0:00

is the Hidden Killers podcast

0:02

with Tony Bruski and continuing

0:04

coverage of the case against

0:06

Donna Adelson. It's

0:11

not every day you see a 70

0:13

-something grandmother trying to get a murder

0:15

trial judge kicked off her case,

0:17

but then again, this isn't

0:19

your average grandmother and this

0:21

definitely isn't your average trial.

0:24

Donna Adelson, the matriarch at the

0:26

center of a murder for higher

0:28

conspiracy, nearly a decade in the

0:30

making, is locked in a

0:33

legal battle that's finally heading to trial.

0:35

But in April 2025, just weeks before

0:37

she's set to face a jury, her

0:39

legal team made one last dramatic push to

0:42

shake up the game by trying

0:44

to disqualify the judge presiding over the

0:46

entire case. Let's

0:48

be clear, this wasn't some

0:50

procedural formality. Donna's

0:52

defense didn't quietly file a motion and

0:54

move on. No, they filed the legal

0:56

equivalent of slamming the brakes on the

0:58

whole trial and yelling, we want a

1:00

new driver. Judge Steven

1:02

Everett has been overseeing this case and

1:05

by all public accounts doing so with

1:07

a pretty even hand. But after

1:09

a series of rulings that didn't go

1:11

their way, most notably his comments

1:13

about possibly allowing certain evidence to be

1:15

used against them, Donna's lawyers decided

1:17

to go after the man with the

1:19

gavel. The exact details of

1:21

the motion were sealed, but the playbook

1:23

here isn't hard to read. They

1:25

likely argued the judge was biased

1:28

or had created the appearance of

1:30

bias legal buzzwords used when you

1:32

want to suggest the referees wearing

1:34

the other teams jersey and While

1:36

Florida law does allow for disqualification

1:38

under certain conditions. It's a tough

1:40

sell The standard is high the

1:42

motion has to show a well -founded

1:44

fear that the judge can't be

1:46

impartial It's not code for we

1:48

don't like your rulings. It means

1:50

something more like Your honor has

1:52

a personal stake in this or

1:54

has said something so prejudicial. No

1:57

reasonable person would believe

1:59

we're getting a fair shake. And

2:01

Judge Everett didn't buy it, not the first

2:04

time, not the second time. Donna's

2:06

team filed an amended version of the motion

2:08

after the first was rejected, kind

2:10

of like saying, no, okay, how about

2:12

now? And he still said no. There

2:15

was no detailed explanation,

2:17

no courtroom theatrics, no long

2:19

-winded opinion, just a judicial

2:21

equivalent of Nice try. Let's

2:23

move on. That's

2:25

how April started for Donna Adelson

2:27

by losing what was probably her

2:29

boldest attempt to reset the game. But

2:32

the defense wasn't done swinging. A

2:35

motion to disqualify the judge is one thing. The

2:37

next logical step when you're up against the wall

2:39

is to buy more time. So

2:41

they filed a motion for continuance asking the

2:43

court to delay the June 3rd trial. Now,

2:46

unlike the disqualification attempt, this one

2:48

actually has a decent shot at

2:50

success, at least procedurally. The

2:53

defense says it needs more time to

2:55

prepare, citing the massive scope of discovery.

2:58

We're talking tens of thousands of

3:00

pages, including over 80 ,000 emails

3:02

that were only recently turned

3:04

over. That's not just a

3:06

lot of reading, it's a digital haystack, and

3:08

they're looking for needles. Emails, call

3:10

logs, court filings, It's a flood of evidence

3:12

that would be hard for any team

3:14

to sort through in time, let alone when

3:16

your client is facing life in prison. That

3:19

motion hasn't been ruled on yet.

3:22

The hearing is scheduled for April 30th, and

3:24

until then, the June 3rd

3:26

trial date still stands. But

3:28

this delay attempt came on the

3:30

heels of yet another loss. The judge

3:33

recently denied a motion to suppress

3:35

a jailhouse call, presumably one involving Donna,

3:37

that the prosecution wants to use

3:39

at trial. These recorded phone

3:41

calls usually made from jail while

3:43

the defendant is awaiting trial often

3:45

end up being a goldmine for

3:47

prosecutors people forget they're being recorded

3:49

they vent they strategize they slip

3:51

up and if you're Donna Adelson

3:53

who allegedly has a reputation for

3:55

trying to control the narrative those

3:58

calls could be devastating if the

4:00

jury hears them the court's denial

4:02

of the suppression motion means that

4:04

whatever was said on those calls

4:06

is coming in and the prosecution intends

4:09

to use it. This

4:11

ruling, combined with the refusal to

4:13

remove the judge, paints a pretty clear

4:15

picture. The court is not

4:17

entertaining procedural side quests. This trial

4:19

is happening, and it's happening

4:21

on schedule unless the April 30th

4:23

hearing says otherwise. Meanwhile,

4:25

the broader posture of the

4:27

case has shifted into full -on

4:29

pre -trial warfare. Both

4:31

sides are still filing motions, some

4:34

sealed, some public, trying to define

4:36

the rules of engagement. Discovery

4:38

deadlines have been pushed back

4:40

slightly, mostly to accommodate depositions,

4:42

including a notable one, Charlie

4:44

Adelson, Donna's son, who's

4:46

already been convicted for his role

4:48

in the murder, is scheduled to

4:50

be deposed from prison next month,

4:52

whether he actually says anything meaningful

4:54

or pleads the fifth remains to

4:56

be seen. But it's clear

4:59

the defense is looking to fill in

5:01

gaps and prepare for any surprises. And

5:03

that's what all of this really

5:06

comes down to. preparing for what's next.

5:08

With the judge still in place, the

5:11

trial date looming, and key evidence

5:13

officially admitted, the pressure is

5:15

building. The defense is in a

5:17

corner trying to chip away at the

5:19

case from every angle they can, stalling

5:21

where possible, narrowing what can be said

5:23

in court, and maybe most of all,

5:25

hoping to control how Donna is seen

5:27

by the jury. Because

5:29

this isn't just about facts, it's

5:31

about framing. That's

5:34

the fight unfolding in these final

5:36

weeks before trial. Not who

5:38

did what, but how the story gets

5:40

told once the courtroom lights come

5:42

on. The defense needs time

5:44

to reshape Donna into a sympathetic

5:46

figure, an aging mother caught in

5:48

a family tragedy, not a mastermind

5:50

behind a murder. The

5:52

prosecution, meanwhile, is positioning

5:55

her as the final piece of

5:57

a calculated family conspiracy that's

5:59

already taken down her son and

6:01

implicated her daughter. And the

6:03

clock is ticking, whether the trial stays

6:05

on the rails or gets pushed down

6:07

the calendar will depend on how persuasive

6:09

that April 30th hearing turns out to

6:11

be. But no matter what happens, one

6:14

thing is certain. The

6:16

momentum is not on Donna Adelson's

6:18

side. This is where things

6:20

start to feel less like a legal

6:22

procedure and more like psychological theater. Because

6:25

before a single witness takes the

6:27

stand and Donna Adelson's murder for hire

6:29

trial The courtroom is already hosting

6:31

a quieter but no less important war.

6:34

The fight over what the jury gets to hear, what

6:37

they get to see, and

6:39

what they're allowed to feel. And

6:41

at the center of that fight is

6:43

a book. Yes, a

6:45

novel. Not a legal

6:47

document, not an intercepted phone call,

6:49

not a witness statement, but

6:51

a fictional story written years ago

6:53

by Donna's daughter, Wendy Adelson. The

6:56

book is called This Is Our Story, and

6:58

while it isn't on trial, it might as

7:00

well be. Because the

7:02

prosecution says this book, though

7:04

technically fiction, offers a window into

7:07

Wendy's mindset before Dan Markell

7:09

was murdered. More importantly, they

7:11

argue it reveals something about the

7:13

family dynamics that fueled the entire

7:15

case. Dynamics that include

7:18

Donna Adelson herself. The

7:20

defense naturally wants it kept

7:22

far away from the courtroom. They

7:24

argue it's irrelevant, it's prejudicial,

7:27

it's fiction. In their

7:29

eyes, using a made -up story to

7:31

suggest motive in a very real

7:33

murder is like trying to convict

7:35

someone based on their favorite crime

7:37

movie. They've gone on record

7:39

saying that the character in the book

7:41

isn't Wendy. The setting

7:43

isn't Tallahassee and the husband

7:45

being resented isn't Dan

7:47

Markle. Just a story. Nothing

7:50

more. But the

7:52

prosecution sees it differently. They're not

7:54

trying to present the book as

7:56

direct evidence of anything criminal They're

7:58

not suggesting Wendy outlined the murder

8:01

in the margins What they are

8:03

saying is that the book reflects

8:05

the frustrations grievances and emotional tension

8:07

that were allegedly building within the

8:09

Adelson family Specifically the resentment Wendy

8:11

may have felt being stuck in

8:14

Tallahassee after the court refused to

8:16

let her move to South Florida

8:18

with her children Something

8:20

she reportedly blamed Dan

8:22

for. And here's

8:24

where Donna comes in. According

8:27

to prosecutors, Donna wasn't just

8:29

a sympathetic ear. She was part

8:31

of the problem -solving team. They

8:34

point to emails and conversations

8:36

in which Donna allegedly expressed

8:38

similar frustrations. She

8:40

wanted Wendy and the kids closer. She

8:42

didn't like Tallahassee either. She

8:44

viewed Dan as an obstacle.

8:47

The book in their eyes doesn't just

8:49

expose Wendy's frame of mind. It underscores

8:52

a shared family outlook. It helps lay

8:54

the emotional groundwork for why someone might

8:56

want Dan Markell out of the picture. The

8:59

legal tug of war here is

9:01

all about admissibility with purpose. The judge

9:03

has already hinted at how he's

9:05

likely to rule. He's not going to

9:07

let prosecutors read the book to

9:09

the jury like at story time. But

9:11

he has said on the record

9:13

that if Wendy testifies and if she

9:15

says something that contradicts the emotional

9:17

tone or details in the book, then

9:19

it may be fair game. In

9:21

legal terms, that means the novel could

9:24

be used for impeachment. Not

9:26

as proof that the story is true,

9:28

but to challenge her credibility if she presents

9:30

a sanitized version of events that doesn't

9:32

align with what she's written in the past.

9:35

That's a narrow window, but a powerful

9:37

one. Jurors may never read

9:40

the whole book, but even a few

9:42

well -placed excerpts could be enough to plant

9:44

doubt or spark clarity. In a

9:46

trial where motive is essential but direct

9:48

evidence is limited, every emotional

9:50

breadcrumb matters. Especially

9:53

if those breadcrumbs lead back

9:55

to the family kitchen table where

9:57

Donna Adelson allegedly sat, stirred

9:59

the pot, and plotted alongside her

10:01

children. But the

10:03

book isn't the only point of

10:05

contention. The fight over Wendy's

10:07

novel is really just one front

10:09

in a much larger evidentiary battle.

10:12

The prosecution has been working to

10:14

admit a range of communications, emails,

10:16

voicemails, call records between Donna and

10:18

other family members. They

10:20

argue that this digital footprint tells

10:23

a clear story, one

10:25

of a close -knit family that

10:27

didn't just share dinners, but also

10:29

shared a deep desire to fix

10:31

the custody situation. And if

10:33

the state is to be believed,

10:35

that fix came with fatal consequences.

10:38

In these emails, Donna allegedly expresses

10:40

concern not just for Wendy's well -being,

10:42

but for her own access to

10:44

her grandchildren. According

10:46

to prosecutors, she repeatedly blames Dan

10:48

for keeping the family divided and

10:50

make statements suggesting that legal remedies

10:53

weren't working. On their

10:55

own, these messages might sound like nothing

10:57

more than venting an upset mother -in

10:59

-law grieving a custody battle gone sideways.

11:02

But the state's theory is that

11:04

these communications reveal a pattern,

11:06

not isolated anger, but sustained pressure.

11:09

And when added to the timeline leading

11:11

up to Dan's murder, they argue the

11:13

context becomes damning. The defense,

11:15

of course, is pushing back

11:17

hard. They say the prosecution

11:19

is cherry -picking phrases and

11:21

painting ordinary frustrations as sinister

11:23

motives. They insist that Donna

11:25

was a grandmother, not a gangster. That

11:28

expressing anger over custody issues

11:30

doesn't mean someone is plotting murder.

11:33

And that any attempt to use

11:35

emotional emails or past writings to

11:37

prove a criminal conspiracy is not

11:39

only misleading, it's prejudicial. That's the

11:41

heart of this evidentiary fight. What

11:43

should the jury hear? And what

11:46

can they unhear once it's out

11:48

there? Because the second someone on

11:50

the witness stand quotes from a novel

11:52

that sounds like a diary or reads a

11:54

line from an email that feels a

11:56

little too loaded that Bell can't be unrung.

11:59

Jurors can be told to consider it

12:01

for credibility, not guilt, but

12:03

the emotional impact is real. and

12:05

both sides know it. So

12:07

this pretrial battle isn't just

12:10

about what's legally admissible. It's

12:12

about controlling the courtroom narrative.

12:14

The prosecution wants to show Donna

12:16

Adelson as an orchestrator, someone

12:18

who didn't just complain about Dan

12:20

Markell but actively sought to

12:22

remove him from the equation. The

12:25

defense wants to keep her in

12:27

a different light entirely. An aging

12:29

mother deeply involved in her family's

12:31

life but far removed from any

12:33

actual planning or violence. Every email,

12:36

every phone call, every literary quote

12:38

becomes another brushstroke on that canvas.

12:40

And that's why this chapter of the case

12:42

matters so much. The jury

12:44

hasn't heard a word yet, but the attorneys

12:47

are already fighting tooth and nail over the

12:49

soundtrack of the trial. Over which

12:51

themes they'll be allowed to play and which

12:53

notes will be cut from the score. Because

12:55

once opening statements begin, the

12:58

attorneys won't just be arguing over

13:00

facts, they'll be telling stories, And

13:02

those stories will either cast

13:04

Donna Adelson as the grieving grandmother

13:06

who lost her family into

13:08

tragedy, or the woman who helped

13:10

orchestrate a plan to keep

13:12

her family intact, by

13:14

any means necessary. If

13:16

you really want to understand how Donna

13:18

Adelson ended up at the center of one

13:20

of Florida's most tangled murder for higher

13:23

cases, you have to go

13:25

back. Not to a courtroom, not to

13:27

illegal filing, but to a driveway

13:29

in Tallahassee, Florida on a quiet summer

13:31

morning in 2014. That's

13:33

where it started. Or more

13:35

accurately, that's where it

13:37

all became irreversible. On

13:39

July 18th of that year, Dan

13:41

Markell, a 41 -year -old law professor

13:44

at Florida State University, pulled

13:46

into his driveway after dropping his kids

13:48

off at daycare. It was

13:50

just after 11 a .m. He never made

13:52

it inside. A gunman approached and shot

13:54

him in the head through the driver's

13:56

side window. He would die the

13:58

next day in the hospital. The attack

14:00

was precise, professional, and had all the signs

14:02

of a premeditated hit. At

14:04

first glance, there wasn't a clear suspect.

14:06

Dan had no known enemies of the kind.

14:09

You'd expect in a murder like this. He

14:12

was a respected academic known for

14:14

his work in criminal law and

14:16

had no ties to anything remotely

14:18

resembling organized crime. But

14:20

investigators quickly began looking at the one

14:22

part of his life that had been

14:24

deeply strained in the years leading up

14:26

to his murder. His relationship with his

14:28

ex -wife Wendy Adelson and the bitter custody

14:30

battle they were locked in over their

14:32

two children. Wendy and

14:35

Dan had divorced in 2013 and

14:37

while the split itself was

14:39

contentious, it was the issue of

14:41

relocation that kept things boiling. Wendy

14:43

wanted to move with the children to

14:46

South Florida where her family lived. Dan

14:48

was adamant They stay

14:50

in Tallahassee. A court

14:52

sided with Dan, denying Wendy's relocation

14:55

request, effectively trapping her in a city

14:57

she no longer wanted to live

14:59

in, with a man she no longer

15:01

wanted anything to do with, except for the

15:03

fact that he was her children's father. That

15:06

custody decision set off what

15:08

prosecutors have described as a wave

15:10

of resentment and frustration inside

15:12

the Adelson family. Emails,

15:14

call records, and later trial testimony would

15:16

point to a family that viewed Dan

15:18

Markell as the root of the problem. And

15:21

within that family, prosecutors allege,

15:23

Donna Adelson, Wendy's mother, emerged as

15:25

a driving force behind what

15:27

they argue was a plan to

15:30

permanently resolve the issue. Now,

15:32

Donna wasn't charged back then, in fact,

15:35

for nearly a decade after Dan's murder.

15:37

She remained on the outside of the

15:39

courtroom, while the case slowly unraveled around

15:41

her. But what became clear

15:43

over time according to prosecutors

15:45

was that she wasn't just a

15:47

concerned grandmother who got caught up

15:49

in the fallout She was allegedly

15:51

part of the solution seeking process

15:54

The people who were arrested first

15:56

were the ones directly tied

15:58

to the trigger in 2016 two

16:00

years after the murder police arrested

16:02

Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera Both

16:04

men from Miami with prior criminal

16:06

records Rivera eventually flipped taking a

16:08

plea deal and testifying and that

16:11

Garcia pulled the trigger while he

16:13

acted as the driver. According

16:15

to Rivera, they were paid to carry

16:17

out the hits, and the money came

16:19

through a woman named Catherine Magbanua. Magbanua

16:22

had connections to Garcia. She had

16:24

children with him, but she also

16:26

had a romantic relationship with Charlie

16:29

Adelson, Donna's son, and Wendy's brother.

16:32

Charlie was a Fort Lauderdale periodontist

16:34

with no criminal record, but

16:36

the connections were piling up. Prosecutors

16:38

alleged that Charlie provided the

16:40

funding, coordinated with McBainua, and ultimately

16:42

helped arrange the hit. In

16:45

2022, Charlie was arrested

16:47

and charged. He went to

16:49

trial in 2023 and

16:51

was convicted of first -degree

16:53

murder, conspiracy to commit murder,

16:55

and solicitation of murder. He

16:57

was sentenced to life in prison. During

17:00

that trial, the prosecution laid

17:02

out their theory. Charlie acted

17:04

as the middleman, Magbanua handled

17:06

the payments and logistics, and

17:08

Garcia and Rivera carried out the

17:10

murder. The motive? To

17:13

help his sister Wendy and relieve

17:15

his mother Donna of the ongoing family

17:17

tension stemming from the custody dispute. Which

17:20

brings us back to Donna. For

17:22

years her name floated around the case

17:24

as someone close to the action, but

17:27

never formally accused. That

17:29

changed in 2023 when she

17:31

was arrested at Miami International Airport

17:33

while allegedly preparing to board

17:35

a one -way flight to Vietnam,

17:37

a country with no extradition treaty

17:39

with the United States. Authorities

17:42

had been building their case for years,

17:44

and by the time they moved in, they

17:46

believed they had enough to finally charge

17:49

her. Prosecutors say Donna's

17:51

involvement wasn't just passive. They point

17:53

to her communications with Charlie and

17:55

Wendy in the months before and after

17:57

the murder. They allege she

17:59

was deeply involved in discussing the

18:01

challenges of the custody battle, venting

18:03

about Dan and strategizing ways to

18:05

regain family access to the children.

18:08

Some of those communications, according to court

18:10

filings, include comments about Dan being

18:13

a problem that needed solving and repeated

18:15

discussions about how much easier life

18:17

would be if he were out of

18:19

the picture. And it didn't

18:21

stop after Dan was killed. According

18:23

to the state, Donna continued to

18:25

communicate with her family in ways that

18:28

suggested knowledge and control. She

18:30

was allegedly involved in coordinating

18:32

family messaging, managing legal exposure,

18:34

and in one now public

18:36

call, even suggested ways to

18:38

help Wendy deal with the

18:40

situation emotionally and socially. The

18:43

evidence prosecutors are leaning on includes

18:45

years of emails, text messages, call

18:48

logs, and statements collected from other

18:50

defendants in the case. They're

18:53

not claiming Donna pulled the trigger.

18:55

They're not even claiming she arranged the

18:57

payment herself What they're saying is

18:59

that she was part of a family

19:01

conspiracy That her role was just

19:03

as critical as the others because she

19:05

helped guide encourage and support the

19:07

plan from behind the scenes And from

19:09

a legal standpoint, that's all it

19:11

takes to be charged with conspiracy to

19:13

commit murder You don't have to

19:15

be the shooter. You don't even have

19:17

to be the one handing out

19:19

the cash If you knowingly

19:21

agree to the plan and take any step

19:23

to support or further it, you're in. Donna

19:26

has pleaded not guilty. Her

19:28

legal team is fighting the charges,

19:30

arguing that the evidence is

19:32

circumstantial and that the state is

19:34

overreaching, trying to turn a

19:37

messy, emotional family drama into a

19:39

criminal conspiracy. They

19:41

argue that Donna was a frustrated grandmother,

19:43

not a criminal planner, that she

19:45

may have said things in private moments

19:47

of anger But that doesn't make her

19:49

complicit in a murder. But

19:52

the prosecution sees it differently. They've

19:55

already secured convictions against three

19:57

key players, Garcia, Rivera, and

19:59

Charlie Adelson. Catherine Magbanua was

20:02

also convicted and sentenced to life

20:04

and now Donna is the last

20:06

remaining member of the alleged conspiracy still

20:08

waiting for her day in court. She's

20:11

currently being held without bond in Leon

20:13

County. Her trial, at least for now,

20:15

is set to begin in June And

20:18

whether she stands as the architect

20:20

of a family crime or the misunderstood

20:22

matriarch of a fractured household, that's

20:25

what the jury will soon be asked to

20:27

decide. Want more on this

20:29

case and others? Then press subscribe

20:31

now and don't miss a

20:33

moment of true crime coverage from

20:35

Tony Bruski and the Hidden

20:37

Killers podcast.