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

[amicuscurie]

very interesting, would like to know more about the Florida exception

I’m a little vague on it myself, I heard someone speak about it on one of the shows. I think he said Dan wrote about it in a book, which is interesting to me because hypothetically someone who knew what Dan worked on would hypothetically know about it. Wish I remembered what show it was…

 

[Going Rogue]

I’m a little vague on it myself, I heard someone speak about it on one of the shows. I think he said Dan wrote about it in a book, which is interesting to me because hypothetically someone who knew what Dan worked on would hypothetically know about it. Wish I remembered what show it was…

To me this certainly looks suspicious and may Imply knowledge of the crime. However, absent evidence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, or commission of an act which would lead to the death of the victim, this isn’t enough to convict, in my opinion. Mere knowledge that a crime is going to occur and failure to prevent it is not a crime. Interestingly, in Florida there is an exception to the charge of accessory after the fact for close family members. I believe Dan Markel wrote about this exception and took the position that family members should not be treated differently than others with respect to criminal law.

Might have been a video Mentour Lawyer posted that you are thinking of? I recall a video where he proposed the state should pursue charges against Wendi if they can prove she had knowledge but can’t pin an act of furtherance on her. He made it clear it was bending the law a bit but he could make the case. I don’t recall any reference in his video to any of Dan Markel’s writings on an exception, so you may have been referring to something entirely different that you viewed?

As far as your opinion, although suspicious, I agree they need more on Wendi than her trip down Trescott. What I don’t understand is from an evidentiary perspective as it relates to Wendi nothing has changed in years yet there is a recent shift from ‘there is not enough evidence to convict” TO “the evidence is overwhelming, why hasn’t she been arrested”. I think the only new ‘evidence’ on Wendi in the last couple of years that has been made public is her text to Dan inquiring if he planned to travel the week of the 14th while he had custody. I agree that can be viewed as suspicious in light of what happened that week but also seems like a question both might asked each other based on the custody arrangements and the ‘travel’ stipulation in the custody arrangements with the Wednesday crossover day.

 

[yazoost]

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but it looks like the exception wouldn't apply to a murder. It looks like (a) creates the exception for 3d degree felonies. Then, (b) excepts child abuse from the exception. And, (c) essentially says there are no exceptions for 2d or 1st degree felonies or capital or life crimes. I could be reading this wrong, of course.

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(2)(a) If the felony offense committed is a capital felony, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the felony offense committed is a life felony or a felony of the first degree, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the second degree or a felony of the third degree ranked in level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the third degree ranked in level 1 or level 2 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 921.0022, for purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, the offense of accessory after the fact is ranked two levels below the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed.

 

[legalmomma]

Donna Adelson hearing Live

 

[IQuestion]

To me this certainly looks suspicious and may Imply knowledge of the crime. However, absent evidence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, or commission of an act which would lead to the death of the victim, this isn’t enough to convict, in my opinion. Mere knowledge that a crime is going to occur and failure to prevent it is not a crime. Interestingly, in Florida there is an exception to the charge of accessory after the fact for close family members. I believe Dan Markel wrote about this exception and took the position that family members should not be treated differently than others with respect to criminal law.

I remember the case of an American killed in Bali. And the cousin of the killer (over 8,000 miles away at the time) was convicted of "encouraging a murder" and sentenced to 9 years in prison, in the United States. Apparently there is a special Federal law in regards to killing an American abroad. DM was a Canadian citizen right? I wonder if Canada also has a far reaching similar law? Ugh I really messed up this post...I know there are never "identical circumstances" but/and this could be an interesting stretch at best?

Chicago Man Sentenced to 9 Years in Prison for Conspiring to Murder U.S. Citizen in Bali, Indonesia

www.justice.gov

Hello and Welcome GOINGROGUE!!
*** WA was also very interested in JL's travel plans. WA couldn't provide a straight forward answer for the last time she saw DM,. ...Talked in circles for minutes. But when Det. Isom asked when she broke up with JL she instantly replies, "Monday night after yoga." At what point does someone scream "enough of the coincidences!" Uh...just needed to get that off my chest... I'll back out of the room now...anyone need coffee?

 

[amicuscurie]

Might have been a video Mentour Lawyer posted that you are thinking of? I recall a video where he proposed the state should pursue charges against Wendi if they can prove she had knowledge but can’t pin an act of furtherance on her. He made it clear it was bending the law a bit but he could make the case. I don’t recall any reference in his video to any of Dan Markel’s writings on an exception, so you may have been referring to something entirely different that you viewed?

As far as your opinion, although suspicious, I agree they need more on Wendi than her trip down Trescott. What I don’t understand is from an evidentiary perspective as it relates to Wendi nothing has changed in years yet there is a recent shift from ‘there is not enough evidence to convict” TO “the evidence is overwhelming, why hasn’t she been arrested”. I think the only new ‘evidence’ on Wendi in the last couple of years that has been made public is her text to Dan inquiring if he planned to travel the week of the 14th while he had custody. I agree that can be viewed as suspicious in light of what happened that week but also seems like a question both might asked each other based on the custody arrangements and the ‘travel’ stipulation in the custody arrangements with the Wednesday crossover day.

It is strange, to me. Both David Lat and Steven Epstein seemed to have drastically changed their tune since Charlie’s trial, judging from what they said on Dateline. David Lat, in particular, has gone from saying she would have to be insane to be involved in this and then write about it, to saying, in a post he made after Charlie’s trial, that he thinks she is a sociopath. He still says he does not think the state has enough for an arrest.

In my opinion, the text to Dan, which the state waited to reveal until Charlie’s trial, leads me to believe they may have more they are waiting to reveal. Perhaps they are revealing what they have as they feel they need it. For Katie’s trials, perhaps they felt they didn’t need to present as much evidence against Wendi or Donna, as they did not have contact with Katie like Charlie did. Indeed, they seem to have waited until Charlie’s trial to present a lot of the texts they had on Donna. (“Outside your house,” for example, and the other texts about the divorce and dad’s birthday).

So, I am thinking that maybe they have more. Maybe other people are starting to think this as well. I think Charlie’s trial may have crystallized this in the minds of many people who may have been willing to give Wendi the benefit of the doubt before. JMO.

 

[stamplewie]

Summary of today's case management hearing:

Rashbaum was the only defense attorney that appeared for Donna Adelson and Dugan appeared for the State.

No trial date was set today, instead another case management hearing was set for 2/12/24.

Donna Adelson appeared today by zoom and was questioned directly by the Judge regarding whether she understands the potential conflict with Rashbaum's prior representation of Charlie and also the potential conflict given the possibility that Rashbaum could be called as a witness in this matter and that an attorney cannot be both a witness and counsel in the same case. She waived all conflicts and stated that she conferred with independent counsel.

 

[amicuscurie]

Might have been a video Mentour Lawyer posted that you are thinking of? I recall a video where he proposed the state should pursue charges against Wendi if they can prove she had knowledge but can’t pin an act of furtherance on her. He made it clear it was bending the law a bit but he could make the case. I don’t recall any reference in his video to any of Dan Markel’s writings on an exception, so you may have been referring to something entirely different that you viewed?

As far as your opinion, although suspicious, I agree they need more on Wendi than her trip down Trescott. What I don’t understand is from an evidentiary perspective as it relates to Wendi nothing has changed in years yet there is a recent shift from ‘there is not enough evidence to convict” TO “the evidence is overwhelming, why hasn’t she been arrested”. I think the only new ‘evidence’ on Wendi in the last couple of years that has been made public is her text to Dan inquiring if he planned to travel the week of the 14th while he had custody. I agree that can be viewed as suspicious in light of what happened that week but also seems like a question both might asked each other based on the custody arrangements and the ‘travel’ stipulation in the custody arrangements with the Wednesday crossover day.

ETA- with regard to the “travel stipulation,” I assume you mean the agreement in the divorce that each party would get the Wednesday overnight if they didn’t have the kids, unless the other party was traveling with the kids. (Wendi even describes this arrangement in her police interview, saying she had the Wednesday overnight that week.).

In my opinion, under such an agreement, the default would be that the Wednesday overnight would happen, and per the stipulation the burden would be on the traveling party to apprise the other if it wasn’t. To read the stipulation otherwise, to me, would seem to require each party to ask the other party every week whether the Wednesday overnight was going to happen. That would defeat the purpose of a regular custody arrangement, in my opinion.

In my opinion it would be unusual for one party to ask the other if the Wednesday overnight was going forward, or to say they “wanted the kiddos” that Wednesday when they were already scheduled to have them.

 

[amicuscurie]

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but it looks like the exception wouldn't apply to a murder. It looks like (a) creates the exception for 3d degree felonies. Then, (b) excepts child abuse from the exception. And, (c) essentially says there are no exceptions for 2d or 1st degree felonies or capital or life crimes. I could be reading this wrong, of course.

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(2)(a) If the felony offense committed is a capital felony, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the felony offense committed is a life felony or a felony of the first degree, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the second degree or a felony of the third degree ranked in level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the third degree ranked in level 1 or level 2 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 921.0022, for purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, the offense of accessory after the fact is ranked two levels below the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed.

I read it the same way, but I swear I heard an expert talking about this with regard to Wendi. Also, would the exception for spouses even apply if they were divorced?

 

[yazoost]

I'm fairly sure it would not apply to ex-spouses. But, I also believe the exclusion would be applied to the A's relationships to each other, not to Markel.

And, someone coached D on how to talk to the judge. Much different approach today.

 

[IQuestion]

Summary of today's case management hearing:

Rashbaum was the only defense attorney that appeared for Donna Adelson and Dugan appeared for the State.

No trial date was set today, instead another case management hearing was set for 2/12/24.

Donna Adelson appeared today by zoom and was questioned directly by the Judge regarding whether she understands the potential conflict with Rashbaum's prior representation of Charlie and also the potential conflict given the possibility that Rashbaum could be called as a witness in this matter and that an attorney cannot be both a witness and counsel in the same case. She waived all conflicts and stated that she conferred with independent counsel.

Great summary STAMPLEWIE!
...am attaching link to video. (She looks stronger than ever.)

Donna Adelson Speaks in Court

Donna Adelson testifies that her defense attorney, Daniel Rashbaum, will not present a conflict of interest for her.

www.courttv.com

Conflict one: DR already defended CA?
Conflict two: DR can not be atty and witness in same trial?

 

[SeesSeas]

CourtTV shows Donna on Zoom video:

Donna Adelson Keeps Charlie Adelson's Attorney​

COURT TV

 

[amicuscurie]

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but it looks like the exception wouldn't apply to a murder. It looks like (a) creates the exception for 3d degree felonies. Then, (b) excepts child abuse from the exception. And, (c) essentially says there are no exceptions for 2d or 1st degree felonies or capital or life crimes. I could be reading this wrong, of course.

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(2)(a) If the felony offense committed is a capital felony, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the felony offense committed is a life felony or a felony of the first degree, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the second degree or a felony of the third degree ranked in level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the third degree ranked in level 1 or level 2 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 921.0022, for purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, the offense of accessory after the fact is ranked two levels below the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed.

I'm fairly sure it would not apply to ex-spouses. But, I also believe the exclusion would be applied to the A's relationships to each other, not to Markel.

And, someone coached D on how to talk to the judge. Much different approach today.

Right, duh, their relationship to each other, not Markel!

Told ya I was not a great lawyer.

 

[cottonweaver]

CourtTV shows Donna on Zoom video:

Donna Adelson Keeps Charlie Adelson's Attorney​

COURT TV

That attorney in the interview is like ...Ohhh! ' Now you're telling me some other things...'


Circling back to the items they're discussing

8 Nov , jail call hot mic
DA …so the things that we want is for him to…. Well ,we'll talk about in more detail later. tell her I thought it first you need to come here but I realize that you know most of everything we can do …….I’ll have to tell her we're leaving the country
HA: uhhhhh…
DA: they're not recording my phone. if they are… if they are…. they just ah… you know ….I mean what am I gonna do? I can't write it -Dan says just don't put anything in writing. I can't …what…. am I supposed to do?
HA: um
DA: should I ?…..I can't …..so I'm supposed to call Dan? but that line is, that line….
I don't have a private line so they're going either hear me tell Dan to tell Call Annie or they're going to hear me tell Annie. they might as well hear me. I mean ,what's the option? Call Annie Cunningham

----

6 Nov jail call plus hot mic
- Allegedly, Dan advised them on fleeing, at 13m ' after speaking to Dan this morning...make it out in time, he said you might or you might get to the airport'
- Later on, Susan’s comments about risk of ‘ Wendi telling’ on them and Donna replying wtte of - well what you do, is you tell them beforehand that you're speaking to Wendi as an attorney who doesn't talk and what I'm telling you is privileged

Plus
6-9th multiple jail calls where Dan is mentioned ( Ofc Dan Rashbaum said he wasn't her attorney at this time)
and Donna discusses how often and for how long she is speaking to Dan every day

such as
' Don’t talk to me over the phone about any of this, do that through Dan. '

DA The State are going one by one but you need to get this from Dan.
CA replies using the cryptic reference he's used a lot on the calls, the ‘ I’d be on a beach’ comment to signal - imo- that he understands and that he approves of her plan to leave the country

 

[cottonweaver]

Great summary STAMPLEWIE!
...am attaching link to video. (She looks stronger than ever.)

Donna Adelson Speaks in Court

Donna Adelson testifies that her defense attorney, Daniel Rashbaum, will not present a conflict of interest for her.

www.courttv.com

Conflict one: DR already defended CA?
Conflict two: DR can not be atty and witness in same trial?

I couldn't catch the hearing live today but last night, I watched a different attorney who said that Rashbaum would never be in a position where the state had to call him to testify and that it was a shocking statement for another attorney to suggest it ( Think he was referring to Tim Jansen who'd previously said on STS that Rashbaum was getting into tricky waters and if the state used some of the hot mics at trial, he might end up in a very tricky position because he can't wear both hats )

Now I'm watching Everett, while he does the colloquy, and he's warning Donna about the potential issues if her attorney had to testify at her trial!

Plus, when you recall what's on those jail calls , makes you realise just how brazen it was for Rashbaum to go onto any show and do a full interview.

This potential mess can't be good for anybody, not even the State.

 

[Going Rogue]

It is strange, to me. Both David Lat and Steven Epstein seemed to have drastically changed their tune since Charlie’s trial, judging from what they said on Dateline. David Lat, in particular, has gone from saying she would have to be insane to be involved in this and then write about it, to saying, in a post he made after Charlie’s trial, that he thinks she is a sociopath. He still says he does not think the state has enough for an arrest.

In my opinion, the text to Dan, which the state waited to reveal until Charlie’s trial, leads me to believe they may have more they are waiting to reveal. Perhaps they are revealing what they have as they feel they need it. For Katie’s trials, perhaps they felt they didn’t need to present as much evidence against Wendi or Donna, as they did not have contact with Katie like Charlie did. Indeed, they seem to have waited until Charlie’s trial to present a lot of the texts they had on Donna. (“Outside your house,” for example, and the other texts about the divorce and dad’s birthday).

So, I am thinking that maybe they have more. Maybe other people are starting to think this as well. I think Charlie’s trial may have crystallized this in the minds of many people who may have been willing to give Wendi the benefit of the doubt before. JMO.

Personally, I think there is a fear of public backlash towards anyone that goes ‘on the record’ by providing any opinion / stance that is anything but Wendi is evil and guilty. I have seen many negative comments in the past about Steven Epstein because he initially expressed that he thought Wendi was innocent based on his independent research. I have also seen a lot of negativity in the past towards David Lat for always giving a very neutral take on Wendi’s potential involvement. There are other legal minds and ‘pundits’ that have been harshly criticized for sharing views that aren’t inline with the popular consensus or what the majority of the ‘public’ believes – or as what Rashbaum refers to as ‘The Mob’ . I haven’t seen the post you reference from David Lat after Charlie’s trial, I will search for it. As far as Epstein, other than the Dateline episode, I haven’t heard him comment on anything related to the case since an interview he did on STS (over a year?). Nothing he said in the Dateline episode led me to believe he changed his stance. Other than giving some color and case facts, all he said when asked if he thought Wendi was in involved is “its impossible to image she knew nothing all these years” - I agree 100% with him there.

You may be correct that the state may have more, but I can’t imagine they have anything on Wendi that they believe is enough to win a conviction otherwise there is no reason they wouldn’t have already charged her. IMO the state believes either Wendi was directly involved OR that she has been lying to them about what she knows to protect her family - either way its clear that the prosecution has a very strong disdain for Wendi even if they aren’t 100% certain she was directly involved. If we find out that they have been sitting on evidence that would remove any reasonable doubt in the case against Wendi at this stage of the game, then I will lose all respect for the Tallahassee District Attorneys Office and that will be a serious miscarriage of justice. Realistically, you would have to believe the state knows they need more evidence on Wendi – I think there is way too much false optimism in the public’s view of the strength of the case against Wendi. I have a theory on why, but I don’t want to share it publicly.

 

[Going Rogue]

ETA- with regard to the “travel stipulation,” I assume you mean the agreement in the divorce that each party would get the Wednesday overnight if they didn’t have the kids, unless the other party was traveling with the kids. (Wendi even describes this arrangement in her police interview, saying she had the Wednesday overnight that week.).

In my opinion, under such an agreement, the default would be that the Wednesday overnight would happen, and per the stipulation the burden would be on the traveling party to apprise the other if it wasn’t. To read the stipulation otherwise, to me, would seem to require each party to ask the other party every week whether the Wednesday overnight was going to happen. That would defeat the purpose of a regular custody arrangement, in my opinion.

In my opinion it would be unusual for one party to ask the other if the Wednesday overnight was going forward, or to say they “wanted the kiddos” that Wednesday when they were already scheduled to have them.

Yes, that’s what I was referring to. I watched a video from ‘law belle vie’ on YouTube where she brought up and reviewed the verbiage from the custody arrangements. It lacked detail, but did specify that during the summer months ‘if’ the parent with custody for a given week was traveling with the boys, the other parent did not get the Wednesday crossover day. I don’t recall any detail about giving notice, but it’s reasonable to assume the parent traveling (whether they had custody that week or not) would ‘eventually’ notify the other party of their travel plans as per your assumption. In this case Wendi proactively inquired, which I agree is very suspicious, but since he did travel often and because of the ‘travel’ stipulation, it’s a reasonable question. I think a lot of the ‘detail’ to this case is micro analyzed, but you bring up an interesting point in her saying “wanted the kiddos” when it was already scheduled and agree its a bit peculiar and hadn’t thought of that.

 

[scapa]

Dan said that the extortion was the same thing as what Luis said they did. Because they didn’t ask for the money up front. They went up there and killed Dan, and THEN asked for the money.

The difference is, in Luis’s version, they were ASKED to do the job, told they would get the money after the job, and that is why they did the job. The asked for the money they had been promised.

In Charlie’s version, they were NOT asked to do the job, they were NOT told they would get the money after the job, and that is NOT why they did the job. They asked for money they had NOT been promised.

So, it is NOT the same thing at all. What Luis said is NOT consistent with what Charlie says happened.

See, how easy? Logic!

It is amazing to me that Rash appears to me to be resting some of his case on the idea that hired killers are NEVER, EVER promised that they will be paid AFTER the job is done.

As though that idea is more preposterous than the idea of killers who have NOT been hired asking to be paid after a murder they have NOT been hired to do.

I believe it is possible to find at least one instance of that first thing happening, which would defeat the argument that it never happens.


See how easy? Logic!

Indeed.

I wonder how willing and eager DR might have been to have surprised the As with an efficacious and fee-free representation for CA's murder trial, in the hope that he might be paid for that work in the future.

I feel like he's conflating the idea of a contingency murder-for-hire (murder X and receive 50% down and the balance on completion) with the more outlandish idea of a couple of clueless killers roaming the state looking for someone to murder on the offchance that someone wants that person murdered.

It ain't even Strangers on a Train. It's the Littlest Hobos with a rental car, gun and someone in the background thinking out loud about a problem that might be solved via assassination.

 

[amicuscurie]

Personally, I think there is a fear of public backlash towards anyone that goes ‘on the record’ by providing any opinion / stance that is anything but Wendi is evil and guilty. I have seen many negative comments in the past about Steven Epstein because he initially expressed that he thought Wendi was innocent based on his independent research. I have also seen a lot of negativity in the past towards David Lat for always giving a very neutral take on Wendi’s potential involvement. There are other legal minds and ‘pundits’ that have been harshly criticized for sharing views that aren’t inline with the popular consensus or what the majority of the ‘public’ believes – or as what Rashbaum refers to as ‘The Mob’ . I haven’t seen the post you reference from David Lat after Charlie’s trial, I will search for it. As far as Epstein, other than the Dateline episode, I haven’t heard him comment on anything related to the case since an interview he did on STS (over a year?). Nothing he said in the Dateline episode led me to believe he changed his stance. Other than giving some color and case facts, all he said when asked if he thought Wendi was in involved is “its impossible to image she knew nothing all these years” - I agree 100% with him there.

You may be correct that the state may have more, but I can’t imagine they have anything on Wendi that they believe is enough to win a conviction otherwise there is no reason they wouldn’t have already charged her. IMO the state believes either Wendi was directly involved OR that she has been lying to them about what she knows to protect her family - either way its clear that the prosecution has a very strong disdain for Wendi even if they aren’t 100% certain she was directly involved. If we find out that they have been sitting on evidence that would remove any reasonable doubt in the case against Wendi at this stage of the game, then I will lose all respect for the Tallahassee District Attorneys Office and that will be a serious miscarriage of justice. Realistically, you would have to believe the state knows they need more evidence on Wendi – I think there is way too much false optimism in the public’s view of the strength of the case against Wendi. I have a theory on why, but I don’t want to share it publicly.

I think this makes sense. BUT, the state did wait to introduce the text to Dan, and they did wait to introduce a lot of Donna’s texts. It seems to me like you could have made a similar argument six months ago regarding why the state had not yet arrested Donna, and whether they felt they had enough to do so. Arguably, however, they might not have intended to arrest Donna and the flight might have forced their hand. So, who knows? We have to wait and see.

 

[Honeynut]

Im just going to say that even without something like this, in my opinion, it is telling that it appears to me that the entire Tallahassee house had been packed up and vacated by the day after the funeral.

I've thought this as well. It explains the fake larengitis, the timing of the breakup with JL, & the walk w Janine to disparage JL, & giving away childrens outgrown clothes. She purposely kept people away from the house. Would the police even notice when they picked up her computer? I mean all her self packed boxes could easily be out of sight