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

[Sustained]

Well, that would be interesting. I don't see any of them flipping. The way that I do see that potentially happening is if DA passes away. Then, CA may try to make a deal to give up WA once his mother is not around. Otherwise, they are way too close knit & they want WA to keep the boys.

I don't see Charlie doing it for the simple fact that DA wouldn't allow it. If they give up WA, those boys go to Shelly or Ruth. H is too old. I just don't see that happening. I don't see any way that DA or CA roll on HA. He wasn't a very big player in any of this anyway. The golden goose is Wendi, The state wants her big time.

But it may happen if D isn't around any longer and Charlie decides he's giving zero F's about WA or the boys.

You could be right, but a few months in a FL max might change CA's position if he could bargain for a different FL prison and/or a reduction in sentence. Life will not be easy for CA in a max. He'll be looking over his shoulder constantly wondering when he'll be attacked and will he be able to deal with the gang members who may or may not be members of the Latin Kings ?

I do agree the State wants WA big time.

 

[Odeto BJ]

Some interesting side notes:

In Florida, there is no statute of limitation on Perjury in proceedings related to a capital offense.

Florida Criminal Statute of Limitation - Bryce A. Fetter

The statute of limitation is a time limitation on the State of Florida's ability to initiate a criminal prosecution. This limitation sets forth specific time periods within which a criminal prosecution must be initiated. If the state fails to bring a case within the specified time period, it...

brycefetter.com

In Florida, a defendant in aid and abetting can still be convicted even if he has no knowledge of the person who actually committed the principal offense...

....the principal need not be named or identified; it is necessary only that the offense was committed by somebody and that the defendant intentionally did an act to help in its commission

5.1 Aiding and Abetting | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

In Florida, the deliberate ignorance aspect is incorporated into Aiding and Abetting, as in:

The defendant’s deliberate ignorance of the actions taken by another person who commits a crime is sufficient to satisfy the knowledge required for the offense of aiding and abetting that crime

5.1 Aiding and Abetting | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

And deliberate ignorance can be applied when the underlying criminal charge is a conspiracy charge....

United States v. Ramos-Atondo, 732 F.3d 1113, 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2013) (deliberate ignorance instruction may be given in conspiracy case)

5.8 Deliberate Ignorance | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

So there would appear to be a number of ways that charges other than those brought against KM and CA, can be brought against WA. And its possible that the indictment for DA may be modified somewhat....because the A & A charge can be so all encompassing, and at her age, any longer interval behind bars is the same as LWOP.

JMO, IANAL, and I would not be wanting to convince a jury that one defendant was a "conspirator" and another was only an "abettor" in the same conspiracy oriented crime.

 

[CLGM]

It is a fact established by TPD report that Wendi drove in the vicinity of the crime scene the day of the murder. Wendi says she is familiar with the neighborhood and took the most bizarre route to get her liquor. Georgia implies taking that bizarre route displays foreknowledge of the timing of the assassination and curiosity. So what?

Here is a crude analogy to make the circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt points. I am accused of pumping gas without paying and the store clerk provided LE with a video of me and my car by one of the gas station’s pumps. I would say “I was about to pump gas but I realized I forgot my wallet at home. Hence, I left without pumping.” On the one hand, if I were a member of NAACP driving 10 years old Prius, there could be conviction because of sufficient circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, if I were a member of the Ivory Tower driving a 2023 Mercedes-Benz GLC 300, there could be a reasonable doubt.

This analogy intuits that taking that route that time of that day to buy a liquor, albeit suspicious, would not be enough to press a murder charge against Wendi. The investigation continues, so sayeth Georgia. I look forward to the Discovery Process of Donna’s case as “the next step.” It is my expectation that more co-conspirators will be charged with something related to Dan’s murder in the near future, as opposed to waiting nine more years.

I think you meant AARP?

 

[amicuscurie]

Save The Last Dance For Me. Happier days for HA and DA 34 years ago at a Fort Lauderdale charity fundraiser in 1989. DA was 39, HA was 45 and at home would have been RA (age 15, maybe he was the babysitter), CA (13), and WA (10). Tallahassee would have only been the far-away state capital to them, nothing else. Three years later in 1992, times got more difficult for them because HA lost a large amount of savings to a Ponzi* scheme (according to CA testimony on the stand). Maybe they couldn't attend these ballroom gala's for a while after that. It's still unfathomable how either one of this couple [allegedly] could have made such a poor decision 24 years later that would destroy lives and families, including theirs.

Source: Miami Herald, October 25, 1989. Events/society photographer Gina Fontana is still in business in South Florida.

____
* Fort Lauderdale was considered the Ponzi capital of the USA around 1992, in particular scammers had offices all along Oakland Park Boulevard.


View attachment 463672

Wow! IMO, the resemblance to Charlie and Wendi is uncanny. Also, combovers were definitely out of style by 1989.

 

[amicuscurie]

I think you meant AARP?

The more I think about it, the more I think that someone called Wendi shortly after Sig called Katie, and that is why she drove by the scene, JMO. After all, the murder happened at around 11, but she didn’t leave until 12:30. Hear me out: Most likely all Charlie allegedly knew at that point was that Katie had told him that someone had told her that the deed was done. I think it is reasonable to believe that Charlie would not simply have accepted Katie’s word that the killers said it was done, especially with money on the line. They had already, allegedly, paid someone who didn’t do the job, and Rivera testified that they had gone up once before and failed to get the job done. It’s reasonable to think that Charlie might have wanted some eyes on the scene to confirm that it was, in fact, done. He might have told W not to leave her house that morning until she heard from him. (Of course, once she was notified, she might have just decided to go by the scene on her own, it’s possible she wasn’t actually told to do so). It is a possible explanation for why W left the house in an apparent hurry just after 12:30 (which she also appears to me to have lied about in her police interview, as she said she left at 12:15, or “around 12”). I could be wrong, of course. But the timing of the call from Sig to Katie and Wendi leaving the house and driving by the scene is just too close, in my opinion, to be coincidental. Corbett’s trial testimony puts her at Trescott around 12:35, AFTER Sig’s call to Katie. The prosecution brought this out in all 3 trials, I think it means something.

 

[Missyrocks5]

You could be right, but a few months in a FL max might change CA's position if he could bargain for a different FL prison and/or a reduction in sentence. Life will not be easy for CA in a max. He'll be looking over his shoulder constantly wondering when he'll be attacked and will he be able to deal with the gang members who may or may not be members of the Latin Kings ?

I do agree the State wants WA big time.

Very true. They just got to Chauvin in prison

 

[Zedzded]

Again, I understand that it's weaving together these facts and it's going to be hard to prove it because it requires deductive reasoning. Not every juror will have it. But the detailed schedule that everyone had to know in order to do this could only have been supplied by her. Only she would know that level of detail to never allow any chance that the boys needed to be picked up by DM, or could be in the car, etc.

That's a good way of phrasing, "weaving together these facts." Because if you discuss each piece of the puzzle individually, it doesn't amount to much e.g she wanted to repair a $150 TV. Well odd, but doesn't amount to murder, driving a circuitous route to the bottle shop, maybe she liked the drive down Trescott etc etc but you put all those little pieces of the puzzle together and it's very damning. There are 15+ oddities about this case that WA will have to try and explain and she won't be able to do that without perjuring herself.

 

[clearskies1]

The more I think about it, the more I think that someone called Wendi shortly after Sig called Katie, and that is why she drove by the scene, JMO. After all, the murder happened at around 11, but she didn’t leave until 12:30. Hear me out: Most likely all Charlie allegedly knew at that point was that Katie had told him that someone had told her that the deed was done. I think it is reasonable to believe that Charlie would not simply have accepted Katie’s word that the killers said it was done, especially with money on the line. They had already, allegedly, paid someone who didn’t do the job, and Rivera testified that they had gone up once before and failed to get the job done. It’s reasonable to think that Charlie might have wanted some eyes on the scene to confirm that it was, in fact, done. He might have told W not to leave her house that morning until she heard from him. (Of course, once she was notified, she might have just decided to go by the scene on her own, it’s possible she wasn’t actually told to do so). It is a possible explanation for why W left the house in an apparent hurry just after 12:30 (which she also appears to me to have lied about in her police interview, as she said she left at 12:15, or “around 12”). I could be wrong, of course. But the timing of the call from Sig to Katie and Wendi leaving the house and driving by the scene is just too close, in my opinion, to be coincidental. Corbett’s trial testimony puts her at Trescott around 12:35, AFTER Sig’s call to Katie. The prosecution brought this out in all 3 trials, I think it means something.

Agree, certainly could have been a CA/WA whats app contact. But she had the "last minute" lunch at 1pm so she would naturally be leaving her home around 12:30 if she was going to do a liquor run first. Lots of smoke around Wendi -- a question of whether the State thinks they have enough to convict. JMO.

 

[Weki]

The more I think about it, the more I think that someone called Wendi shortly after Sig called Katie, and that is why she drove by the scene, JMO. After all, the murder happened at around 11, but she didn’t leave until 12:30. Hear me out: Most likely all Charlie allegedly knew at that point was that Katie had told him that someone had told her that the deed was done. I think it is reasonable to believe that Charlie would not simply have accepted Katie’s word that the killers said it was done, especially with money on the line. They had already, allegedly, paid someone who didn’t do the job, and Rivera testified that they had gone up once before and failed to get the job done. It’s reasonable to think that Charlie might have wanted some eyes on the scene to confirm that it was, in fact, done. He might have told W not to leave her house that morning until she heard from him. (Of course, once she was notified, she might have just decided to go by the scene on her own, it’s possible she wasn’t actually told to do so). It is a possible explanation for why W left the house in an apparent hurry just after 12:30 (which she also appears to me to have lied about in her police interview, as she said she left at 12:15, or “around 12”). I could be wrong, of course. But the timing of the call from Sig to Katie and Wendi leaving the house and driving by the scene is just too close, in my opinion, to be coincidental. Corbett’s trial testimony puts her at Trescott around 12:35, AFTER Sig’s call to Katie. The prosecution brought this out in all 3 trials, I think it means something.

This is a good theory imo. Cause there’s no way for any of the conspirators to know that the neighbor had heard the shot and walked over there and called police. If he hadn’t done that, Dan would’ve been in that garage bleeding to death all alone and Wendi could’ve driven by the house and observed the crime scene in a drive-by fashion with the excuse that she was going to the liquor store blah blah blah. JMO

 

[Missyrocks5]

That's a good way of phrasing, "weaving together these facts." Because if you discuss each piece of the puzzle individually, it doesn't amount to much e.g she wanted to repair a $150 TV. Well odd, but doesn't amount to murder, driving a circuitous route to the bottle shop, maybe she liked the drive down Trescott etc etc but you put all those little pieces of the puzzle together and it's very damning. There are 15+ oddities about this case that WA will have to try and explain and she won't be able to do that without perjuring herself.

True. She will have a benign explanation for all of those. Or her lawyer will deny them. I don't believe there's anyway she would take the stand in her own trial.

 

[Weki]

So Rivera says that on the 2nd trip when they drive to Tally on the 16th and woke up the next day, the 17th, they drove to Dan’s house. That’s when they see “the lady” with her 2 kids and she looks at the car. Then Rivera says he asks Garcia who that was and why she was looking at the car. Garcia says that’s THE lady who wants her kids back. Then “The Lady” gets on the phone. And when they turn the corner, Garcia calls Katie.

Wendi’s text 2 weeks prior to Danny: Are you in Tallahassee July 14th through the 18th? I just wanted to know if I can have the kiddos on the 16th. Thanks.”
So I guess that could’ve been Wendi if she had the kids on the 16th, right? I had previously dismissed this testimony from Rivera as paranoia. I’m still a little skeptical cause what would Wendi be doing walking with her 2 kids in a neighborhood she doesn’t live in anymore! Getting ready to practice her acting chops? Chance upon the scene? With the kids, though? Geez!

I just assumed that was someone who lives in the neighborhood being suspicious or wary. JMO

START AT the 29:36 mins mark:

 

[Wishbone]

So Rivera says that on the 2nd trip when they drive to Tally on the 16th and woke up the next day, the 17th, they drove to Dan’s house. That’s when they see “the lady” with her 2 kids and she looks at the car. Then Rivera says he asks Garcia who that was and why she was looking at the car. Garcia says that’s THE lady who wants her kids back. Then “The Lady” gets on the phone. And when they turn the corner, Garcia calls Katie.

Wendi’s text 2 weeks prior to Danny: Are you in Tallahassee July 14th through the 18th? I just wanted to know if I can have the kiddos on the 16th. Thanks.”
So I guess that could’ve been Wendi if she had the kids on the 16th, right? I had previously dismissed this testimony from Rivera as paranoia. I’m still a little skeptical cause what would Wendi be doing walking with her 2 kids in a neighborhood she doesn’t live in anymore! Getting ready to practice her acting chops? Chance upon the scene? With the kids, though? Geez!

I just assumed that was someone who lives in the neighborhood being suspicious or wary. JMO

START AT the 29:36 mins mark:

Nice catch. Wonder if we will ever find out and if she could have left more of a trail if she did have the kids....

 

[amicuscurie]

Nice catch. Wonder if we will ever find out and if she could have left more of a trail if she did have the kids....

I think at the last trial it was stipulated that the kids were signed into the preschool that day during the time Rivera says he saw the lady.

 

[Weki]

I think at the last trial it was stipulated that the kids were signed into the preschool that day during the time Rivera says he saw the lady.

Ah ok thanks. That makes perfect sense. So this issue has been put to bed.

 

[Wishbone]

I think at the last trial it was stipulated that the kids were signed into the preschool that day during the time Rivera says he saw the lady.

well, it was a nice thought for a minute....

 

[Luna20]

I've always thought it was an uphill climb to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Having to explain too many inferences to a jury is not a good position to be in. And all these things that we all see and know that logically lead one to infer that she knew are not going to cut it at trial. Then you add in what Tim Jansen got dragged for, that she's attractive & will say I'm all my boys have now. It does matter. Look at the one woman at KM's first trial who was the only NG vote because she didn't want the kids to not have a parent at home.

But I disagree that the evidence shows her just not to have done anything to stop it. I do think it was C a& D who started the train, but they got her to come on board. That call or text from the 70th b-day asking if Dan was going to be in town, changing her FB profile picture to a more flattering one where only she looked good, but her boys didn't the night before the murder, her refusing to speak to Dan that whole week claiming she had laryngitis, she heard his voicemail message he left her that morning letting her know what time he was at the gym & his schedule followed by her call to C for 18 minutes. Just her involvement with all that ridiculous code story of the TV. Rich people carrying on over replacing a cheap TV that JL said you would see in a dorm room. Trying to fix it? She was stringing JL along to keep him as a suspect. Who else would know what his car looked like to try to rent one that was similar from a distance. Who else knew his schedule and asked about it that week to make sure he was going to be leaving around 11 on Friday. I also definitely believe her driving on Trescott that day was to look to see if it was done. Local people have said her route made no sense otherwise. It's amazing. They have the officer who remembered her. I forget who had a video that showed pictures of the crime scene taped off that day. They showed in detailed that there was no way that she drove on Trescott and didn't see that it was that house. And that she didn't go ask about her boys to make sure they were OK, call the school, any of it is further proof. But again, it is inferential proof.


Again, I understand that it's weaving together these facts and it's going to be hard to prove it because it requires deductive reasoning. Not every juror will have it. But the detailed schedule that everyone had to know in order to do this could only have been supplied by her. Only she would know that level of detail to never allow any chance that the boys needed to be picked up by DM, or could be in the car, etc.

As I always say, her family would never have taken out the children's father without her consent. Never. I hope that somehow they find WhatsApp messages that they can get to show she knew. We know Donna knew to delete her messages, but hopefully they're still in the cloud.

I've always thought it was an uphill climb to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Having to explain too many inferences to a jury is not a good position to be in. And all these things that we all see and know that logically lead one to infer that she knew are not going to cut it at trial. Then you add in what Tim Jansen got dragged for, that she's attractive & will say I'm all my boys have now. It does matter. Look at the one woman at KM's first trial who was the only NG vote because she didn't want the kids to not have a parent at home.

But I disagree that the evidence shows her just not to have done anything to stop it. I do think it was C a& D who started the train, but they got her to come on board. That call or text from the 70th b-day asking if Dan was going to be in town, changing her FB profile picture to a more flattering one where only she looked good, but her boys didn't the night before the murder, her refusing to speak to Dan that whole week claiming she had laryngitis, she heard his voicemail message he left her that morning letting her know what time he was at the gym & his schedule followed by her call to C for 18 minutes. Just her involvement with all that ridiculous code story of the TV. Rich people carrying on over replacing a cheap TV that JL said you would see in a dorm room. Trying to fix it? She was stringing JL along to keep him as a suspect. Who else would know what his car looked like to try to rent one that was similar from a distance. Who else knew his schedule and asked about it that week to make sure he was going to be leaving around 11 on Friday. I also definitely believe her driving on Trescott that day was to look to see if it was done. Local people have said her route made no sense otherwise. It's amazing. They have the officer who remembered her. I forget who had a video that showed pictures of the crime scene taped off that day. They showed in detailed that there was no way that she drove on Trescott and didn't see that it was that house. And that she didn't go ask about her boys to make sure they were OK, call the school, any of it is further proof. But again, it is inferential proof.


Again, I understand that it's weaving together these facts and it's going to be hard to prove it because it requires deductive reasoning. Not every juror will have it. But the detailed schedule that everyone had to know in order to do this could only have been supplied by her. Only she would know that level of detail to never allow any chance that the boys needed to be picked up by DM, or could be in the car, etc.

As I always say, her family would never have taken out the children's father without her consent. Never. I hope that somehow they find WhatsApp messages that they can get to show she knew. We know Donna knew to delete her messages, but hopefully they're still in the cloud.

“But her boys didn’t the night before”

Can you please explain?

 

[IQuestion]

@amiscuscurie: snipped for focus "I think it is reasonable to believe that Charlie would not simply have accepted Katie’s word that the killers said it was done, especially with money on the line. They had already, allegedly, paid someone who didn’t do the job, and Rivera testified that they had gone up once before and failed to get the job done. It’s reasonable to think that Charlie might have wanted some eyes on the scene to confirm that it was, in fact, done. He might have told W not to leave her house that morning until she heard from him." BINGO! I think the terms "boots on the ground," "spotter," "confirmation" are terms a Navy Seal would/could use for WA's drive by.
Afterall, why would CA trust KM's word alone? He needed confirmation from someone he trusted. Someone who had as much to gain/lose by their actions.

 

[HanniBJeter]

“But her boys didn’t the night before”

Can you please explain?

I believe that poster meant that Wendi changed her profile pic the night before the murder to a more flattering pic where she looked better …but the boys didn’t look better.

 

[Missyrocks5]

“But her boys didn’t the night before”

Can you please explain?

Now I can't edit it, but it's very poorly worded. I didn't make it clear what I was trying to say. JL said that she changed her FB profile picture the night before the murder. He couldn't understand because she was the only one who looked good in the picture. He said her boys didn't look that good in the pic. It was a great picture of her but not of her boys so he couldn't understand why she changed that to her profile picture. But then it made sense to him later that she wanted a flattering picture of her because it was going to be all over the news because she knew the murder was going to happen the next day.

 

[Missyrocks5]

I believe that poster meant that Wendi changed her profile pic the night before the murder to a more flattering pic where she looked better …but the boys didn’t look better.

Lol. Yes. Exactly. Thank you for translating that for me. I was just trying to put a post to explain it. I can't go back and edit it. I wish that they would allow editing at any time. I didn't write it clearly.