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

[Niner]

Who among us has kept - much less still using - the phone we had in 2014?

I have had my phone since 2016 when I moved here to Latvia. My first & only cell phone! LOL! Not too technie - so do not need anything more on my phone.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Who among us has kept - much less still using - the phone we had in 2014?

Not sure what you’re saying, but I would be very certain that if someone had committed a murder, they would hang onto their phone for dear life.

 

[clearskies1]

She appears, from her phone records, to have begun contacting her lunch companions around 11 or 11:30. Definitely last minute. Doesn’t mean the lunch wasn’t planned in advance, but it is consistent with making plans at the last minute, perhaps to have a reason to be leaving the house.

WA's testimony in trial 2 (2022) starting at 1:12:36 -- sounds like the lunch wasn't planned in advance. She says that after the TV repair man came she made plans to have lunch with 2 friends who she said she frequently saw on Fridays.

 

[Cedars]

Not sure what you’re saying, but I would be very certain that if someone had committed a murder, they would hang onto their phone for dear life.

Well CA seems to have not kept his, as nothing was introduced in his trial that came from his or Donna's phones in 2014. The evidence all came from WA's phone, from tower dumps and from when the wiretaps were installed in 2016.

JMO

 

[Gypsy Road]

I’m amazed she volunteered her computer at the police station. That’s how they found Donna’s emails, which led them to a theory of the case.

Strange isn’t it! She wasn’t thinking too clearly on that idea!

 

[Orange Tabby]

But now I’m wondering about Donna being overturned on the 1st count if convicted. The evidence that she paid is what ties her to the murder as a principal. But the payment evidence on her is after the fact! Could she be only guilty of conspiracy and not the 1st count? Maybe I’m overthinking it.

SBM

Pragmatically speaking, does it really matter? Won’t a conspiracy conviction result in something like 30 years? She’ll be 74 or 75 years old at sentencing. Even if she ends up getting reductions for “good behavior”, something she may have never practiced in all her years on this planet, her sentence will amount to life.

Morally speaking, it would be repugnant if she escapes the top charge. But she will hardly be able to save face with anyone by employing the argument, “I was only found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.”

 

[Orange Tabby]

Who among us has kept - much less still using - the phone we had in 2014?

Many (most?) folks transfer everything from their old phone to their new phone. The new phone has the data from the old phone.

If both your old phone and new one are both iPhones (and I believe that’s true in this case) they both are associated with the same iCloud account, and much info can be recovered from that.

 

[amicuscurie]

WA's testimony in trial 2 (2022) starting at 1:12:36 -- sounds like the lunch wasn't planned in advance. She says that after the TV repair man came she made plans to have lunch with 2 friends who she said she frequently saw on Fridays.

At the police station she says that she used to do a regular lunch with these people but they hadn’t done it in a long time, but she decided to make plans for lunch. Then, later, when Isom says that the lunch was last minute, she resists him. It’s weird, to me.

 

[clearskies1]

At the police station she says that she used to do a regular lunch with these people but they hadn’t done it in a long time, but she decided to make plans for lunch. Then, later, when Isom says that the lunch was last minute, she resists him. It’s weird, to me.

My impression was that she did not want to admit that she made last minute plans that day. I'm sure the friends who she had lunch with that day would have been contacted by LE and probably told LE what happened. To me her trial testimony was pretty clear that the plans were made last minute. JMO.

 

[clearskies1]

This is kind of interesting. Sounds like LE did not think that their download of WA's phone at the police station was sufficient -- they apparently got a search warrant for her phone a few days days later:

"Three days after Markel was killed, a judge signed a search warrant for information on Wendi Adelson’s phone and investigators began searching her Web browser and email records.

On her computer, investigators found Google Chrome keyword searches for Markel’s girlfriend Amy Adler, Adler's ex-husband and Adler's brother. They also found that Wendi Adelson had searched several po rn sites for “teacher/student po rn.”

Documents reveal early Markel investigation

Within months of Dan Markel's slaying, detectives had most of the evidence linking two South Florida men to the killing of the Florida State law professor.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[cottonweaver]

Strange isn’t it! She wasn’t thinking too clearly on that idea!

Unless it's true that she really didn't reply to any of her mother's nasty emails ( Wendi claimed not to have replied to the emails which Georgia referenced)

 

[Missyrocks5]

Well CA seems to have not kept his, as nothing was introduced in his trial that came from his or Donna's phones in 2014. The evidence all came from WA's phone, from tower dumps and from when the wiretaps were installed in 2016.

JMO

I guess what I'm getting at is it may or may not be the physical phone, which could be at the bottom of a river somewhere in another country that they disposed of perhaps, but I'm talking about the cloud etc. that can be retrieved by law-enforcement. I'm saying that the cyber security expert that her boyfriend was would know all of that information; however, again I'm not saying in any way he cooperated in giving her info. I'm saying that she likely casually extracted that information from him based under false pretenses, and then could have used it to clear history, etc. We don't know.

It could be that we might've seen it at the other trials if they had that phone info. However, I would go on to say that maybe Georgia is playing the long game here. She may have that info and figured she didn't need to release that to convict CA or KM. She may be saving that to spring on the golden child. At her trial, albeit it would have to be revealed in the discovery process. Again, just speculation.

 

[Orange Tabby]

At the police station she says that she used to do a regular lunch with these people but they hadn’t done it in a long time, but she decided to make plans for lunch. Then, later, when Isom says that the lunch was last minute, she resists him. It’s weird, to me.

Yes, weird. Very weird.

That part of the police interview of Wendi is fascinating. It goes something like this:

WA: I have lots of friends.
Isom: I know.
WA: How do you know that?
…
Isom: … today’s last-minute lunch …
WA: How do you know it was last-minute?

These two exchanges, which occurred closely together in time, are paraphrased by me from memory. They occur near the beginning of the interview. She is pretty calm for this section which is bookended by moments of Amber-Heard–like weeping and wailing.

Concerning both friends and lunch, WA is interrogating Isom! She wants to know how he has this info on her. She entered that interview thinking she would be completely unknown to him.

To me, her questioning of him is clearly designed to find out what Isom already knows. She is worried that even at this early stage Isom has suspicions or evidence against her. YMMV.

 

[amicuscurie]

My impression was that she did not want to admit that she made last minute plans that day. I'm sure the friends who she had lunch with that day would have been contacted by LE and probably told LE what happened. To me her trial testimony was pretty clear that the plans were made last minute. JMO.

Two questions- why do you think she made the plans last minute, and why didn’t she want them to know? There’s nothing wrong with making last minute lunch plans. Unless you are hiding something. To me, her wanting to obscure even this innocuous detail is suspicious.

 

[amicuscurie]

Unless it's true that she really didn't reply to any of her mother's nasty emails ( Wendi claimed not to have replied to the emails which Georgia referenced)

The emails from Donna are bad in themselves, though, in terms of motive. Also, there is one which references them having spoken to her on the phone, from it one can infer she did not agree to what they were suggesting. There was probably a conversation.

 

[Orange Tabby]

This is kind of interesting. Sounds like LE did not think that their download of WA's phone at the police station was sufficient -- they apparently got a search warrant for her phone a few days days later:

"Three days after Markel was killed, a judge signed a search warrant for information on Wendi Adelson’s phone and investigators began searching her Web browser and email records.

On her computer, investigators found Google Chrome keyword searches for Markel’s girlfriend Amy Adler, Adler's ex-husband and Adler's brother. They also found that Wendi Adelson had searched several po rn sites for “teacher/student po rn.”

Documents reveal early Markel investigation

Within months of Dan Markel's slaying, detectives had most of the evidence linking two South Florida men to the killing of the Florida State law professor.

www.tallahassee.com

Is it possible that in Florida the situation is this:

1. Cops are allowed to make a complete clone of someone’s phone or computer with the owner’s permission; but

2. An actual search of the data on those devices requires a search warrant?

Or could it be that LE, knowing that WA is a lawyer, wanted to conduct the search under the most stringent conditions so that there would be no 4th Amendment issues down the road?

I don’t know the answer.

 

[amicuscurie]

Is it possible that in Florida the situation is this:

1. Cops are allowed to make a complete clone of someone’s phone or computer with the owner’s permission; but

2. An actual search of the data on those devices requires a search warrant?

Or could it be that LE, knowing that WA is a lawyer, wanted to conduct the search under the most stringent conditions so that there would be no 4th Amendment issues down the road?

I don’t know the answer.

This makes sense. They probably could take the phone and whatever was on it, but to SEARCH phone records, deleted calls, etc., they needed a warrant. I suppose it would depend on how much she consented to when she signed that paper. I would imagine that what they found on there might have given them some probable cause to search further. I remain amazed she just handed them her phone and computer. I am not sure I would have done that, even if I was not guilty. Or course, hypothetically, if I was trying to appear helpful and innocent, I might inadvertently do a lot of things which would not be in my self-interest.

 

[clearskies1]

Is it possible that in Florida the situation is this:

1. Cops are allowed to make a complete clone of someone’s phone or computer with the owner’s permission; but

2. An actual search of the data on those devices requires a search warrant?

Or could it be that LE, knowing that WA is a lawyer, wanted to conduct the search under the most stringent conditions so that there would be no 4th Amendment issues down the road?

I don’t know the answer.

You can consent to a search of data in your phone. I assume you can withdraw consent as well. She signed a consent at the police station -- not sure what that consent covered but I think it's in the interview video because Isom read it to her. Maybe LE was nervous about the validity or the terms of the consent and, as you mentioned, they may have wanted to cut off any 4th Amendment challenge later. But if she validly consented to a search of the data and didn't withdraw it, I don't think they would need a warrant.

 

[cottonweaver]

The emails from Donna are bad in themselves, though, in terms of motive. Also, there is one which references them having spoken to her on the phone, from it one can infer she did not agree to what they were suggesting. There was probably a conversation.

Well, yes I am assuming there were verbal conversations whose content is lost - I should have been clearer rather than vague hints

I am guessing that Donna got into a habit of enjoying tapping out her multi- page email rants
and I'm guessing that Wendi liked to read & chew over Donna's suggestions and then give her mother feedback over the phone rather than fire off an email reply. ( IIRC the emails Georgia referred to - the worst ones - were sent early summer 2013)

If true, then in retrospect, that's annoying from prosecutorial standpoint (the lost content)
If otoh, you're one of those who believe Wendi had already agreed with Charlie about researching a plot to kill, then you're going to see no email reply as mightily convenient, hint, hint ( Summer 2013)

Anyway I'm just hoping that Donna has been careless and that Sandford/Corbett/Whoever can find something useful for a future prosecution of Wendi, some evidence which isn't purely-motive related because we have a surfeit of that already.

 

[cottonweaver]

This makes sense. They probably could take the phone and whatever was on it, but to SEARCH phone records, deleted calls, etc., they needed a warrant. I suppose it would depend on how much she consented to when she signed that paper. I would imagine that what they found on there might have given them some probable cause to search further. I remain amazed she just handed them her phone and computer. I am not sure I would have done that, even if I was not guilty. Or course, hypothetically, if I was trying to appear helpful and innocent, I might inadvertently do a lot of things which would not be in my self-interest.

when the media FoIA'd the TPD records, would that warrant be in that same data dump?
Tally Democrat must also have had access to that data release - hence the detail in their link ( Amy Adler's ex husband etc) Who knows? Or maybe it was withheld?

Anyway regardless , in that Tally Democrat link which @clearskies1 posted, it suggests to me that the warrant returned nothing of any significance because

here's the timeline from the link:

'Within hours of Markel's death, investigators had begun to look at his ex-wife.
Three days after Markel was killed, a judge signed a search warrant for information on Wendi Adelson’s phone and investigators began searching her Web browser and email records.'

then almost 6 months later

'Dec. 4, 2014 TPD report says. “When I informed him that Wendi was not a suspect, he stated ‘well she should be.’”

surely within 6 months TPD had reviewed all data records harvested from that warrant and they didn't have enough

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer but what initially sounded ' Oooooo!' now sounds a disappointment