GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #19

[Zedzded]

Why on earth would she tell the TV repair guy, though? So weird. Especially IF she knew? Is this just something she associates with that TV? This must have been a very long-running family “joke.”

Wendi Adeslon is hoping the prosecution ignore all other evidence and dismiss the case because nobody is going to hire a hitman after joking about hiring a hitman... I think she is book smart, but outside of that is as dumb as sh!!t.

 

[Zedzded]

How good was Jeff Lacasse on the stand.

 

[cottonweaver]

He said she told him the Sunday evening prior to the murder, July 13. He dated the smashing of the TV to sometime in June, after the first attempt on Dan’s life.

is that the date in your epstein book?

 

[amicuscurie]

is that the date in your epstein book?

It’s the date he testified to on the stand.

 

[Misy]

I hope this is allowed. Pls remove if not. Many of you probably know this, but I just listened to an interview with Charlie’s ex girlfriend… Deep Dive True Crime on YouTube posted on May 13, 2023 “Police interview with south Florida beauty June Umchinda…”. Very interesting interview conducted before Katie & Sig’s trial. But lots of info about Charlie. She seems like a real sweetheart. I feel sorry for her. Charlie really did a number on her. Anyway near the end of the interview she mentions a couple of times about reading here (WS) and says something like those people really know.

 

[cottonweaver]

It’s the date he testified to on the stand.

ok so, I already had the date he estimates for the deliberate smashing of a TV and that was between 11-18th so it's problematic for the other theory which is why I wanted to see if it did tie in

maybe as @opt said on the previous page, she really did mention the 'TV cheaper than a hit man' to another (female?) friend who hasn't spoken up?

 

[FreddyG]

Since it's coming from Wendi, I don't believe that Dan was abrasive, rude,arrogant or elitist at all.

Couple things about this: first, if there were people on these boards who knew Dan and could confirm that he could be, at times, arrogant, rude and abrasive (which is not exactly unheard of for a highly credentialed law professor), those people would never trash the memory of their friend by detailing those points. So it's likely only "Team Wendi" folks that are likely to say anything along these lines. Hence you're not going to get the full story, or at least a credible version of it, in this or other public forums.

Second, and more importantly, why do people seem to care about the sanctity of Dan's character so much? Here and especially on the Reddit DM board people act like it's sacrilege to even suggest DM was less than perfect and may have had some role in causing the divorce. Putting aside the implausibilty of that position (everyone has some bad qualities, and I'd wager that in 90% of divorces both members of the couple have contributed to it), why should this matter?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dan, like all of us, had his flaws, and that those flaws were occasional bouts of arrogance, rudeness, or abrasiveness. That would still make zero difference to the immorality and illegality of what happened. I know some people who can act rude, arrogant, etc. Doesn't mean they should be killed.

There's a lot of good analysis and insight on these boards. But there's a lot of simplistic, vengeful moralizing as well that creates this fake manichean dichotomy between Dan as some kind of saint and the Adelsons as "evil" or "vile" or "disgusting." The Adelsons did something terrible. This makes them criminals. They deserve to be tried and punished. I hope this continues to happen. But I don't see the point or appeal of turning a complicated story about real people into reductive justice *advertiser censored*.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

I’m amazed she volunteered her computer at the police station. That’s how they found Donna’s emails, which led them to a theory of the case.

Donna's emails provide the motive but what is interesting about them is the timing. They were written in May and June of 2013 - right around the first murder plot that was foiled when the hitmen ran off with their money. We don't see any crazy Donna emails in the fall and when all the post divorce litigation really goes off the rails. Dan is alleging fraud, demanding Wendi pay up to $200k, threatening her law license and then pointing the finger right at Donna and saying she shouldn't have unsupervised access to the kids. But zero emails from Donna during all this time. Amazing!!! The only evidence we have of her displeasure is a couple texts to Charlie from his iCloud. Then some references to Harvey's surprise birthday gift and then some TV repair. So the Adelsons obviously shut down the incriminating communications about Dan right around Halloween.

Wendi hands them her computer because she thinks the timing of her keystrokes and when she saved the document she worked on for 12 minutes that day, will help prove her alibi. (They REALLY wanted her to have a rock solid alibi). But she likely forgot to delete the 2013 emails. Which is a blessing.

 

[Knitpicker]

She appears, from her phone records, to have begun contacting her lunch companions around 11 or 11:30. Definitely last minute. Doesn’t mean the lunch wasn’t planned in advance, but it is consistent with making plans at the last minute, perhaps to have a reason to be leaving the house.

We can’t be sure of that. She may have just been confirming the time. I don’t think she would call friends half an hour before meeting with them. I have a screenshot of her calls but it would take time to find. I do know they both texted her around the time she was to meet them bc she was late.

 

[Knitpicker]

I recall hearing that she met him when she signed the kids up for school after she moved to Miami. This would’ve been almost a year after the murder.

Thats what Charlie says lol.

 

[Wishbone]

"We don't see any crazy Donna emails in the fall and when all the post divorce litigation really goes off the rails."

wonder when they started using whatsap and if DA used it as well?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Couple things about this: first, if there were people on these boards who knew Dan and could confirm that he could be, at times, arrogant, rude and abrasive (which is not exactly unheard of for a highly credentialed law professor), those people would never trash the memory of their friend by detailing those points. So it's likely only "Team Wendi" folks that are likely to say anything along these lines. Hence you're not going to get the full story, or at least a credible version of it, in this or other public forums.

Second, and more importantly, why do people seem to care about the sanctity of Dan's character so much? Here and especially on the Reddit DM board people act like it's sacrilege to even suggest DM was less than perfect and may have had some role in causing the divorce. Putting aside the implausibilty of that position (everyone has some bad qualities, and I'd wager that in 90% of divorces both members of the couple have contributed to it), why should this matter?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dan, like all of us, had his flaws, and that those flaws were occasional bouts of arrogance, rudeness, or abrasiveness. That would still make zero difference to the immorality and illegality of what happened. I know some people who can act rude, arrogant, etc. Doesn't mean they should be killed.

There's a lot of good analysis and insight on these boards. But there's a lot of simplistic, vengeful moralizing as well that creates this fake manichean dichotomy between Dan as some kind of saint and the Adelsons as "evil" or "vile" or "disgusting." The Adelsons did something terrible. This makes them criminals. They deserve to be tried and punished. I hope this continues to happen. But I don't see the point or appeal of turning a complicated story about real people into reductive justice *advertiser censored*.

Re: Dan. Couldn't agree more. Even his friends have no issues pointing out his flaws. My only issue with the characterization of Dan's flaws is when they are coming from Wendi or being repeated verbatim by Wendi's friends after he is already dead (but not alleged anywhere in her divorce deposition or her 800 page divorce file.

Re: the evil, vile, disgusting Adelsons. I have to disagree here. There is something maniacal about the Adelsons, and particularly their treatment of the Markels. It started right at the funeral. Ruth told Donna she would like to see the boys and Donna just walked away from her with Ben and Lincoln (Tamara Demko) Wendi is still full of obsessive hatred and rage about Dan weeks after his murder and feels no empathy whatsoever (Jeff Lacasse). Wendi is so upset about the outpouring of grief for Dan - that she does her own podcast to "tell her side of the story", wherein she says that when strangers ask her what her boys father does for a living, she thinks "he doesn't do much, cause he is dead." and she wishes she could say this out loud. (2015 Podcast) She changed the kids last names four weeks after the murder. Little kids. Their only attachment to their dad was their name, and now thats gone. That would be traumatic and an identity crisis for anyone, but for tiny kids? Then a year later, when she makes the name change official, she takes away the middle name, which is a tribute to Dan's grandmother (Trial) This is sick stuff. I won't even go further on the treatment of Phil and Ruth but its nauseating and yes, evil.

These are not people who just did something terrible. They are terrible people. Even Charlie, on trial for murder where he is claiming innocence, on the stand couldn't even admit that Dan was a brilliant law professor. Charlie and Wendi have no issues lying under oath about virtually anything, but they DO have limits - their capacity to lie ends precisely when they might be asked to say something nice about Dan Markel. All of this could be explained if Dan Markel was a child molester or child abuser or even a wife abuser. But this was a Dad who had the audacity to still want to be the father of his kids.

 

[amicuscurie]

Couple things about this: first, if there were people on these boards who knew Dan and could confirm that he could be, at times, arrogant, rude and abrasive (which is not exactly unheard of for a highly credentialed law professor), those people would never trash the memory of their friend by detailing those points. So it's likely only "Team Wendi" folks that are likely to say anything along these lines. Hence you're not going to get the full story, or at least a credible version of it, in this or other public forums.

Second, and more importantly, why do people seem to care about the sanctity of Dan's character so much? Here and especially on the Reddit DM board people act like it's sacrilege to even suggest DM was less than perfect and may have had some role in causing the divorce. Putting aside the implausibilty of that position (everyone has some bad qualities, and I'd wager that in 90% of divorces both members of the couple have contributed to it), why should this matter?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dan, like all of us, had his flaws, and that those flaws were occasional bouts of arrogance, rudeness, or abrasiveness. That would still make zero difference to the immorality and illegality of what happened. I know some people who can act rude, arrogant, etc. Doesn't mean they should be killed.

There's a lot of good analysis and insight on these boards. But there's a lot of simplistic, vengeful moralizing as well that creates this fake manichean dichotomy between Dan as some kind of saint and the Adelsons as "evil" or "vile" or "disgusting." The Adelsons did something terrible. This makes them criminals. They deserve to be tried and punished. I hope this continues to happen. But I don't see the point or appeal of turning a complicated story about real people into reductive justice *advertiser censored*.

Very well said.

 

[amicuscurie]

Donna's emails provide the motive but what is interesting about them is the timing. They were written in May and June of 2013 - right around the first murder plot that was foiled when the hitmen ran off with their money. We don't see any crazy Donna emails in the fall and when all the post divorce litigation really goes off the rails. Dan is alleging fraud, demanding Wendi pay up to $200k, threatening her law license and then pointing the finger right at Donna and saying she shouldn't have unsupervised access to the kids. But zero emails from Donna during all this time. Amazing!!! The only evidence we have of her displeasure is a couple texts to Charlie from his iCloud. Then some references to Harvey's surprise birthday gift and then some TV repair. So the Adelsons obviously shut down the incriminating communications about Dan right around Halloween.

Wendi hands them her computer because she thinks the timing of her keystrokes and when she saved the document she worked on for 12 minutes that day, will help prove her alibi. (They REALLY wanted her to have a rock solid alibi). But she likely forgot to delete the 2013 emails. Which is a blessing.

There is he email from February,I believe, about the money and the fact that Dan wants to depose Wendi. Bit none after that. It is curious.

 

[Weki]

Couple things about this: first, if there were people on these boards who knew Dan and could confirm that he could be, at times, arrogant, rude and abrasive (which is not exactly unheard of for a highly credentialed law professor), those people would never trash the memory of their friend by detailing those points. So it's likely only "Team Wendi" folks that are likely to say anything along these lines. Hence you're not going to get the full story, or at least a credible version of it, in this or other public forums.

Second, and more importantly, why do people seem to care about the sanctity of Dan's character so much? Here and especially on the Reddit DM board people act like it's sacrilege to even suggest DM was less than perfect and may have had some role in causing the divorce. Putting aside the implausibilty of that position (everyone has some bad qualities, and I'd wager that in 90% of divorces both members of the couple have contributed to it), why should this matter?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dan, like all of us, had his flaws, and that those flaws were occasional bouts of arrogance, rudeness, or abrasiveness. That would still make zero difference to the immorality and illegality of what happened. I know some people who can act rude, arrogant, etc. Doesn't mean they should be killed.

There's a lot of good analysis and insight on these boards. But there's a lot of simplistic, vengeful moralizing as well that creates this fake manichean dichotomy between Dan as some kind of saint and the Adelsons as "evil" or "vile" or "disgusting." The Adelsons did something terrible. This makes them criminals. They deserve to be tried and punished. I hope this continues to happen. But I don't see the point or appeal of turning a complicated story about real people into reductive justice *advertiser censored*.

Completely agree and I wanted to point out that his friends on the Over my Dead Body podcast have said those things about him. Understanding Dan in all his humanity makes him more relatable and makes these discussions more enriching imo.

I remember once reading something about the types of eulogies. On the one hand there are the ones that say this person was so kind and giving and just a great person. These are the most boring and don’t leave you with any real impression of who the person was. But someone that gets up there and tells a story about a conflict they had with the person and about some funny moments to do with this conflict and how stubborn the person was etc leaves a very memorable impression and truly honors the dead.

I suspect in our adversarial Justice system many people advocating on the side of the prosecution feel the need to canonize the victim. One thing we can count on is that the defense will blame the victim. JMO

 

[Sustained]

I hope this is allowed. Pls remove if not. Many of you probably know this, but I just listened to an interview with Charlie’s ex girlfriend… Deep Dive True Crime on YouTube posted on May 13, 2023 “Police interview with south Florida beauty June Umchinda…”. Very interesting interview conducted before Katie & Sig’s trial. But lots of info about Charlie. She seems like a real sweetheart. I feel sorry for her. Charlie really did a number on her. Anyway near the end of the interview she mentions a couple of times about reading here (WS) and says something like those people really know.

I have no doubt Charlie used June like he had many women prior.

 

[Weki]

@FreddyG The Adelsons are not particularly bad or evil compared to any other murder conspiracy imo. Their family dysfunction is also not unique. There are many families like them. Controlling and overbearing mother. The amoral and materialistic brother. The infantilized and spoiled baby sister. Pathological lying - not uncommon ime. Anyone who has picked up a self-help book or a psych book ever recognizes these personalities and family dynamics. It’s just that most don’t kill. But many with these attributes commit immoral acts and crimes. The level of narcissism in this family is a microcosm of the larger society. As are: inability or unwillingness to resolve conflict, my way or the highway thinking, short-term thinking, rage, impatience, lack of empathy, inability to put one’s self-interest aside and think about what’s best for the children/the future, putting careerism & ambition above all else, hype of the cosmopolitan city, insecurity, I could go on and on. The Adelsons are America. JMO

 

[Zedzded]

Watc

@FreddyG The Adelsons are not particularly bad or evil compared to any other murder conspiracy imo. Their family dysfunction is also not unique. There are many families like them. Controlling and overbearing mother. The amoral and depraved brother. The infantilized and spoiled baby sister. Pathological lying - not uncommon ime. Anyone who has picked up a self-help book or a psych book ever recognizes these personalities and family dynamics. It’s just that most don’t kill. But many with these attributes commit immoral acts and crimes. The level of narcissism in this family is a microcosm of the larger society. As are: inability to resolve conflict, impatience, lack of empathy, inability to put one’s self-interest aside and think about what’s best for the children/the future, putting careerism & ambition above all else, hype of the cosmopolitan city, insecurity, I could go on and on. The Adelsons are America. JMO

I agree. I think overall many, many people we interact with, friends partners etc are closet sociopaths or latent sociopaths. We never get to see their real side, because they become adept at hiding their character flaws. They learn that in order for them to function within our society they are required to be truthful and to show empathy and to not be manipulative. And many go through their entire lives with no-one figuring out who they really are. It's when they are faced with certain challenges that they unravel, they may get fired or arrested or have a partner leave them and then their true persona comes forward.

We like to think that overall most members of society are good, true, honest people. People that care and that have your back. But when the sh!!T hits the fan, then you find out the truth.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

@FreddyG The Adelsons are not particularly bad or evil compared to any other murder conspiracy imo. Their family dysfunction is also not unique. There are many families like them. Controlling and overbearing mother. The amoral and materialistic brother. The infantilized and spoiled baby sister. Pathological lying - not uncommon ime. Anyone who has picked up a self-help book or a psych book ever recognizes these personalities and family dynamics. It’s just that most don’t kill. But many with these attributes commit immoral acts and crimes. The level of narcissism in this family is a microcosm of the larger society. As are: inability or unwillingness to resolve conflict, my way or the highway thinking, short-term thinking, rage, impatience, lack of empathy, inability to put one’s self-interest aside and think about what’s best for the children/the future, putting careerism & ambition above all else, hype of the cosmopolitan city, insecurity, I could go on and on. The Adelsons are America. JMO

Very astute

 

[Sustained]

For what it's worth though, and at the risk of writing the least popular post in the history of Websleuths, I see a parallel between the way the Adelsons got obsessed with hating Dan and the way some of the dialogue about the Adelsons seems obsessed with hating them. Of course, the rationale for hating Dan (rough divorce from their daughter/sister) is different than the rationale for hating the Adelsons (cold blooded murder). But there's a similarity there and I think it's that hating someone can become weirdly enjoyable in a dark way. It comes from the desire that's in all of us to feel superior to or dominant over others. By saying "those people suck," you're implicitly saying, "And I'm superior."

RSBM and BBM -

IMO, it is perfectly acceptable to say "those people suck" and be morally superior to them. I'd be willing to bet 99.99% of the population would have approached the divorce and relocation differently and no one had to die.