GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #18

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, it is a fact that “[…] first degree murder has been proven in three previous cases.”

But these hard fought three convictions were after a large uncertainty. If not the testimony of Luis Rivera against Sigfredo Garcia, it would still be “murder mystery” now!

Have not I noticed how many times Latin Kings crown for Southern Florida Luis Rivera said “I don’t remember. My memory is not that good”? How much better will Luis Rivera’s memory and loquence be 5 years from now, … after he is released from prison?

Dear State Attorneys if you happen to read us, reel in Succubus Wendi in case lesser second-degree murder could stick.
 
Yep. Noticed that as well. It was last minute, the phone records show her calling her lunch companions after she left the house. At 12:30. Not at “around 12,” as she has testified. It was last minute and she was running late and didn’t shower. I think these facts are significant, I just can’t figure out how exactly.
Do you happen to have a link to her phone records for that morning/early afternoon? Would love to see her calls, texts before and after she left her house. TIA.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, they may have felt she “needed to know” more and more as time went on.
I heard a commentator say he thinks it was really planned in the couple of weeks before the murder -- when Wendi was in Miami for HA's bday, around the time that Wendi sent the text to Dan re his whereabouts the week of July 14-18.

Unclear what (if anything) she was told...

JMO.
 
Last edited:
Corbett on Day 3 of the trial is very helpful, he has all these records.
You can freeze on the call logs and stuff. Corbett could make this case, with Sandford. You don’t need any other witnesses. After listening to Corbett, I felt like I had a whole picture of the course of events they were trying to show. The state did an amazing job compiling all those records and using Corbett to put them in a form the jury could understand.
 
You can freeze on the call logs and stuff. Corbett could make this case, with Sandford. You don’t need any other witnesses. After listening to Corbett, I felt like I had a whole picture of the course of events they were trying to show. The state did an amazing job compiling all those records and using Corbett to put them in a form the jury could understand.
I didn't watch all of Corbett and Sanford's testimony this time because I saw them testify twice before. I will watch it -- thank you!
 
I haven't followed this case a lot lately. I am soooo glad to hear about Donna's arrest. It is a shame it has taken so long. Do we know what Wendi is doing now?
Hope LE is keeping close tabs on her, and the kids. Freeze Assets. I would not put it past her to try and flee and take them with her. She does not fool me one bit with that head tilt, wide eye stare. MOO.
 
BTW: did anyone else notice Carl Steinbeck losing his mind the other day about Tim Jansen? He went right off the deep-end and suggested at one point Tim was on defense payroll and was an Adelson stooge. This is the same Tim Jansen who provided 6-8 hours a day free expert commentary with broken ribs during the trial. Tim also opened his law office for Ruth Markel to have some space to sign books and meet friends and supporters.

I don’t agree with Tim that there is not enough evidence to charge Wendi but he seems like a very good and honest human being. Carl, on the other hand, seems unhinged.
 
Yep. Noticed that as well. It was last minute, the phone records show her calling her lunch companions after she left the house. At 12:30. Not at “around 12,” as she has testified. It was last minute and she was running late and didn’t shower. I think these facts are significant, I just can’t figure out how exactly.
Sounds like she left her cell phone at home to not be tracked/lead them on another wild goose chase.
 
Sounds like she left her cell phone at home to not be tracked/lead them on another wild goose chase.

The phone later pings a tower near the liquor store. There are calls from her before 12:30, so they could theoretically see where she was when she made those. At trial they showed a 12:30 ping at her home, then a later ping at the liquor store.
 
[As posted previously by @ch_13 :) ]

O.K. This is really bugging me. Beginning with timestamp 1:22:22, I am going to attempt to type the exchange between Georgia Cappleman ("GC"), the Prosecutor, and Charlie Adelson ("CA"). Now, we know that my hearing ain't the greatest, nor is my spelling, or analytical abilities, but here goes:

Background
Donna texts Charlie to say she can't talk now about Harvey's 70th Birthday [which was to occur on July 5, 2014], but that she would text him when she got into the bathroom at the rest area in Gainesville and had privacy. She asks Charlie to erase the text after reading it.

GC: Why did she [Donna Adelson] have you erase that text?

CA: O.K. If you look at the records, I never erased the text.

GC: Well,why did she ask you? If you know. You may not know.

CA: Maybe she's afraid that my Dad's looking at her phone, and would find out about the present. It made no sense to me, that's why I didn't erase anything. {My comment: He did not erase anything because, erroneously, he was so confident that he and DA's "Code-Speak" would completely baffle any LE who may later examine his phone, or be wiretapping them.}

GC: How is you erasing the text going to prevent your Dad from seeing it on your Mom's phone?
CA: Well, if my Dad looked at my Mom's phone, he might have seen the text and know what my Mom is planning for his birthday.
GC: You weren't with Dad . . . she was with Dad. Just to clarify.
CA: Yeah. She was with my Dad.
GC: And the text that she asked you to erase, that particular text didn't say anything about a birthday or paella. Can you agree on that?
CA: No [the text didn't say anything about a birthday or paella], but I knew what it was about. [No secrets revealed here, folks, the cat is not out of the bag.]
GC: Twenty minutes later, she texts again and asks something about Dad's birthday. Do you remember that?
CA: Yeah. I know we were trying to plan a surprise cruise. That was the original idea.
GC: O.K. And the paella is mentioned elsewhere, not in this particular thread that we're talking about now.
CA: Yeah.
GC: Was paella the big birthday gift?
CA: Yeah. I paid for the catering for the whole party.
GC: Then, three months later, on June 8 [2014], just after midnight you text her, "Still working on Dad's birthday present." Is that in reference to the paella guy?
CA: Uh, possibly. Or, possibly, what I was also getting was a present. It's been 10 years, so I don't exactly know what I got him 10 years ago on his birthday, or what I was thinking about getting him.
GC: And then, at 1 a.m., Mom texts you back -- and I think she was in Israel, so that may account for the time to text you -- "I know you'll come through for me." Is that what she said?
CA: That's what the text said. Yeah.
GC: Can we agree the timing of these texts is consistent with being sent the day after the killers got home from their failed June murder trip?
CA: No. It's consistent with a few weeks before my Dad's birthday, to try to figure out what we're going to get him.

Now for my rant: Scroll past, if necessary.

I would not characterize a dinner party as a "present." I'd call it a party, or a celebration. If they were taking great pains to erase texts, so that HA would not "catch on" that they were planning a birthday party for him, why not just call it what it is? A party. Not a present!

A present would be more like a big, honking TV, with a bright red bow on it. A present is something you put in a box and wrap up, with ribbons. Not a big batch of Paella prepared by a caterer and served to party-goers, well wishers of the man being feted in celebration of his birthday. (Unless, of course, it was a frozen Family-Sized Paella entree, similar to Stouffer's or something you'd buy at Costco.)

It was a birthday party for HA, where Paella was going to be prepared and served by a caterer. There would have been no need to keep Kosher, of course, with Dan Markel out of the picture (so to speak). However, if the attempt on his life failed again, and Dan were going to attend the party, they'd just lie to him -- "It's all Kosher, Dan. No worries."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
500
Total visitors
649

Forum statistics

Threads
607,677
Messages
18,226,959
Members
234,198
Latest member
psychesleuth
Back
Top