The Adelson Conspiracy and the Psychology of Murder for Hire
On a humid July 18 thmorning in 2014, Florida State University law professor Dan Markel sat in his Tallahassee garage, talking on his phone after dropping his young sons at preschool. Moments later, a figure approached his car and fired two shots at point-blank range. The respected scholar and father of two would die hours later, setting in motion an investigation that would uncover one of the most unexpected murder-for-hire conspiracies in recent memory, one that prosecutors allege was orchestrated not by hardened criminals or shadowy strangers, but by his former in-laws, the wealthy Adelson family of South Florida.
As Donna Adelson faces trial this week, accused of being the matriarch who set this deadly plot in motion, her case offers us a peek into the psychology of murder-for-hire. This crime often shatters our assumptions about who is capable of orchestrating cold-blooded killing. While she is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the convictions already secured against her son, Charlie Adelson, and his co-conspirators have already established that this was a family affair.
The case reveals uncomfortable truths about how ordinary people, driven by narcissism, entitlement, and a stunning inability to accept the word “no,” can convince themselves that murder is merely another problem-solving tool.
When Family Bonds Become Deadly Conspiracies
The prosecution’s theory reads like a dark inversion of a family business plan. At its center was a bitter custody dispute: Dan Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, wanted to relocate with her two young sons from Tallahassee to South Florida to be closer to her family. Dan, exercising his legal rights as a father, refused. For most families, this would mean continuing negotiations, perhaps more time in family court. For the Adelsons, prosecutors allege, it meant something far more sinister.
According to the state’s case, Donna Adelson, the family matriarch, couldn’t bear to see her daughter and grandchildren “trapped” in Tallahassee. The alleged solution flowed through the family like a poison: from Donna to her son Charlie, a periodontist who has now been convicted for his role in the murder plot. Charlie used his connections to South Florida’s criminal underworld through his girlfriend, Katherine Magbanua, who served as the broker, connecting the Adelsons to the actual triggermen, Sigfredo Garcia (her ex-boyfriend and father of her children) and Luis Rivera. All of these individuals have now been convicted for their roles in Dan Markel’s murder.
The Unraveling: How Family Conspiracies Collapse
The Adelson case shows why murder-for-hire plots, especially those involving multiple family members, are so often doomed to fail. The very insularity that the conspirators believe will protect them-keeping it “all in the family”-becomes their greatest vulnerability.
The plot began to unravel when investigators identified the rental car used in the murder and traced it to the killers. Luis Rivera, facing life in prison, concluded what many amateur hitmen do: cooperating with authorities was his only path to a lighter sentence. His testimony led investigators up the chain to Magbanua, and from there, to the Adelson family.
What followed was a years-long investigation that included undercover operations, wiretaps, and an FBI agent posing as a blackmailer. In one particularly damning piece of evidence, when the undercover agent demanded $5,000 per month to keep quiet about the murder (the Adelsons referred to this extortion as “the bump” in their coded conversations), the Adelsons scrambled to pay rather than go to the police; this choice became powerful evidence of consciousness of guilt. The wiretaps allegedly captured a family so caught up in their conspiracy that they continued to discuss it in barely coded language, even as investigators closed in.
Donna Adelson’s attempt to flee to Vietnam on a one-way ticket occurred just days after Charlie’s conviction. Her choice of Vietnam, a country without an extradition treaty with the United States, suggests a sophisticated understanding of her legal jeopardy and the behavior of someone who knows the evidence against them is overwhelming and is trying to escape.
The Cast of a Family Tragedy
Before examining the psychology behind this conspiracy, it’s worth noting where the cast of characters have ended up:
- Charlie Adelson: Convicted in November 2023, sentenced to life in prison without parole
- Katherine Magbanua: Convicted after two trials, serving life in prison
- Sigfredo Garcia: Convicted of first-degree murder, serving life without parole
- Luis Rivera: Cooperated with prosecutors, serving 19 years after pleading guilty to second-degree murder
- Wendi Adelson: Never charged, currently living in Miami with her children
- Donna Adelson: Arrested while attempting to flee to Vietnam, trial beginning this week
When Family Bonds Become Deadly
The pattern of family members conspiring together in murder-for-hire plots has emerged in other cases, revealing how family dynamics can create an echo chamber where homicidal ideas are validated rather than rejected.
Consider the conspiracy to murder Dr. Arie Oren, orchestrated by his estranged wife, Dr. Hella Ran, and her brother, Eyal Ran, in North Carolina. Motivated by an intensely bitter divorce and custody battle in which Dr. Oren had legally blocked Hella from relocating their children to Israel, the siblings sought to have him killed. Their plan was thwarted in 2013 when they were caught in an FBI sting operation after meeting with and providing a down payment to an undercover agent posing as a hitman. Both Hella and Eyal Ran were subsequently arrested, convicted of conspiracy and solicitation to commit murder, and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for the unconsummated plot.
Perhaps even more illustrative of how common the “undercover-cop-as-hitman” scenario has become is the case of Dalia Dippolito from Boynton Beach, Florida. In 2009, Dippolito was caught on camera-literally, as the sting operation was being filmed for the TV show “COPS”-hiring what she believed was a hitman to kill her husband. The “hitman” was an undercover officer, and her tearful reaction when told of her husband’s “death” (he was actually fine and working with the police) became a viral sensation. Her immediate pivot from grieving widow to shocked defendant perfectly captured the delusional thinking of murder-for-hire clients who never truly believe they’ll be caught.
These cases demonstrate that when murder-for-hire emerges from within a family unit, it often follows predictable patterns. The shared motive, whether custody of grandchildren or life insurance money, becomes a family project. The moral responsibility becomes diffused across the group, making it easier for each member to participate in what they’ve reframed as a collective solution to a shared problem.
Donna Adelson wasn’t a career criminal or a violence-prone individual. By all accounts, she was a successful woman, a grandmother, a pillar of her community. So how does someone like this come to believe that murder is an acceptable solution to a family problem?
The Narcissistic Worldview
At the core of the murder-for-hire client’s psyche is a profound narcissism, not necessarily in the clinical sense, but in the fundamental belief that their desires supersede others’ right to exist (Kocsis, 2004). For the Adelsons, the “problem” wasn’t Dan Markel the person; it was Dan Markel the obstacle. He stood between them and their vision of family togetherness, of having Wendi and the grandchildren nearby. His refusal to accommodate their wishes wasn’t seen as a father exercising his legal rights; it was an intolerable affront that demanded correction.
This narcissistic framework explains one of the most chilling aspects of these crimes: the complete dehumanization of the victim. Dan Markel, a brilliant legal mind, a devoted father, a man with his own dreams and relationships, was reduced in the family’s calculation to a simple math problem: Markel’s presence equals unhappiness; Markel’s absence equals problem solved.
Moral Disengagement: The Mental Gymnastics of Murder
Perhaps the most fascinating psychological mechanism at play is what psychologist Albert Bandura termed “moral disengagement, the cognitive tricks people use to commit heinous acts while maintaining their positive self-image (Bandura, 1999). The Adelson case showcases several of these mechanisms in action:
Displacement of Responsibility: By hiring others to carry out the actual killing, the clients can tell themselves, “I didn’t pull the trigger.” This creates a psychological buffer between themselves and the violence, allowing them to maintain the fiction that they’re not murderers.
Listen to wiretapped conversations in cases like this, and you’ll rarely hear the word “murder.” Instead, it’s about “taking care of the problem” or “handling the situation.” This sanitized language further distances the conspirators from the brutal reality of what they’re planning.
Distortion of Consequences: The clients often engage in magical thinking about the aftermath. They imagine the victim will simply disappear, and life will continue as before, but better. They minimize the grieving families and traumatized children who will be left behind, or the decades in prison that await them should their plot fail.
The Echo Chamber Effect
When multiple family members are involved, another dangerous psychological phenomenon can emerge: group reinforcement of distorted thinking. In a healthy family, if one member suggested murder as a solution to a custody dispute, others would either laugh it off as a joke or react in shock and disbelief and seek help for that individual. But in dysfunctional family systems, where loyalty is prized above morality and the family’s desires are seen as paramount, these homicidal ideas can be nurtured and validated.
Each family member’s participation reinforces the others’ belief that this is acceptable, even necessary. The moral responsibility becomes diffused across the group-”we’re all in this together”-making it easier for each individual to participate. The family becomes an echo chamber where the unthinkable gradually becomes not just thinkable, but inevitable.
The Myth of the Professional Hitman
The Adelson case also exposes one of the great myths surrounding murder-for-hire: the idea of the competent, professional assassin. Popular culture has given us images of silent, efficient killers who eliminate targets with surgical precision and vanish without a trace. The reality, as Dan Markel’s murder shows, is far messier and more amateur.
Sigfredo Garcia and Luis Rivera weren’t seasoned professionals; they were small-time criminals who made numerous mistakes. They used a rental car that was easily traced. They were spotted on multiple surveillance cameras. They left a trail of cell phone records. And ultimately, when faced with the possibility of life in prison, Rivera did what most “hitmen” do; he cooperated with authorities in exchange for a lighter sentence.
This incompetence is the norm in murder-for-hire cases. Research shows that the vast majority involve amateur criminals motivated by relatively small sums of money (Riedel, 2008). They’re often acquaintances or friends-of-friends of the client, chosen not for their skills but for their availability and perceived desperation. The professional hitman who kills for a living and never gets caught exists primarily in Hollywood scripts, not in the real world of crime.
Women Who Hire Hitmen
The prosecution’s claim that a woman initiated the entire murder plot aligns with a surprising statistical reality: while men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, including hiring a hitman, women represent a disproportionately high percentage of murder-for-hire clients, accounting for 25–40% of cases according to research by Chan and Heide (2009).
This statistic reveals something important about the psychology of murder-for-hire. Women who resort to contract killing often do so because they feel physically unable to commit violence themselves but are no less capable of the narcissistic rage and entitlement that drives such crimes. The hiring of a killer becomes a way to exercise lethal power while maintaining physical and psychological distance from the act itself.
In many cases involving female clients, the victim is a current or former intimate partner, and the motive often involves children, custody disputes, as in the Adelson case, or the desire to “protect” children from a father deemed unworthy. The maternal instinct, twisted through the lens of narcissism and moral disengagement, can become a rationalization for the ultimate act of violence.
The Price of Life: The Shocking Economics of Murder
Perhaps nothing illustrates the cold transactional nature of murder-for-hire better than the price tags attached to human lives. In the Adelson case, Dan Markel’s life was valued at $100,000, a used car, and future dental work. Sure, it’s a sum that might buy a high-end luxury car, but it seems obscenely small for the extinction of a human being.
Yet even this figure is on the high end for the murder-for-hire money scale. Many cases involve payments of just a few thousand dollars, sometimes paid in installments, for drugs or even used vehicles. This low pricing reflects not just the amateur nature of most “hitmen” but also the client’s fundamental devaluation of the victim’s life. Once someone has been reduced to an obstacle in your path, their worth becomes merely the cost of their removal.
Red Flags and Prevention: Recognizing the Path to Murder-for-hire
Understanding the psychology of murder-for-hire isn’t just an academic exercise-it can help identify warning signs before a plot turns deadly. Family court judges, divorce attorneys, and therapists should be alert to certain red flags:
- Extreme entitlement and inability to accept legal decisions that don’t go their way
- Dehumanizing language about an ex-partner or family member (“They’re ruining everything,” “They’re the only problem”)
- Obsessive focus on a single solution to complex problems
- Increasing isolation within a family echo chamber that reinforces distorted thinking
- Escalating threats or “jokes” about how much better life would be if someone were gone
Lessons from the Adelson Tragedy
As Donna Adelson faces a jury this week, the themes are likely to involve stories of love becoming possession, family loyalty overriding morality, and the refusal to accept “no” leading to the ultimate act of violence. It’s a tale of a family that destroyed itself through its own toxic dynamics.
The most haunting aspect may be this: two young boys lost a father because their family allegedly “loved” them so much they were willing to kill for them. It’s a twisted logic that only makes sense in the echo chamber of narcissistic entitlement and the distorted belief that, and a reminder that sometimes the most dangerous people are those who believe their love justifies any act, no matter how monstrous.
References
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
Chan, H. C., & Heide, K. M. (2009). A comprehensive review of the dynamics and typologies of murder-for-hire. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 157–176.
Kocsis, R. N. (2004). An empirical analysis of the behavioural characteristics of homicide-for-hire offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(3), 409–422.
Riedel, M. (2008). Lethal violence and homicide-for-hire. In The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression (pp. 377–390). Cambridge University Press.
Originally published at https://joniejohnstonpsyd.substack.com.