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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
But I thought she had her cell phone during the interrogation. I would assume that since she had it during the interrogation, she would have it during the lunch.
Yes, evidence shows she had it when she went to the liquor store and at the lunch. Isom told her that is how they tracked her to the restaurant. Her phone.
 
I'm beginning to thing that WA turning up on Trescott Drive perhaps is a bit more important, I feel Georgia didn't really pursue this, probably for a number of reasons. So someone correct me if I'm wrong:

1)WA says she turned right onto Trescott Drive of Centreville Road but immediately did a K turn when she saw tape
there was no tape at the junction of Trescott Drive and Centreville Road

2)The tape was only 4 houses to the right and left of DM's house

3)DM's house cannot be seen from the junction of Trescott Drive and Centreville Road, you would have to drive close to a mile down the road, come round a corner and then you could see the house and tape

4)The police said they saw her car and said it was clear it was DM's hosue that was taped off

5)There were multiple police cars there. Even someone that was not involved with the law would understand the implications of police tape and police cars i.e it obviously was not a fallen tree

6) She was going through a contentious and acrimonious divorce, there is police tape round your ex's house and your ex has the kids. 99.9% of parents would be flipping out trying to find out what happened, where the kids are etc and she just turns round and goes out to lunch.....

That's not something that can be easily dismissed.
 
[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."
Yes, it was a party, I mean, arguably organizing a party for someone could be a present. If paella were someone’s favorite food, for example, and you arranged for a private chef to come make it. But I agree with you, the phrasing seems odd to me. And also, he sort of says maybe it was a cruise, or maybe it was some other present. And, also, I love how she is trying to get him to understand that erasing it on HIS phone won’t prevent dad from seeing it on HER phone. That exchange I found hilarious. Also, they’re talking about paella, and then they’re also talking about paella three months later? When she asks about this, that’s when he says it might have been something else. And, no, the Adelson family did not keep kosher.
 
[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."
Didn’t WA testify that she was the one that ordered the paella?
 
Didn’t WA testify that she was the one that ordered the paella?
Yes, it was a party, I mean, arguably organizing a party for someone could be a present. If paella were someone’s favorite food, for example, and you arranged for a private chef to come make it. But I agree with you, the phrasing seems odd to me. And also, he sort of says maybe it was a cruise, or maybe it was some other present. And, also, I love how she is trying to get him to understand that erasing it on HIS phone won’t prevent dad from seeing it on HER phone. That exchange I found hilarious. Also, they’re talking about paella, and then they’re also talking about paella three months later? When she asks about this, that’s when he says it might have been something else. And, no, the Adelson family did not keep kosher.
In her 2015 podcast, WA said she was going to take Harvey on a 2 week vacation to Machu Picchu, but had to cancel it after the murder. That hasn’t been brought up at trial at all.Seems like that was her bday gift to him.
 
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.
I completely agree. CS is being so unprofessional and coming off a bit unhinged. Tim seems like an honest, smart and nice guy.
 
I'm beginning to thing that WA turning up on Trescott Drive perhaps is a bit more important, I feel Georgia didn't really pursue this, probably for a number of reasons. So someone correct me if I'm wrong:

1)WA says she turned right onto Trescott Drive of Centreville Road but immediately did a K turn when she saw tape
there was no tape at the junction of Trescott Drive and Centreville Road

2)The tape was only 4 houses to the right and left of DM's house

3)DM's house cannot be seen from the junction of Trescott Drive and Centreville Road, you would have to drive close to a mile down the road, come round a corner and then you could see the house and tape

4)The police said they saw her car and said it was clear it was DM's hosue that was taped off

5)There were multiple police cars there. Even someone that was not involved with the law would understand the implications of police tape and police cars i.e it obviously was not a fallen tree

6) She was going through a contentious and acrimonious divorce, there is police tape round your ex's house and your ex has the kids. 99.9% of parents would be flipping out trying to find out what happened, where the kids are etc and she just turns round and goes out to lunch.....

That's not something that can be easily dismissed.
Yes to all of this.
 
The inconsistencies also seem to correlate with the crying episodes, I think. I will have to go back and check. But the crying appears abruptly at certain times. I think they may have been suspicious of her when they picked her up, which may account for the manner in which they picked her up. I realize the wife is always the first suspect, but I think they may also have known how contentious the divorce was in this case. Dan’s lawyer said he was called by someone he knew at the police right after it happened. Everything police do is for a reason. They picked her up in a way that left her taken by surprise and unable to get away, and they did it just as soon as they were able to locate her. They didn’t call her in like they sometimes do.
that's interesting and I didn't know that - Dan's lawyer & a cop.

BTW if you do rewatch her Isom interview, have a look at Jane's initial reactions ( from when she comes in until she's told Dan won't survive. )
Obviously I don't think Jane presumed Wendi had shot Dan but Jane's reaction is interesting
 
In the videos, I like the professionalism, calm, and fairness of State Attorney Jack Campbell. Sadly, I cannot help noticing that Jack Campbell’s left face has difficulty moving. Perhaps, he has had a cardiovascular diseases, the cause of about 32% of global deaths annually according to WHO.

Knowledgeable State Attorneys might move on with their lives in the future. Luis Rivera’s memory and loquence might diminish … as he will be released from prison in 4 more years. Katie Magbanua might behave with more senile hostility toward the victim’s family as she gets bitter in prison. The number of attention seeking internet educated lunatics might grow in the jury pool as time passes by.

It is my hope that the State does not wait to long. The remaining two at large co-conspirators should be charged ASAP. Else, Succubus Wendi might walk unpunished to continue polluting good people’s dreams with her fleshly activities. Given his age, Asmodeus Harvey might pass before he could lust on prison life as deserving fruit of their murderous action.
 
The inconsistencies also seem to correlate with the crying episodes, I think. I will have to go back and check. But the crying appears abruptly at certain times. I think they may have been suspicious of her when they picked her up, which may account for the manner in which they picked her up. I realize the wife is always the first suspect, but I think they may also have known how contentious the divorce was in this case. Dan’s lawyer said he was called by someone he knew at the police right after it happened. Everything police do is for a reason. They picked her up in a way that left her taken by surprise and unable to get away, and they did it just as soon as they were able to locate her. They didn’t call her in like they sometimes do.
They were for sure suspicious IMO. They towed her car from the restaurant to the police station without first telling her -- I'm sure in the hope that she would give consent to search it. And I think Isom was upfront near the start of the interview, basically saying I need to know where you were. The neighbor who found Dan was probably asked questions about Dan's life and likely told LE that he was recently divorced and had 2 small sons and his ex-wife Wendi in Tally. Cops may have gotten immediate access to the court files re the divorce. JMO.
 
Corbett on Day 3 of the trial is very helpful, he has all these records.
I still can't find the exhibits which accompany this screenshot that I took on the day Corbett gave evidence. ( It was on day 3 or Day 4 )

I have re-sized the original screenshot but IDK if it will be legible because @clearskies1 had wanted context for a couple of the items in the list.

Somewhere on day 3 or 4 live coverage, there must be a list for Wendi earlier in the morning - the image only covers 12.30 - 3.15 and Wendi was with the cops from after 2pm-ishScreenshot 2023-11-18 at 10.25.15.png
 
Last edited:
I still can't find the exhibits which accompany this screenshot that I took on the day Corbett gave evidence. ( It was on day 3 or Day 4 )

I have re-sized the original screenshot but IDK if it will be legible because @clearskies1 had wanted context for a couple of the items in the list.

Somewhere on day 3 or 4 live coverage, there must be a list for Wendi earlier in the morning - the image only covers 12.30 - 3.15 and Wendi was with the cops from after 2pm-ishView attachment 462023
Wow-- great! It's legible. Thank you for posting.
 
Wow-- great! It's legible. Thank you for posting.
I hadn't realised how easy it was to resize! Doh!
can you look at that Carey query


Rashbaum on cross said to Wendi wtte of ' your interview with Isom started around 2.45pm'
Wendi plays the Lisa Carey voicemail to Isom at some point thereafter, and speaks as if it's the first time she's heard the message & first time she'd become aware of a shooting on Trescott. What do you think?

( Isom intevriew is on page 41 of this WS thread if anybody else interested)
 
I hadn't realised how easy it was to resize! Doh!
can you look at that Carey query


Rashbaum on cross said to Wendi wtte of ' your interview with Isom started around 2.45pm'
Wendi plays the Lisa Carey voicemail to Isom at some point thereafter, and speaks as if it's the first time she's heard the message & first time she'd become aware of a shooting on Trescott. What do you think?

( Isom intevriew is on page 41 of this WS thread if anybody else interested)
Yes, sure. Just to confirm -- the issue is whether she listened to the Lisa Carey voice mail before she met with Isom, right? Thanks.
 
I still can't find the exhibits which accompany this screenshot that I took on the day Corbett gave evidence. ( It was on day 3 or Day 4 )

I have re-sized the original screenshot but IDK if it will be legible because @clearskies1 had wanted context for a couple of the items in the list.

Somewhere on day 3 or 4 live coverage, there must be a list for Wendi earlier in the morning - the image only covers 12.30 - 3.15 and Wendi was with the cops from after 2pm-ishView attachment 462023
Yes, I think I recall seeing a version of this that had some earlier calls
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,375
Total visitors
1,516

Forum statistics

Threads
602,361
Messages
18,139,679
Members
231,368
Latest member
Elle C
Back
Top