Exactly! I think this is a good summary of how it could’ve gone down. I still think, unfortunately, that there is not a lot of hard evidence against Wendi, perhaps because of the dynamic and how they wanted to protect her. They probably knew that merely knowing about a crime and not doing anything is not itself a crime, (she’s a lawyer), and so they purposely did not ask her to do any of the planning, payment, etc.
EXCEPT — that one email to Dan, asking if he would be home July 18. Cell tower data shows that email was sent when they were all near the family’s apartment in Miami Beach. I believe testimony was that it was the weekend of Harvey’s birthday, after the first attempt had failed. The text itself is not a crime; after all, they shared custody and probably sent a lot of texts like this. That’s what A’s might have thought at least. (“You’ll just say you were texting him about custody, that’s not a crime.”). But coupled with the timing, and the cell tower data, it may be enough to implicate her.
Also, LaCasse’s story about how the TV was broken is suspicious, particularly the timing, but even he does not say he really knows how it was broken, only that it didn’t appear to be damage inflicted by a child’s toy. Maybe there is more.
Driving by the scene after the fact is not a crime, unless perhaps it could be show that it was done somehow in furtherance of the conspiracy, like for the purpose of confirming it had been done so that payment could be made. Not sure that is the case.
This brings up something I’ve noticed throughout this case. Charlie seems to think that as long as they’re talking in code, or “only sitting in a car”, or “only rented a car,“ etc., that there’s no evidence of a crime that can be traced to them. He only looks at each action and concludes it’s “technically” not a crime. You can hear him rationalize like this on the Dolce Vita tape. I don’t think he realized how it looked, taken all together. I don’t think he knew as much about how evidence works, or how police work, as he thought he did on those tapes. I don’t think he understands the concept of circumstantial evidence. A lot of people think circumstantial evidence is not enough. You always hear “that’s just circumstantial“ as if it’s not enough. But you learn in law school that circumstantial evidence IS evidence. In fact, there’s usually not a lot of direct evidence, such as fingerprints, the gun, a videotape of the person doing the crime, etc. Many cases are made on circumstantial evidence. If you’re not familiar with trials and police work, you don’t know this.