I raised the question about the location of the roadblock as part of a search for a “unified theory” of WA’s actions that morning. What was her original plan and what necessitated it to be changed? While the prosecutors must have undisclosed evidence about WA’s actions that morning, we have unanswered questions, such as:
1. It seems that the damaged TV provided an excuse for a repairman to be scheduled to be with WA at her home on the morning of the murder. Why did they feel that they needed this alibi when WA easily could have established her whereabouts for an alibi with relying on the uncertain arrival time of a third party?
2. I recall that the window for the repairman was 8am-12pm. Is this correct, as four hours seems like a broad window? Was the original expectation that the murder would occur earlier than it did or conversely that the repairman would be scheduled and arrive later (say, in a 10-12 window) than actually occurred?
3. Why did the killers follow DM to the school, gym and then home? If the murder was to occur at the house, why not just wait near it?
4. What was the original plan as to the killing itself (I am assuming that WA and CA must have had some expectation as to where and when)? It could not have been to walk up to DM while he was on the phone with an open garage door, as that could not have been predicted and relied upon. The point here is to work backwards to try to explain WA’s actions as she must have had some expectation as to how the day would play out but didn’t, requiring last minute adjustments.
5. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the “last minute” lunch plans were made that morning after the repairman left. Were they made because WA had expected the repairman to be with her later (10-12) or the murder to occur earlier? In the police station interview she got jumpy when the lunch was described by the detective as “last minute”. Why? What would have been suspicious about last minute Friday lunch with her friends? What did she expect to be doing at 1pm that didn’t end up not going to happen inducing her to make the lunch plans?
6. How does WA’s attempt to drive either to or by the house (no way that this was a short cut to anywhere) relate to her original expectations as how the day would play out? Did she assume that DA was murdered in the house and therefore she could drive by expecting to see nothing amiss? If so, what would driving by accomplish other than indulging a morbid glee that DA was dead inside? While I now don’t put anything past this narcissist, it is difficult to understand why she would take the risk of driving past the house when she was at the same time establishing an alibi for where she was and why she was where she was.
7. Rather, did something unexpected occur that required her to want to drive to the house? Was the last minute lunch plan made to give her an excuse to be in her car and to drive to the house? Was she going to drive to the house and ring the doorbell and thereby confirm that the murder had occurred by dint of DM not coming to the door? Did the roadblock abort this plan and the stop at ABC liquors become a convenient excuse for the route? Is it possible that she actually planned to call the police to the house “concerned” after the doorbell went unanswered? Did she actually not plan to attend the lunch? On the other hand, the party invite was in her car, so did she plan to go to a liquor store after attending the lunch?
8. Has any explanation been offered for why WA got transported by the police from the lunch to the police station without objection apparently without being provided details by the police? It will be interesting to see any testimony by the other lunch participants.
Ok, I‘ll take a shot (you know I can’t resist)
#1 and #2: I can’t answer this either. Why would someone, hypothetically, rely on an indeterminate window to establish an alibi?
#3. In my opinion, they followed him all morning to make sure he wasn’t with the kids. Rivera had testified that there was a prior attempt, when they did wait outside his house, but they couldn’t tell if he was inside with the kids. Of course, hypothetically they would not have needed to continue following him once he dropped the kids off. But perhaps, and I am only speculating, they thought waiting outside the gym would be less conspicuous than waiting outside the house. In my opinion they were planning to ambush him outside his house exactly as they did (breaking in is too complicated), and that would have depended on them being there exactly as he got home.
#4- see above. In my opinion the original plan was to ambush him outside his house, shoot him quickly, and drive away. That’s what Rivera says they did. I am not sure that this was planned in advance in great detail, Rivera says they had been up all night using drugs. But the way they followed him suggest that this is how they wanted it to go. I believe CA might have known only that It would occur that morning and/or that the killers were following Dan. Someone may have provided them with his schedule, but it seems to me that the killers did not really need to know that, because they followed him anyway and could see where he was.
#5- the evidence from phone records shown at trial suggests Wendi began planning the lunch late that morning. This suggests to me that she may have needed or wanted a reason to leave the house and drive down Trescott. The lunch is not a great excuse to do that, in my opinion, because Trescott is not on the way. But neither is the liquor store,
#6. It is my opinion that IF W knew this was going to happen, she was told only that it would be that day. We know she was concerned about Dan possibly picking the kids up that afternoon, from her testimony and her police interview. We know she spoke to Charlie that morning, hypothetically he might have been reassuring her it would happen before Dan would be picking them up. She may also have been told not to leave the house before 12:30, this is consistent with the window for the repair job, and the window itself may have been part of their code, I don’t know. According to Corbett, she leaves right around 12:30; this is around the same time Sig calls and tells them the deed is done, so she may have received word. It is possible that she left of her own accord when she thought it was safe. The timing of the lunch and the fact that it was last-minute suggests, to me, that these things are all related somehow. The plan may have been to remain in the house until 12:30 snd then leave, and a 1pm lunch and liquor run is a good way to do that, in my opinion. The last minute timing also suggests to me that the lunch plans may have been made only after the conversation with Charlie, and so the planning of the lunch may have had to do with what was said, whether it be the reassurance that the murder would happen in the morning, or something else. This could explain her apparent sensitivity around the lunch being described as last minute.
#6. In my opinion they didn’t count on anyone hearing the gunshot, and so she would not have expected to see police tape or any roadblock and would have anticipated simply driving by and continuing on with her errands and lunch. In my opinion she would never have mentioned driving on Trescott at all had it not been for the police tape and the need to preemtively address her driving down there In case she had been spotted by the cop at the scene. It is possible she was not prepared for that and had to come up with a reason she was driving there on the fly.
#7- it is possible she intended to get the liquor after the planned 1pm lunch, but was notified after Sig’s call snd left in a hurry to drive by the scene, and used the trip to the liquor store as an excuse. But this is inconsistent with the lunch being planned last minute. It does not appear to me to have been part of her original plans for that day. As I said above, both the lunch and the liquor run may have been part of the same plan to have a reason to drive by Trescott.
#8. According to the warrant for Harvey’s phone, by time the police picked her up at the restaurant they had already found out, at the scene, about the contentious divorce. The affidavit says they began looking for her after that. The officer at the scene testified that he was told to look out for her car. The fact that a car similar to hers was spotted driving by the scene, together with the contentious divorce, may have highlighted to the police the urgency of speaking with her as soon as possible, keeping her in the dark until they got her into an interrogation room where they could record her, and not giving her an opportunity to refuse to go with them. JMO.
