. It is not a coincidence that data is bought and sold by data brokers without your consent. This is why I want to tell you about Incogni. It's a service that fights back on your behalf. Incogni contacts those shady sites and gets your personal data removed automatically. No forms, no emails. They handle the back and forth with these brokers and they just update you through their simple dashboard. It can really be a relief. If you care about your privacy and want fewer spam calls, junk emails, and less risk of identity theft. Consider this step and right now you can get 60% off an annual [e-mail] Megan. Use the code Megan when you check out to get your discount of up to 60% off. That's huge. 60. Okay. It's spelled I n C O G N I I N c o g n I.com Megan. Use that code Megan on checkout and take back control of your data with incogni.

[Phil Holloway]

All right. Grammy winning rapper Cardi B was victorious in court this week when a jury found her not liable in a civil lawsuit brought against her by a former security guard at her doctor's office. Cardi B was accused. Listen to this. Assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and even false imprisonment. But here's the thing. Anybody who watched this trial knew that the only thing Cardi B was, let's just say guilty of, even though it's a civil case, was being a highly entertaining witness as she testified for herself. And I want to get into this now with my panel. Guys, look, I don't know about you, but this was in fact a very. Well, the testimony in particular was very, very entertaining. Johnna, did you catch any of it?

[Jonna Spielbore]

I did catch some. And I gotta say, I wasn't exactly a Cardi B fan before this trial, but I am now. She was incredibly entertaining. And here's the thing, though. I get aggravated at fellow lawyers who do things that make us the reason why we're the butt of so many jokes. This case should not have been brought. I have a lot of sympathy, empathy for famous people because they are targets for these kind of frivolous lawsuits. Everybody wants to make a quick buck. And Cardi B came out and said, you come after me frivolously, I am not settling. And I applaud her for that.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, look, I mean, she. In fact. Well, there's some testimony, Dave, that I want to talk to you about if we can roll seven. And then I'm going to talk to Dave about some of Cardi B's testimony.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

Now we're like chest to chest practically. So I keep telling her, like, you need to back up, back up. I'm thinking to myself, like, this girl is big. She's big. She got big black boots on. And I'm like, damn. I arguing. And I keep telling her to back up, but she's not backing up and we arguing, cursing at each other. I did call her the B word. I did call her A. Like, get out of my face. I did say, get the. On my face. You're in my face. You're screaming in my face. We're, like, literally writing. We're literally screaming at each other. And she. And she kept telling me, like, you gonna leave my building? I'm like, I'm not leaving. The receptionist came out. She started, like. She started walling out. Like, this hit me.

[Jonna Spielbore]

This hit me.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

And I'm like, I. I did not hit him. I'm looking at like, girl, I can't even hit you if I want to.

[Phil Holloway]

I'm.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

I'm. You're bigger than me, and you're pregnant. I'm just. She just started wilding out, like, this hit me. This hit me. Then the doctor came out, and he was like, go to my office. And after that, I just. I just walk away. That's his death.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, Dave, you know that in a civil case, a plaintiff has to prove that he or she was injured in some way, either physically or maybe in. In one sense, emotional damages. But that's the kind of thing that has to occur. A jury's got to find damages before they can assign a dollar value to that. So it's an essential element of every claim. What I just heard seemed to describe just a mere verbal altercation. How was anybody harmed? How did they think they were going to make their case with that? Dave Ehrenberg.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Well, the plaintiff sued for $24 million based on a scratch on her cheek, which she said needed surgery, and she had great emotional damage. And I think the jury reacted the same way Johnna did. I think Johnna speaks for all of us. And although we don't like when celebrities get special privilege, at the same time, we know that they're a target. We know that they're a target for people who see dollar signs. And in this case, you have to show more than a scratch on the cheek. And that. That somehow destroyed your life. When it seems like you're relishing the attention, you're suing this big celebrity. I'm sure there was. Now, this would not be part of the trial, but I'm sure there are a lot of negotiations behind the scenes. And yet here we are in a public trial because this person wanted $24 million and one to go after. This person probably make a name for herself, just like the guy who sued Gwyneth Paltrow in the skiing accident. And guess what? Same result. It seemed like Seems like jurors are really getting it.

[Phil Holloway]

But look, I mean, Jonna, the plaintiff, said that she put her finger in my face and quote, body shame me. Let's play side eight.

[J]

After she heard me say her name, she turned back around and the first thing out of her mouth was, excuse my language, was, why the are you telling people that you've seen me at this time? I tried to calm her down and assure her that I didn't tell anyone that I'd seen her. And she was extremely upset.

[Phil Holloway]

And what did she tell you after that?

[J]

Then excuse my language again. But she said, yes, you did. And then she put her finger in my face. She used a lot of words. And again, excuse my language, but she was like, that's why I'm gonna beat your. I'm gonna get you fired. That's why you do security.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

Aha.

[J]

That's why you do security. She was sticking her tongue out. She was flailing her arms up and down. She was jumping up and down. Body shaming me. I mean, racial slurs just a lot.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, John, you know, here at MK True Crime, we don't endorse body shaming or racial slurs or pointing fingers in faces and all this. But look, does. Is this. Even if that's true, is this just simply a case of hurt feelings? And if so, how can you get money for hurt feelings?

[Jonna Spielbore]

First of all, the plaintiff just gave Cardi B the lyrics to her next multi platinum record. Okay, that's what we have here, number one. Number two, here's what happened. I mean, I'm not. I'm. This is supposition. But this person went to a lawyer and said, hey, Cardi B stuck her finger in my face. And that lawyer sat back, probably in his cheap suit and said, hey, you know what? We'll file a complaint. We'll get a nice big check. We'll call it a day. Well, that didn't happen because when you have a plaintiff like Cardi B. And I love the analogy, Dave. The Gwyneth Paltrow case, same thing. I love it. Some celebrities are now standing up and saying, I'd rather pay my lawyer than write a check for 2 cents on a frivolous case to this particular plaintiff. And that had to have happened. I'm convinced that had to have happened here.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, look, I mean, I found this particular. A lot of the testimony was. Was really, really entertaining. And we wouldn't be doing our job here at MK True Crime if we didn' bring a certain level of entertainment to our audience. Let's let's roll SOT9 and let's. Let's watch some entertainment. You said she's bigger than you.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Is that correct?

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

Absolutely.

[Phil Holloway]

How do we know that?

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

I mean, look.

[Phil Holloway]

I'm looking. I agree with that.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

What do you. What is your basis?

[Phil Holloway]

Are you saying she's physically bigger?

[Dave Ehrenberg]

She's taller?

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

I mean, you. You have her. You have her medical records.

[Phil Holloway]

I don't have anything.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

I won't ask you the questions.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

I mean, I was £130 at that time.

[Phil Holloway]

So she's overweight, right? In your opinion.

[Judge]

Objection.

[Phil Holloway]

Relevant. She.

[Jonna Spielbore]

A little.

[Judge]

You don't need to answer me.

[Phil Holloway]

Okay? Did you call her fat?

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

No, I was calling her a.

[Phil Holloway]

Look, Dave, you know, you're. You're the judge in this case. How do you. How do you just avoid. How do you keep a straight face in front of a jury if you're the judge? That's.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Oh, it's hard to. I mean, you know, that's. That's the price of wearing the black robes, I guess. But usually this kind of entertainment demands an admission ticket. It was really amazing. And if you want a referee in this battle, I guess the plaintiff, the way that. That shirt she's wearing. When I first saw that, I thought she was officiating the trial. Show that on the screen. And I don't mean to shame anyone here, but this was a weak case. It should not have been brought. And you see by the quick dismissal by the jury, the result. I actually think that Cardi B plays into what is now being prized by most Americans, and that's authenticity. I think when you see in politics, you see it in life. People want someone who's real, authentic. And Cardi B. Say what you want about her. She is real, she is authentic, and she connected with the jury.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, before we move on to our next topic, in the next segment, I feel like I'm obligated to play a little bit more sound and video. Can we roll slot 12, which is a discussion about Cardi B's hair? Yesterday you had black hair, short hair. Today it's blonde and long. Which one is your real hair? Here, or are they both real?

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

They're wigs.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Okay. Sorry, I didn't know that. It's a good week today then.

[Phil Holloway]

John, I can see you laughing. What you got?

[Jonna Spielbore]

First of all, what a dumb question. Who asked that? Was that the plaintiff's attorney or was that Cardi B's own attorney?

[Phil Holloway]

That was the plaintiff's lawyer, I believe.

[Jonna Spielbore]

You know. Why? Was your hair a different color?

[Phil Holloway]

Yes.

[Jonna Spielbore]

Like, come on, you don't know why. You know, that was a stupid question, but I love her absolute coyness. She's just like. She wanted to punctuate the end of the. It's a wig with you, dumb ass. That's what she wanted to say and she didn't, unfortunately.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, Dave, we may have another lawsuit coming because. Well, let's. Let's take a look and listen at site 14 and we got some markers flying. Hey, Cardi, you're beautiful. Thank you. Party insiders are claiming that Offset is publicly bragging about getting and you crazy for the fourth time. Do you foresee any fraternity issue with Stephan did.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

Stop disrespecting me. Don't disrespect me.

[Phil Holloway]

I got another.

[Jonna Spielbore]

Is amazing.

[Phil Holloway]

I still love you even though you just threw some stuff at me. I don't care.

[Cardi B's Security Guard Plaintiff]

You're disrespectful. Don't do that.

[Phil Holloway]

They still love her even though she threw something, Dave.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

God, people antagonize celebrities. And yes, she should not have done that. Under the law, that's technically a battery. But no prosecutor in the world's going to pursue that. No jury in the world will convict her of that. So nothing will be filed. But, you know, people should just grow up and stop antagonizing someone who you know is volatile. At the same time, Cardi B. Should know that, you know, when you're a target, you should be throwing things at people. Just chill out a little bit. So maybe we can all just grow up a little bit. But in the end, nothing's going to result from that.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, well, there you have it, folks. She, she, the plaintiff, got nothing. Goose eggs and a complete trial victory for Cardi B. Maybe there'll be another trial after that marker throwing, but we'll see. I kind of doubt it. But look, up next we have our closing argument segment where we'll get into your emails and of course, we're going to get into this story about a children's book author who was going to take the stand. Is she going to take the stand? Because she's charged with murder in Utah. And remember, our email address is mk true crimeevilmaycare media.com mk true crimeavelmaycare media.com we'd love to hear from you.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

When inflation jumps. When you hear the national Debt is over $37 trillion, do you ever think maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold? Well, you'd be right. Whether as a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just for sensible diversification, Birch Gold Group believes every American should own physical gold. And so they created something special. Until September 30th. If you're a first time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, request an info kit right now. Just text MK to 989-898 plus Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401K into an IRA in gold and you're still eligible for a rebate in free metals of up to ten grand. So make right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to $10,000 when you buy before September 30th. Text MK to the number 989898 to claim your eligibility and get your free info kit.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, here we go. We'll get to your questions here in just a moment. And we'll also get to our own rants or what we call closing arguments here at MK True Crime. But first, we want to highlight a case that we'll be bringing to you in February. It's the case of Corey Richards. Corey Richards is a Utah mother of three. She will stand trial for the alleged murder in the poisoning death of her husband in early next year, 2026. The really twisted thing, however, about this case is that Corey allegedly has tried to capitalize, I guess there's no question about it really. She did write a children's book in the aftermath in the wake of the death of her children's father on how children can deal with grief and death. And in fact, she went on local television and tried to market her book.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Let's take a look what happened in your personal life.

[Corey Richards]

So my husband passed away unexpectedly last year. So March 4th was a one year anniversary for us. And he was 39. It completely took us all by shock. And we have three little boys, 10, nine and six. And you know, we kind of, my kids and I kind of wrote this book on the different emotions and grieving processes that we've experienced last year and, you know, hoping that it can kind of help other kids, you know, deal with this and kind of, you know, find happiness some, some way or another.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, so Dave, look, I mean, this is a crazy case. Prosecutors say that she poisoned her husband by giving him a lethal dose of fentanyl. They said that she had tried it before by unsuccessfully, I guess by trying to poison a sandwich that he ate. Dave, they said he went or she went online and she searched for things like women in Utah prisons and how much is a lethal dose of fentanyl and things that really, really are very disturbing. And as a longtime prosecutor, I particularly wanted to get your thoughts on this, because this is the kind of sinister, alleged murder that we don't see all the time.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yeah. And the motive is easy. It's money. And she had a boyfriend, so she wanted to be with someone else and she wanted the money. She was in financial straits herself and was trying to doctor financial documents to put her name as beneficiaries. And she's in a fight with the family of the victims. She's been in a fight with them. So the motive is easy. And the fact that she tried to do it before by like, I think it was baking him a. A cake or something, or a sand making a sandwich. That's right. And he complained about it. He was violently ill after the first time she tried to poison him. And then she did it again. And yes, just like any innocent person, she has burner phones and then made searches on said burner phones for things like women. Utah prison. Can cops uncover deleted messages, iPhone? If someone is poisoned, what does it go down on the death certificate as? How long does life insurance companies take to pay? And what. What is a lethal dose of fentanyl? Very normal stuff for an innocent person.

[Phil Holloway]

John, she's facing 35 counts. 35, including the murder, the forgery, mortgage fraud, insurance fraud. You know, with 35 counts in an indictment like that, you know, prosecutors, they don't have to win every count before their clients had a really, really bad day. So put on your defense lawyer hat and tell me, you know, how would you start out defending a client facing 35 counts? And that, by the way, the counts are, they're related, but, you know, you don't oftentimes see these financial crimes mixed in with a murder.

[Jonna Spielbore]

So to. To try to successfully defend her, it's probably going to be important to parse out the financial part of this, to separate it from the murder part of this. Right. Because the prosecution, again, they're going to try to go to motive, but in their case, the motive is actually tied into some of the counts in this indictment because they're financially related. So the prosecution's going to want to convict her of these financial crimes to show that she was financially motivated and then tie that in to the murder. A defense attorney is going to have to say, hang on, hang on. She might have had some financial hardship and she might have been doing something on the slide. Her business might have been failing, but it's a big leap to go from being financially poor or broke or needing money to killing your husband and father of your three kids, who you love so dearly. So the defense attorney is going to have to create a chasm and hope that the jury doesn't believe part two, which is, well, that did lead to murder. Not going to be an easy road to hoe for the defense attorney. Not.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, well, there you have it from one of the best. And that's going to lead us now into our legal mailbag. This is actually one of our more interesting and one of the more fun things we're starting to do now here at MK True Crime, because we really do like to hear from our audience members. And, Dave, you've got an email that you want to talk about from Christy with a C. Yeah, Christy asks.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

It sounds like Florida will go after Wendy Adelson next if Don is convicted. I agree. Do you think they will also go after Harvey? If so, what could they go after him for? Or is he just small potatoes in the grand scheme of things? Pun intended. Excellent question, Christie. So, yes, I think Wendy is next if and when Donna is convicted. I think it'll happen pretty soon, perhaps within a month. And we will know then, I think, whether Harvey will be charged, because I think if Harvey's going to be charged, it'll be at the same time as Wendy. I think they get them both together. Now, if Harvey is not charged, then I think he will not be charged at all. Because although I think he was involved in that, he knew what was going on. He was a minor player. And his age, he's like 80 years old. He doesn't seem like he's totally with it. When I see him on camera. I don't know what his mental state is, but I'm not sure they're going to take the time, energy to go after him in a separate trial after Wendy, because Wendy is next. Now, the evidence they have against Harvey. Well, they said, remember the key evidence. Some of the key evidence was that killing Dan was Harvey's gift, a gift for Harvey's 70th birthday. This was the gift. And when the killers were went to Tallahassee the first time and did not kill Danny, Charlie messaged the family that says, I'm still working on dad's birthday present. So he knew. And then there's a conversation in secret between Harvey and Charlie early on in this. So it's hard to believe he was just kept in the dark. I think the whole family was involved.

[Phil Holloway]

All right. And I've got one from Sonya Sonya, who writes, and I quote, I have never watched a live trial. Is it normal for what appears to be chaos and lack of organization or preparedness by the defense? They appear to be a freaking disaster. For someone with Donna's money, I expected a much more coherent, prepared defense. Well, first off, I don't know that Donna has a lot of money left, if any. But I think that, I think Sonya's observations are consistent with what a lot of people have been mentioning in our chat rooms when we have been watching this trial live on MK True Crime on our YouTube channel. A lot of people are making those same observations. And at times, I think it does appear that the presentation is a little bit disorganized, disjointed, not flowing very well. And honestly, there's some room for improvement. It's hard for us to, it's easy for us to sit outside, on the outside looking in and judging. But, you know, look, it's Monday morning quarterback. That's kind of, kind of what we do sometimes as analysts. But the folks that are watching this trial have almost, and I'd say uniformly come come to the same conclusion and made the same observations. But thank you very much for the email, Sonia. Now, Jonna, you've got one coming up about a new case. What's that?

[Jonna Spielbore]

Yeah, this is from Christy with a K from Lake of the Ozarks. First of all, let me just say that Christy is loving the show and wishes it were five days a week. I could stop there, but I won't. She wants to hear us talk about a very cold case from 1992 out of Springfield, Missouri, I guess, where three women went missing without a trace. It was a victim, a victim's mother, and a victim's friend. So here's the setup. Back in June 1992, Susie Streeter, age 19, her mother, Cheryl Levitt, age 47, and her friend Stacy McCall, age 18, vanished without a trace after a graduation party. Police say the two friends went to Susie's house after attending that party.

[Phil Holloway]

And.

[Jonna Spielbore]

And nobody has seen them since. You got like, literally nobody has seen them since. So police believe that after the graduation party, they ended up at another house and were eventually reported missing. Here's the thing. The family dog was left behind. In addition to money, clothing, car car keys, and other personal items, there was no apparent sign of a struggle. Like the poof. These three women literally vanished into thin air. That is a cold case that I think will be very interesting to dig into.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, yeah, and cold cases are some of the more fascinating cases that we can cover. And the things that we can really dig into because they have lots of issues. The colder a case gets, the harder it is to investigate and to prove. And by all means, we'll take. We'll continue to take a look at that and keep a close eye on it. Now we're going to move into what we call our closing arguments, or sometimes we call this our rants. So this is where the three of us have the opportunity to say whatever we want to say, whatever is on our mind in no particular order. We'll start with. How about you, Dave?

[Dave Ehrenberg]

You know, I'm going to talk about. I'm going to talk about the Adelen case because it's winding to a close and I've been seeing stuff online and hearing from friends who are worried because the prosecution's closing arguments went on long. The jury looks a little disinterested. They're worried because perhaps they're just so scared that the worst could happen. After all, Katie McBanua's trial went two times. She had to be tried twice and she was so guilty as sin. So of course there's always a chance of a hung jury. And by the time that this comes out, maybe the verdict will already be in. So let me go out on a limb and say there is no chance that Donna adelson will be convicted. There is no chance. And I know this could go viral if I'm wrong. But come on, think about this.

[Phil Holloway]

This.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

There could always be the hung jury, but the mountain of evidence is there. The license plate in Donna adelson's planner of Danny's license plate. The post bump confession where she's caught on tape saying this involves the both of us. She dropped off the cash to pay the murders. The night of the murder, she put Katie mcbanow on payroll for months for a no show job to pay her for being the conduit for the murder. How about the consciousness of guilt fleeing to Vietnam, a non extradable country. What about the jailhouse snitches? I mean, and what does the defense have? Well, it wasn't a contentious divorce. Really? That's what you got? And character witnesses. That Donna's really a peachy keen person. Give me a break. Admittedly, the only thing predictable about juries are that they are notoriously unpredictable. But I think you can predict in this case Donna will be found guilty.

[Phil Holloway]

And that right there is the fire in the belly. Concise, succinct, to the point, closing argument that I wish we had seen in the actual courtroom in this case. Thank you Very much, Dave. Now, I'm gonna go next because John is going to go last. And the reason she's going last is because I'm saving the best for last. And because she's notorious now. No, she's famous for her rant. So this is not really a rant. This is an observation, something I came across. True crime. Some lovers and fanatics will know the name of Rex Heuerman. He's the alleged Gilgo Beach Killer. A case that we'll no doubt be following and talking about here on MK True Crime. His trial's moving forward after a September 3rd. So a very recent ruling where a judge has allowed something called advanced DNA. Have you guys heard about this? We don't have enough time to break it down, but it's pretty cool. The decision by Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Timothy Marzay presents or permits the use of these results of this type of DNA, which is called whole genome sequencing. Okay. And this works on degraded DNA, which is found in this case on victims hairs to link them to Heuerman and his family. So Heuerman, of course, has pleaded not guilty. He's presumed to be innocent, but he's charged with the murders of seven women. Women. Okay. And this ruling is significant because prosecutors can use this non traditional DNA evidence, combining it with cell phone data that will link him to the crime scene. So this is a big, big win for prosecutors using some new and novel scientific evidence. And once that case goes to trial, we'll be watching it real close. John, are you ready? Go ahead.

[Jonna Spielbore]

I think I'm ready. Okay. I want to talk about something that technically is not a crime, but ought to be disturbing the peace. Specifically my peace here in New York. Disturbing the peace is just a violation. Same as a traffic ticket. The maximum penalty, a mere $250 fine and up to 15 days in jail. I propose we elevate disturbing the peace to an offense with a punishment more in line with the level of pain it inflicts on its victims. The first perpetrators I nominate to be prosecuted under this law, my new neighbors. To be fair, I don't blame them for wanting to own a piece of the neighborhood. It's a desirable area on the banks of the Hudson River. It's tranquil. It's gorgeous. It's a little slice of Zen. Or at least it was. The first offense committed by my neighbors was to immediately turn their new home into an Airbnb. This means every weekend I'm forced to contend with a whole new set of strangers whose mission is to party like rock stars because, well, most of the time they are. A few weekends ago, I succumbed to a 48 hour wrap party where the music was so loud my skull actually expanded and contracted involuntarily for two freaking days. Last Saturday, while I was Busy sipping a 90 point Pinot under a glorious sunset, another new bunch decided to use the backyard to conduct a belching contest. I kid you not, but perhaps the most egregious disturbance today is the heavy blanket of smoke riding the once delightful waft of fresh river air, a product of their penchant for perpetual bonfires. Look, I like an occasional smore every now and then, but these guys are practically pyromaniacs setting dry sticks ablaze morning, noon and night. Have you ever tried to escape the unwieldy tentacles of smoke? Don't bother. You can't. No fence is tall enough, no window tight enough. As a result, most days I go to the office, to court, to the mailbox smelling like I just rolled around with Sasquatch. Because, well, whoever said good fences make for good neighbors was only half right. My imaginary constituents, I believe I have made my case as to why disturbing the peace needs to be elevated to a capital crime punishable by, let me think. Yeah, death. Thank you.

[Phil Holloway]

Oh my goodness. All right, so look. Anybody, look, just go ahead and send us an email@mk true crimevilmaycare media.com and we will email you back and we will give you Johnna's home address so that you too can rent that vrbo and we can, we can all go hang out with Jonna on the banks of the Hudson. All right, so the question that we have is, is Donna Adelen? Is she done? Is it. Is it over for her? Is she going to spend the rest of her life in prison? We may know the answer by the time this show drops. When you hear this show on podcast or watch it on video on Friday, we may very well know whether there's a verdict in the case or we may still be on verdict watch. But either way, we will be following it closely. All of us here at MK True Crime, we talk about this on social media. Follow all of us. I'm PhilHollaway Esq. On X. Dave and Jonna are also very active. We're going to keep talking about this. We'll take it into the social media sphere. But of course, the email. Again, we want to hear from you. MKTrueCrimeLMaycare Media.com I want to say thank you to my fellow contributors, the producers, and thank you all for joining us here. And we'll see you back here next time at MK True Crime.