FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #22

[Going Rogue]

Did you read my last comment? I said he gave her a ring!

I thought you were implying by saying it was “obvious Dan proposed to w/ her grandmother’s ring”, that the ‘Markel’ ring was never ‘given’ to Wendi. I will say that by the way Dan wrote the motion, he is definitely claiming that the ring was never Wendi’s ring, he literally stated the ring was “available for former wife’s use… no different than the premarital luggage, but never gifted to her”. So I don't blame people for thinking she stole it. Dan was a smart man, he wrote that the ring was never ‘gifted to her directly from Uncle Lazar’ and I believe that to be a true statement, but personally, I don’t believe the ring was never ’given’ to Wendi by ‘Dan’ and I believe it was her ‘engagement’ ring. The issue of the ring came up well after the divorce was finalized and just was another indicator of how nasty and contentious the divorce and aftermath was as time passed. <modsnip>

 

[amicuscurie]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed> Again, if it was a gift, she has the right to keep it. But, in my opinion, and that of many on here, she should have given it back, especially when Lazar personally asked for it, as she asked him to do (per the divorce pleadings). Ruth Markel has said that she never wore it. That is probably why it was in the safe deposit box. It’s not “evil” in my opinion, to keep an engagement ring, nor is it evidence of involvement in a murder plot. I don’t think anyone is offering it for that purpose, nor is anyone disputing that it was a gift, if it was an engagement ring.

 

[Going Rogue]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
I feel the opposite way you do as it relates to the majority. I have already said for the record that I can see a scenario where Donna and Charlie conspired behind Wendi’s back. If you view things from that perspective and you consider all the ‘evidence’ objectively, there are a lot of ‘things’ that you pick up that go unnoticed by most. IMO, most that follow the case don’t view the evidence objectively and I firmly think there is a lot of confirmation bias on everything Wendi. For reasons I don’t understand, people take a comment like that as ‘defending’ or ‘supporting’ Wendi when it’s simply an observation that I believe to be true – maybe I’m crazy?

I said the other day that, in my opinion, the majority of those that follow this case will view ‘anything’ that can be interpreted more than one way in a way that is most favorable to the case against Wendi. Personally, I like to provide, discuss and consider all possibilities, and yes when I see something that I blatantly disagree with, I will chime in. I know you would do that same because you challenged me on my perspective a couple times. I don’t have an issue with that because I always welcome a friendly and civil discussion / debate.

 

[Knitpicker]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed> Again, if it was a gift, she has the right to keep it. But, in my opinion, and that of many on here, she should have given it back, especially when Lazar personally asked for it, as she asked him to do (per the divorce pleadings). Ruth Markel has said that she never wore it. That is probably why it was in the safe deposit box. It’s not “evil” in my opinion, to keep an engagement ring, nor is it evidence of involvement in a murder plot. I don’t think anyone is offering it for that purpose, nor is anyone disputing that it was a gift, if it was an engagement ring.

I wonder why she had access to his safety deposit box. She obviously knew the ring was there.
At some point it went from her possession, into the box.

 

[amicuscurie]

I wonder why she had access to his safety deposit box. She obviously knew the ring was there.
At some point it went from her possession, into the box.

I would think it was their mutual safe-deposit box, and the ring might possibly have been put there for safekeeping, since it is my understanding she didn’t wear it.

 

[Going Rogue]

I wonder why she had access to his safety deposit box. She obviously knew the ring was there.
At some point it went from her possession, into the box.

According to Dan’s filing, she took the ring (and other jewelry) from ‘the’ safety deposit box before the separation. What makes you think it was ‘his’ safety deposit box? A bank will not let ANYONE into a safety deposit box unless they are the owner OR have permission by the owner and are ‘authorized or have ‘joint’ access. Just like she ‘took’ half the cash from their ‘joint’ savings account, the savings account was a ‘joint’ account and they were married so, unfortunately for Dan, it belonged to both of them.

This is a lesson to all men (or women) that have built up ‘wealth’ that far exceeds their partner’s net worth PRIOR to marriage. Wendi royally screwed him over by ‘helping herself” to half the cash – over 350k in cash! I believe Dan had indicated that most of the savings she helped herself too was accumulated by him prior to their marriage. Not taking a side, because in most divorces someone gets screwed financially – IMO, Dan got royally screwed here, but unfortunately he got screwed legally. IMO, he was infuriated by what she did and what she ‘took’ and he was rightfully upset – that is why he withheld the money he owed her for the value of the house (that was an open issue) and filed the motion about the ring and other undisclosed assets (Wendi’s retirement account).

We need to look at things objectively and without emotion, did Dan get screwed – yes! Did Wendi do anything illegal (as it relates to the divorce) – no. Was Dan justified by going after the ring – yes! Did he have legal recourse – no. What Wendi did to Dan gives ‘women’ a bad reputation – crap like what Wendi did happens all the time. To be fair, there are MANY men that take advantage of woman too and do evil things as well, but Wendi takes the cake.

 

[Knitpicker]

I would think it was their mutual safe-deposit box, and the ring might possibly have been put there for safekeeping, since it is my understanding she didn’t wear it.

If he asked for it back, I would think he would have had his own box after the divorce. Maybe just an oversight

 

[Going Rogue]

On a side note, a shout out to the moderators of this board! They do a great job controlling any bullying and personal attacks. Thank you whoever you are!

 

[Knitpicker]

According to Dan’s filing, she took the ring (and other jewelry) from ‘the’ safety deposit box before the separation. What makes you think it was ‘his’ safety deposit box? A bank will not let ANYONE into a safety deposit box unless they are the owner OR have permission by the owner and are ‘authorized or have ‘joint’ access. Just like she ‘took’ half the cash from their ‘joint’ savings account, the savings account was a ‘joint’ account and they were married so, unfortunately for Dan, it belonged to both of them.

This is a lesson to all men (or women) that have built up ‘wealth’ that far exceeds their partner’s net worth PRIOR to marriage. Wendi royally screwed him over by ‘helping herself” to half the cash – over 350k in cash! I believe Dan had indicated that most of the savings she helped herself too was accumulated by him prior to their marriage. Not taking a side, because in most divorces someone gets screwed financially – IMO, Dan got royally screwed here, but unfortunately he got screwed legally. IMO, he was infuriated by what she did and what she ‘took’ and he was rightfully upset – that is why he withheld the money he owed her for the value of the house (that was an open issue) and filed the motion about the ring and other undisclosed assets (Wendi’s retirement account).

We need to look at things objectively and without emotion, did Dan get screwed – yes! Did Wendi do anything illegal (as it relates to the divorce) – no. Was Dan justified by going after the ring – yes! Did he have legal recourse – no. What Wendi did to Dan gives ‘women’ a bad reputation – crap like what Wendi did happens all the time. To be fair, there are MANY men that take advantage of woman too and do evil things as well, but Wendi takes the cake.

Well once she served him the papers it may have been a good idea to get his own box.
But I am sure he never thought “in a million years”( a Wendism) she would take it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well once she served him the papers it may have been a good idea to get his own box.
But I am sure he never thought “in a million years”( a Wendism) she would take it.

I’m sure after the ‘Pearl Harbor’ attack, Dan made a lot of changes… You know the old saying – “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Dan was a smart man, I’m sure he covered the bases.

 

[Knitpicker]

I’m sure after the ‘Pearl Harbor’ attack, Dan made a lot of changes… You know the old saying – “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Dan was a smart man, I’m sure he covered the bases.

It could also be he wanted it for Amy? Because Wendi should have said “I’ll keep it for Ben when he proposes”. I would think he would be happy about that. But thats because we know he’s not around. He had every right to be in control of that ring. And giving it to his son in his own time. Rather than Wendi having control.

 

[apeXperience]

Again, conceptually Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.191 right to speedy trial (175 days after arrest) provides Donna Adelson the opportunity of a trial by Monday, May 6, 2024. The apparent court order sets her trial date to Monday, September 30, 2024. Why does Donna Adelson acquiesce to additional 148 days jail time, which are “unnecessary” if she is confident of her innocence? Are there some on-going hidden negotiations? What is in it for the State?

Firstly, let us discard the baseless argument that mere trifolium technicality such as court calendar might squash the defendant’s right to speedy trial in Leon County, or anywhere in Florida. If the cause of delay is not the volution of the defense team, Florida affords the opportunity of an Arthur Hearing that should grant a bond. No amount of senseless verbal diarrhea as loosely sprinkled more frequently these days will trespass the law.

Second, now we are back to the serious discussions relevant to More Justice For Dan Markel. IMHO, speculation and prediction:
1) Dan Rashbaum and Georgia Cappleman equally know in details the ins and outs of the presumptions, the lies, and the evidences applicable to Donna Adelson (beyond Charles Adelson’s case). Hence, both sides could have been ready for trial by Monday, May 6, 2024.
2) Again IMHO, Dan Rashbaum’s service is retained to intensely negotiate (to beg) for plea agreement. Thus far, plea agreement negotiation is fruitless because The SAO2FL would never agree anything less than evidences toward the arrest of unindicted co-conspirator(s) in exchange for lenient second degree murder. Ergo, more negotiation time is needed by Rashbaum.
3) The State could afford slow walking given that there is no time limit for prosecuting a first degree murder. Until the Monday, August 12, 2024, deadline, ASW and discoveries of evidences will continue to pile up such as from Case-to-Closure (C2C) advancement of the Cellebrite technology.
4) For instance, it is foreseeable that at least 3 more important witnesses will be added to Category A. First, the witness involved in November 2023 phone call with investigators. This witness alerted The SAO2FL about the Adelsons’ call regarding accommodation and contacts in the Philippines. The testimony of this witness could be very juicy, IMHO. Second, the woman interlocutor of Donna Adelson in some intercepted calls could be voluntarily deposed or get a subpoena. And third, it is sensible for the State to call Dan Rashbaum to the stand!
5) Since all pre-trial motion hearings must be set by the Monday, August 12, 2024, deadline, hidden uncertainty would be unveiled by then. Either plea agreement avails, the process skips jury selection and testimony, Dan Rashbaum would be arguing for leniency at the sentencing phase, and additional arrests occur shortly thereafter.
6) Or plea agreement negotiation fails by the Monday, August 12, 2024, Dan Rashbaum will be dropped as counsel of record IMHO, Robert Morris, Esq, will be advocating for a lost cause starting from Monday, September 30, 2024, Donna Adelson will get LWOP + 30Y + 30Y, ... and More Justice For Dan Markel would have to wait … a little bite (paronomasia intended) from Charles Adelson!

Obviously, the secret Grand Jury agrees that the State already has a strong case against Donna Adelson. Either plea deal or not, the State gets the opportunity of more ASW to continue gathering evidences … for potential future cases.

 

[amicuscurie]

If he asked for it back, I would think he would have had his own box after the divorce. Maybe just an oversight

My understanding is she took the ring before the divorce, at the time she left.

 

[Going Rogue]

Is all this talk about the ‘ring’ approaching the same triggering status as talking about the ‘TV’? Just kidding … I thought I’d change it up with a topic or question that I haven’t seen a ‘good’ answer to or one that satisfies my very structured way of thinking.

Can anyone give me a serious and logical explanation as to why after close to 10 years after Dan was senselessly murdered that Wendi hasn’t been arrested with all the overwhelming evidence against her?

I am fully aware of all the theories about the Adelson’s political connections and I agree there is very good reason to believe that was a big reason it delayed Charlie and Donna’s arrest. However, I think that any ‘connections’ they have or had would no longer be able to ‘delay’ due process. Personally, I don’t believe any political ‘connections’ are in play. I also don’t understand the logic behind the thinking that the prosecution’s strategy is to take them down ‘one-by-one’. That philosophy doesn’t fly in a homicide and in my opinion it would be a serious miscarriage of justice if that is how the prosecution is approaching this.

 

[dotr]

Re-post refresher..

Markel, Adelson sparred up to the end

After divorcing, the couple argued over money and their children

www.tallahassee.com

Sean Rossman 2016
''Markel called his family’s exodus a “plundering” and “his worst nightmare,” in divorce filings. He likened it to infamous military attacks: “A Visigoth-like sacking of the marital home” part of a “Pearl Harbor style separation.”

Adelson, court documents filed by Markel said, took whatever furniture and belongings she wanted for herself and the boys. No pajama bottoms, no diapers, no wipes, not even the elder son’s bed remained at the house. All that was left was a crib mattress on the floor. She also took Markel’s tennis racket and family jewelry, and removed hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and equities from their bank and investment accounts.''

''Markel claimed Adelson filed a false and misleading financial disclosure form that shorted her assets by more than $240,000. He also said she raided the couple’s safe deposit box, taking a 2-carat diamond ring belonging to Markel’s late great-aunt, a Holocaust survivor.

Adelson, his filing said, was not “a helpless character in this drama” and she “helped herself to over $600,000 in cash, liquid equities and other assets upon separation.”

 

[clearskies1]

Is all this talk about the ‘ring’ approaching the same triggering status as talking about the ‘TV’? Just kidding … I thought I’d change it up with a topic or question that I haven’t seen a ‘good’ answer to or one that satisfies my very structured way of thinking.

Can anyone give me a serious and logical explanation as to why after close to 10 years after Dan was senselessly murdered that Wendi hasn’t been arrested with all the overwhelming evidence against her?

I am fully aware of all the theories about the Adelson’s political connections and I agree there is very good reason to believe that was a big reason it delayed Charlie and Donna’s arrest. However, I think that any ‘connections’ they have or had would no longer be able to ‘delay’ due process. Personally, I don’t believe any political ‘connections’ are in play. I also don’t understand the logic behind the thinking that the prosecution’s strategy is to take them down ‘one-by-one’. That philosophy doesn’t fly in a homicide and in my opinion it would be a serious miscarriage of justice if that is how the prosecution is approaching this.

They do not have "a smoking gun" for Wendi. For the ones who have been charged, they had strong video or a confession or audio recordings. They don't have that for Wendi. For now at least, they are using her (as a witness) to convict others. When they run out of others who can be charged, maybe they will elect to try to convict her since she will no longer have any use as a witness. That's the best I can do on that. JMO.

 

[IQuestion]

Well once she served him the papers it may have been a good idea to get his own box.
But I am sure he never thought “in a million years”( a Wendism) she would take it.

It's a "charlie-ism, too!" I remembered CA used those exact words in a response to a GeoCap question. And, I wondered if that was the "go to answer" practiced by the youngest siblings CA & WA? Why can these two NEVER answer "Yes or No" to questions on the witness stand??? Was that a strategy by the prosecution to just let them go on with their convoluted explanations (too long and too stupid) that were more irritating than truthful??
I wanted to scream at my computer screen, "Shut up and just answer the question! Just because no one interrupts your explanations, doesn't mean anyone is buying your story." And the same for Rash. He made some good points, but he went on so long repeating the minutiae... everyone forgot the point he was trying to make.
As far as WA moving out (some what covertly) I understand why. I dont think she "confronted" anyone in her personal life...rather makes a plan to leave and then poof...she's gone. (Passive agressive sabotage?)
***I know my comment is a little off course....these are few things I have been thinking about.

 

[amicuscurie]

Is all this talk about the ‘ring’ approaching the same triggering status as talking about the ‘TV’? Just kidding … I thought I’d change it up with a topic or question that I haven’t seen a ‘good’ answer to or one that satisfies my very structured way of thinking.

Can anyone give me a serious and logical explanation as to why after close to 10 years after Dan was senselessly murdered that Wendi hasn’t been arrested with all the overwhelming evidence against her?

I am fully aware of all the theories about the Adelson’s political connections and I agree there is very good reason to believe that was a big reason it delayed Charlie and Donna’s arrest. However, I think that any ‘connections’ they have or had would no longer be able to ‘delay’ due process. Personally, I don’t believe any political ‘connections’ are in play. I also don’t understand the logic behind the thinking that the prosecution’s strategy is to take them down ‘one-by-one’. That philosophy doesn’t fly in a homicide and in my opinion it would be a serious miscarriage of justice if that is how the prosecution is approaching this.

As Georgia said, the simplest explanation may be the most likely here. I believe that the state may not want to charge her because it may not believe it has enough evidence to secure a conviction.

To date, we have seen little evidence for Wendi regarding the legal elements of murder, solicitation, or conspiracy, such that we have seen with the others who have been charged and convicted. For example, we have not seen any evidence of Wendi having any communications with the shooters, or making payments to the shooters, or engaging in any overt act acknowledging agreement to the murder. Such evidence is present for Charlie and Donna, in the form of the bump calls, the checks written to Katie, the stapled money, Katie’s testimony, and Donna’s possible location outside Charlie’s home on the night of the murder.

The one piece of evidence which is most persuasive TO ME regarding Wendi’s involvement is the text to Dan, presented at Charlie’s trial, asking whether he would be home the week of the murder. In my opinion, this could possibly be construed as an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy/intent to murder Dan, particularly since the cell tower records presented showed her to be near her parents when she sent that text.

I also believe that Wendi has made certain inconsistent statements both in her police interview and in the three trials in which she has testified, and that this may indicate some level of deception, which may be an attempt to cover some possible level of knowledge and/or participation.

The state may have more evidence like that text to Dan that it has not revealed; it did not even reveal that text until Charlie’s trial. It is my understanding that the state is currently searching Donna’s and Harvey’s phones and computers, and that may reveal additional communications or other evidence regarding Wendi. However, the fact remains that the state has not charged Wendi, and so it’s certainly possible that the reason they haven’t is that there just might not be additional evidence which would be more likely to lead to a conviction.

HOWEVER, I also believe she was, at the very least, aware of what her family was doing, if not actually involved in the planning, and that she certainly knows what happened now, and has for a very long time. I personally find this inexcusable, as I’ve said before, but that’s just my opinion, and my understanding is that knowing that a crime is going to happen but not reporting it is not itself a crime.

Two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that 1) someone, hypothetically, has knowledge of or even was actually involved in a crime , but also that 2) the evidence is not sufficient to secure a conviction. The second truth does not negate the first.

I would like all parties who were involved in this crime to be prosecuted, and it would be frustrating to me if it were the case that the state believed that Wendi was involved but also believed that it would be unable to prove it successfully in court.

 

[IQuestion]

I don't believe it is in the best interest of justice for Dan or the prosecution to have a joint trial. There were so many links in this long chain of events...beginning with the first talk of killing Dan in 2013. (Not normal for siblings to discuss murder of anyone!!!...)
WA and CA could never be co-defendants in a prosecution... it would seriously impair the ability for one to get a fair trial for the following reasons:
FACTORS AGAINST JOINT TRIALS

• each defendant asserts his own innocence and accuses the other of committing the crime, or
• the judge or jury can't believe one defendant without disbelieving the other(s)
• Joint Trials for for Codefendants

 

[Going Rogue]

As Georgia said, the simplest explanation may be the most likely here. I believe that the state may not want to charge her because it may not believe it has enough evidence to secure a conviction.

To date, we have seen little evidence for Wendi regarding the legal elements of murder, solicitation, or conspiracy, such that we have seen with the others who have been charged and convicted. For example, we have not seen any evidence of Wendi having any communications with the shooters, or making payments to the shooters, or engaging in any overt act acknowledging agreement to the murder. Such evidence is present for Charlie and Donna, in the form of the bump calls, the checks written to Katie, the stapled money, Katie’s testimony, and Donna’s possible location outside Charlie’s home on the night of the murder.

The one piece of evidence which is most persuasive TO ME regarding Wendi’s involvement is the text to Dan, presented at Charlie’s trial, asking whether he would be home the week of the murder. In my opinion, this could possibly be construed as an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy/intent to murder Dan, particularly since the cell tower records presented showed her to be near her parents when she sent that text.

I also believe that Wendi has made certain inconsistent statements both in her police interview and in the three trials in which she has testified, and that this may indicate some level of deception, which may be an attempt to cover some possible level of knowledge and/or participation.

The state may have more evidence like that text to Dan that it has not revealed; it did not even reveal that text until Charlie’s trial. It is my understanding that the state is currently searching Donna’s and Harvey’s phones and computers, and that may reveal additional communications or other evidence regarding Wendi. However, the fact remains that the state has not charged Wendi, and so it’s certainly possible that the reason they haven’t is that there just might not be additional evidence which would be more likely to lead to a conviction.

HOWEVER, I also believe she was, at the very least, aware of what her family was doing, if not actually involved in the planning, and that she certainly knows what happened now, and has for a very long time. I personally find this inexcusable, as I’ve said before, but that’s just my opinion, and my understanding is that knowing that a crime is going to happen but not reporting it is not itself a crime.

Two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that 1) someone, hypothetically, has knowledge of or even was actually involved in a crime , but also that 2) the evidence is not sufficient to secure a conviction. The second truth does not negate the first.

I would like all parties who were involved in this crime to be prosecuted, and it would be frustrating to me if it were the case that the state believed that Wendi was involved but also believed that it would be unable to prove it successfully in court.

I couldn’t have said it better myself… If we bottle everything you said into one neat package, why does it seem (at least to me) that the majority of those that follow this case constantly question why she hasn’t been arrested?

As you pointed out her clear inconsistent statements show some level of deception and some possible level of knowledge and/or participation. I think that is the biggest thing going against her. IMO, she clearly knowns more about what happened than she has testified to. Putting aside the fact that Wendi and whoever from her family that was directly involved are despicable people, I think that fact that she consciously stood behind them if she wasn’t involved is reprehensible.

I have pointed out many times that the case against her isn’t strong enough for a conviction and for some reason that triggers people and it seems that any opinion other than ‘Wendi should be arrested and here’s why’ gets all sorts of silly and immature responses and personal attacks on the character of the person expressing that opinion – ask me how I know.