GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #20

[Misy]

<modsnip - quote dpost was removed>

I think WA is guilty, and I am awash with sadness for the Markel family when I think of the cruelty of depriving them of their access to their grandchildren upon the death of their son. There is no part of me that thinks severing contact was necessary to maintain WA's right protect herself physically or legally. It was just vindictive, and that just shows us her priorities as a human.

If the hot mic calls are true, then she is similarly willing to be cruel to her family. She can call her brother without addressing the topic of the case. I think her calculation is that she is attempting to replicate a pattern of behavior that she would engage in if she felt her family might be guilty. She walks a fine line in this way, since she does not want implicate them in her communications while she is distancing herself. Right now, we only have DA's second hand relaying of this information, so this may not be 100% accurate information, too. Is it possible that WA is innocent? It is possible. I don't know if that rises to reasonable doubt.

However, if I were innocent, and I felt like my family was involved in the murder of my husband (Nothing to worry about here, Brian, we all love you!) then I would not misrepresent the facts in court. If WA were truly innocent, but she suspected that her family were involved, does it make sense for her to immediately go move to live with them? I would be devastated by the the betrayal and evilness of the act, even if I was mad at my ex.

If WA thinks her family is not involved, why would she not support Charlie with a loving gesture of contact upon his conviction? I guess she could also write him a letter, but sheesh. Think about how you would respond to your family if they were wrongfully accused. You'd be publically defending them, and lavishing them with support.

WA wants us to believe that she lives in a universe where her family is innocent, but she also suspects them because that casts suspicion away from her. So tricky.

Here is what I see as the strongest evidence against WA:
She communicated with DM about his schedule that day, and was super weird with JL about his schedule and their trip. I believe JL.

She engaged in the ridiculous TV repair nonsense. I will NEVER believe that her mother and brother needed to get involved in the world's most discussed TV repair that didn't happen. Look folks, either the repair was urgent enought to involve the whole family, or it was something that took weeks to resolve, not both. In for a TV, in for a murder is how I feel about this. DA's "This TV is 5" is really damning, and I don't see how WA could consent to the repair business if she was not involved. She'd toss the TV, and get herself a new one, or decide it was not important enough to worry about.

The bourbon plus murder scene trip, and inconsistencies in her account.

"This is sweet."

I think WA got talked into the plan, and she is resentful. That is the tone I see in DA's retelling of their communication. If DA's retelling is accurate, WA's, "I had nothing to do with it," etc sounds an awful lot like, "but you did, and you made me part of your mess." It is a weird thing to assert in a communication with your mother, even if you know the whole world is going to read it at some

<modsnip - quote dpost was removed>

I think WA is guilty, and I am awash with sadness for the Markel family when I think of the cruelty of depriving them of their access to their grandchildren upon the death of their son. There is no part of me that thinks severing contact was necessary to maintain WA's right protect herself physically or legally. It was just vindictive, and that just shows us her priorities as a human.

If the hot mic calls are true, then she is similarly willing to be cruel to her family. She can call her brother without addressing the topic of the case. I think her calculation is that she is attempting to replicate a pattern of behavior that she would engage in if she felt her family might be guilty. She walks a fine line in this way, since she does not want implicate them in her communications while she is distancing herself. Right now, we only have DA's second hand relaying of this information, so this may not be 100% accurate information, too. Is it possible that WA is innocent? It is possible. I don't know if that rises to reasonable doubt.

However, if I were innocent, and I felt like my family was involved in the murder of my husband (Nothing to worry about here, Brian, we all love you!) then I would not misrepresent the facts in court. If WA were truly innocent, but she suspected that her family were involved, does it make sense for her to immediately go move to live with them? I would be devastated by the the betrayal and evilness of the act, even if I was mad at my ex.

If WA thinks her family is not involved, why would she not support Charlie with a loving gesture of contact upon his conviction? I guess she could also write him a letter, but sheesh. Think about how you would respond to your family if they were wrongfully accused. You'd be publically defending them, and lavishing them with support.

WA wants us to believe that she lives in a universe where her family is innocent, but she also suspects them because that casts suspicion away from her. So tricky.

Here is what I see as the strongest evidence against WA:
She communicated with DM about his schedule that day, and was super weird with JL about his schedule and their trip. I believe JL.

She engaged in the ridiculous TV repair nonsense. I will NEVER believe that her mother and brother needed to get involved in the world's most discussed TV repair that didn't happen. Look folks, either the repair was urgent enought to involve the whole family, or it was something that took weeks to resolve, not both. In for a TV, in for a murder is how I feel about this. DA's "This TV is 5" is really damning, and I don't see how WA could consent to the repair business if she was not involved. She'd toss the TV, and get herself a new one, or decide it was not important enough to worry about.

The bourbon plus murder scene trip, and inconsistencies in her account.

"This is sweet."

I think WA got talked into the plan, and she is resentful. That is the tone I see in DA's retelling of their communication. If DA's retelling is accurate, WA's, "I had nothing to do with it," etc sounds an awful lot like, "but you did, and you made me part of your mess." It is a weird thing to assert in a communication with your mother, even if you know the whole world is going to read it at some point.

Excellent points! The drive near DMs house on the 18th was not just a short cut to get to ABC liquor … in fact people say it’s not a shortcut in the first place. But here’s something that I find totally unbelievable and I haven’t heard anyone comment on it. I believe it was in WAs police interview with Isom, she says DM called her on the morning of the 18th … but they never talked. They exchanged a couple of texts/voicemails. She says she missed a call from DM that morning because she had her phone turned off. Had her phone turned off. As a mother will small (or even large ) kids. As a supposed devoted mother as she claims to be… there is no way in the world would a mother turn her phone off, ever, no matter what you’re doing. You need to be accessible immediately, at all times, in case there’s an emergency with the kids. It’s unbelievable that she would turn her phone off especially if she was just at home, even if talking to the repair man. That was a lie. Why? MOO

 

[cottonweaver]

As soon as you finish one call Gigi uploads another!

This is the 7th call from 8th November. This call is to Janis M, the super-smart counsellor/free-loader

Straight off the bat, Charlie is lying to Janis that re ' this TV is about five' was simply a reference to a standard sum for a TV back in the day, that 'TV ' was not code for DM's murder.
Janis sucks it up.

However, in the previous call from 8th Nov, Charlie tells Grandma Gotti how much he paid for the TV. $2-2.2K in 2012. ( 1hr 29, call's linked on page 40 of this WS thread, at the bottom.)

So if Donna thinks she's using his silly lies to justify ' this TV is about five' in her trial, he's just scuppered that one.

Dumb & Dumber.

On a more serious note, I hope this is not the kind of BS he spouts with poor Ben. ( Donna had been discussing arranging for Dan to call Ben soon)

page 40 WS link GUILTY - FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #20

 

[Missyrocks5]

Around the 30 minute mark, Rivera says for the second time that he heard Katie say she knew when SG called to tell it’s done and they better have the money. He says he leaned in to hear what Katie was saying when SG called to tell her. You hear him here go on to say that he asked SG, did she just say she knew? He says SG said yeah. He says he asked how the f can she know. He’s wondering was Wendi still up there.

Who knows, but him saying SG confirmed that she said she knew sure is compelling. Then again, he also said, as amiscurie said, that they saw WA with her kids that Thursday before, which was apparently dispelled I believe. I guess we all have to wait to see what happens at Wendi’s potential trial, if she’s not in Vietnam by then.

 

[BearWatcher]

Wonder if it was not driving by Trescott, but someone local to Tallahassee listening on a radio to police frequencies that identified the hot had happened. What time did the event occur and when did the call go out to 911? When would the cop cars have been informed? If I am remembering correctly Talhaseee 911 delayed the call out due to error and it took a very long time for EMTs and likely LE to arrive to the scene. Does anyone else remember that issue?

 

[amicuscurie]

What ca catch- @cottonweaver , ‘the little author could not help herself’- sounds like CA is saying Wendi knew. I think they are ruminating on the points that took CA down that were ‘coincidences’ that all added up. They have to ruminate, they have no control at this point so cannot move on, so just go over and over what happened

Oh, yes, I noticed that little author comment, too. Very interesting. To me it seems as though he is trying not to say what he knows, but he is the one who can’t help himself. It’s same with the bump tapes and Dolce Vita. To me it seems like they think as long as they don’t directly say something, then they’re ok.

In my opinion they are not as smart as they think they are, and they have no idea how a circumstantial case can be built and won. To me this is illustrated well in their discussions on these jail calls, in which they express utter disbelief at how things like Wendi’s book, or the use of land line phones, were admissible as evidence and persuasive to a jury.

 

[Knitpicker]

Good work!
So Charlie did lie & exaggerate.( lied in call 6, Nov 8th.)
He said first time he heard of this Trescott drive-by was when he was listening to Brannon ( which would be 2019) This info was available to his lawyers from 2016, according to your digging

Yes I agree with you on second para, it's all mostly BS

I still haven't finished playing the call.
Get out your smallest violins. He's moved onto an ex GF in 2013, called Junko and his lost opportunity to marry, settle down, raise kids and use his air miles to travel to Japan 1st Class as she'd wanted. He's whining that he has amassed 2.5 million AirMiles he can't use.
According to Charlie he worked like a dog, 6 days a week, made it off his own back, never screwed anybody over.... and he concludes this with:

'.....nobody was helping me nobody was doing S_ _ _ for me....
yeah...... you know if I asked my sister for something it was to translate something into Spanish. That was the big ask ' (1 hr 36m, 6th call on 8th Nov)

he's definitely bitter about helping Wendi ( one for Georgia's files?

I don’t think Katie knew. I think this is just something Katie may have said, or Rivera may have thought she said, just like how he said Katie told them “the lady” they saw on Trescott walking with he kids was Wendi. That has been shown to be impossible, as the kids were at school at the time they allegedly saw Wendi. So I, personally, would take anything Rivera says Katie said with a grain of salt. Katie may have actually said these things as a way to make herself sound like she was in control, or a way to make them think Wendi was watching them. But they do not necessarily have to be true for her to have said them.

The records shown at this last trial seem to me to show that Wendi left her house a little before or a little after 12:30 and was not at Trescott until about 12:35. The timing of Sig’s 12:30 call to Katie is simply not consistent with Wendi having already driven by the scene before that and told Katie and/or Charlie that the murder had been done. Charlie says this on one of the calls, he appears to have paid attention at trial.

It takes 15 minutes to get from W’s house to Trescott. Charlie says she was at Trescott at 12:30on his 11/8 jail call. She probably left her house 12:15

 

[clearskies1]

Wonder if it was not driving by Trescott, but someone local to Tallahassee listening on a radio to police frequencies that identified the hot had happened. What time did the event occur and when did the call go out to 911? When would the cop cars have been informed? If I am remembering correctly Talhaseee 911 delayed the call out due to error and it took a very long time for EMTs and likely LE to arrive to the scene. Does anyone else remember that issue?

From CA's probable cause affidavit:

10:52-10:55 a.m. - Neighbor hears gunshot and sees small light colored vehicle pulling out of Markel's driveway

11:02 a.m. - MARKEL'S neighbor calls 911

11:06 a.m. - DONNA ADELSON contacts CHARLIE ADELSON (either attempted call or text)

11:22 a.m. - CHARLIE ADELSON contacts DONNA ADELSON (7 minutes)

11:30 a.m. - CHARLIE ADELSON contacts MAGBANUA (30 seconds)

11:31 a.m. - CHARLIE ADELSON contacts MAGBANUA (5 minutes)

Also, I think WA said she called DM at 11:42am but did not get an answer. (I'm not 100% sure of that time).

Un-Served Probable Cause For Charlie Adelson | PDF

Un-served probable cause for Charlie Adelson

www.scribd.com

 

[clearskies1]

DBM.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Oh, yes, I noticed that little author comment, too. Very interesting. To me it seems as though he is trying not to say what he knows, but he is the one who can’t help himself. It’s same with the bump tapes and Dolce Vita. To me it seems like they think as long as they don’t directly say something, then they’re ok.

In my opinion they are not as smart as they think they are, and they have no idea how a circumstantial case can be built and won. To me this is illustrated well in their discussions on these jail calls, in which they express utter disbelief at how things like Wendi’s book, or the use of land line phones, were admissible as evidence and persuasive to a jury.

Yes. It’s all up to interpretation because he just flaps on and on repeating, but I did hear all of those things both he and grandma Gotti said. Initially, I was excited thinking he was implicating WendI, but listening to that whole tape, I took it that he was explaining why the jury voted that way. He was sarcastically saying, the little author couldn’t help herself, she hated Tallahassee. It said it in her book, all that was repeating what he is saying that the state argued. He wasn’t saying that he was agreeing to that or saying that was true. He was laying out the state‘s case, and explaining why the jury thought what they thought. That it was the jury who decided they were too many coincidences, the biggest of which was her driving down Trescott an hour after the murder. I didn’t take that as implicating WA. He was explaining why the jury saw it that way, and why they refused to look at his explanation. JMO.

He even goes on to talk about a friend of theirs who said it would be a 1 in 1 million chance that WA drove on Trescot, bought the bulleit bourbon, etc. all of that that we cite as the reasons why she knew. However, he later goes on in the tapes to say that it really was all innocent, it wasn’t what it appeared to be. He says even though it looked bad, she really innocently turn down that street, she innocently drove to that liquor store location because she doesn’t drink, etc. To admit that WendI knew in advance is to say they are all guilty.

 

[clearskies1]

In my experience attorneys never tell their clients they are going to win, or anything definite like that. People hear what they want to hear. Probably Rash was encouraging and he may have believed in his case or at least appeared to. Lawyers are taught to argue both sides convincingly, and a good lawyer would not admit publicly that he had a weak case.

The other thing is that CA's defense hinged on CA testifying. There would be no real evidence supporting his defense other than his explantion on the stand. I think it's possible that Rashbaum was trying to be optimistic/keep CA's spirits up so that CA could be a somewhat effective witness when he finally got on the stand. JMO.

 

[amicuscurie]

It takes 15 minutes to get from W’s house to Trescott. Charlie says she was at Trescott at 12:30on his 11/8 jail call. She probably left her house 12:15

The testimony was that she was pinging on a tower near her home a little after 12:30, and then she was pinging on a tower near Trescott at 12:35. The timing just doesn’t work with Sig’s call.

 

[Knitpicker]

The testimony was that she was pinging on a tower near her home a little after 12:30, and then she was pinging on a tower near Trescott at 12:35. The timing just doesn’t work with Sig’s call.

My understanding is that the ping could have happened closer to Centerville. It may have been the second trial (Corbitt). I remember that. Unfortunately I won’t get to finding it today.
why would Charlie state she passed Dans house at 12:30?
It takes about 12minutes from her house to Dans and then another 10-12 to get to the lunch place. Thats about half an hour. That doesnt leave much time to stop at ABC and have 2 15 minute calls with her friend in England (and all the other texts/calls

 

[Knitpicker]

Very interesting viewpoints. I don't know. I certainly do believe that Rivera is the most honest in his testimony of any of them. I believe Rivera said, and my memory may be wrong so please correct me if so, didn't he say that after Sigfredo hung up with katie, Sigfredo was asking how did she know? That would seem to definitely back up that he heard correctly.

I do think we will only get the answer at a potential trial of Wendi. I think Georgia is saving all that. I just though can't figure how Wendi could've called or texted or WhatsApp to communicate to CA that it was done without them having that in digital footprint. Then CA would've had to communicate that to KM. No way would Wendi call KM. It seems implausible that all 3 of them had a burner phone just to communicate that, and yet SG and KM were using their regular phones to speak to each other about it right after. Which takes me back to being completely flummoxed.

Well I thought when he said “I was there” he meant that he heard..I am going to be busy later with some comments I need to confirm. I believed he said that in the context of Sigfredo not telling him, but hearing it from his phone as he was talking to her.

 

[amicuscurie]

My understanding is that the ping could have happened closer to Centerville. It may have been the second trial (Corbitt). I remember that. Unfortunately I won’t get to finding it today.
why would Charlie state she passed Dans house at 12:30?
It takes about 12minutes from her house to Dans and then another 10-12 to get to the lunch place. Thats about half an hour. That doesnt leave much time to stop at ABC and have 2 15 minute calls with her friend in England (and all the other texts/calls

She bought the liquor at 12:49. She left her house at around 12:30. Sig called at 12:30. Certainly she could have been at Centerville at 12:30 and made a very quick call to say the job was done and then like one second later Sig made the call to Katie and she already knew. But that seems very unlikely, to me. Assuming she left her house at 12:30, she would have been at Trescott some time after 12:30. Her phone records show her getting on a long call at 12:30, this might have been the friend in England.

 

[Knitpicker]

The other thing is that CA's defense hinged on CA testifying. There would be no real evidence supporting his defense other than his explantion on the stand. I think it's possible that Rashbaum was trying to be optimistic/keep CA's spirits up so that CA could be a somewhat effective witness when he finally got on the stand. JMO.

Charlie states on a jail call that Rashbaum said he would be driving home with him. And that they would win. But you can’t really believe anything Charlie says. Unless he says the sky is blue (although it may be a rainy day..

 

[amicuscurie]

Well I thought when he said “I was there” he meant that he heard..I am going to be busy later with some comments I need to confirm. I believed he said that in the context of Sigfredo not telling him, but hearing it from his phone as he was talking to her.

She may have said “I know,” and he may have heard her say that. Doesn’t mean she knew.

For all we know, she might have meant she figured, because why else would he be calling her.

 

[Knitpicker]

She bought the liquor at 12:49. She left her house at around 12:30. Sig called at 12:30. Certainly she could have been at Centerville at 12:30 and made a very quick call to say the job was done and then like one second later Sig made the call to Katie and she already knew. But that seems very unlikely, to me. Assuming she left her house at 12:30, she would have been at Trescott some time after 12:30. Her phone records show her getting on a long call at 12:30, this might have been the friend in England.

She had two calls with the friend from England.I have a screenshot of the calls made that day but I’d have to find them buried in all my other photos. From this morning, I have a couple of things to look up and I will. Just need to clean the house lol.

 

[BSBC]

There's been lots of speculation that WA's purchase of Bulleit bourbon the day of DM's murder was some sort of inside joke referring to the bullets used to kill her ex, which supposedly proves that she knew in advance of the killing. Now Mentour Lawyer has posted what appears to be the actual invitation to the "stock the bar" party instructing WA to purchase "BULLEIT BOURBON" or her "favorite wine or spirit," which I don't believe has been made public before.

There are pieces of evidence that raise legitimate questions about WA's position that she was not involved and had no foreknowledge of DM's murder. But I don't think her purchase of Bulleit bourbon is one of them; it seems pretty clear that she was just following the invitation's instructions.

Here's the clip: What?? Is Charles Adelson starting to suspect Wendi Adelson? What about Donna?

 

[amicuscurie]

There's been lots of speculation that WA's purchase of Bulleit bourbon the day of DM's murder was some sort of inside joke referring to the bullets used to kill her ex, which supposedly proves that she knew in advance of the killing. Now Mentour Lawyer has posted what appears to be the actual invitation to the "stock the bar" party instructing WA to purchase "BULLEIT BOURBON" or her "favorite wine or spirit," which I don't believe has been made public before.

There are pieces of evidence that raise legitimate questions about WA's position that she was not involved and had no foreknowledge of DM's murder. But I don't think her purchase of Bulleit bourbon is one of them; it seems pretty clear that she was just following the invitation's instructions.

Here's the clip: What?? Is Charles Adelson starting to suspect Wendi Adelson? What about Donna?

I recall at one point her testifying that someone had handwritten that specific brand on the invitation for her because she had asked them what to get. Maybe I’m remembering it wrong, because it looks like there was a little card tied to the invitation with the brand already printed.

But, yes, I believe it was stipulated at trial that the invitation existed, and that she was asked to get that brand.


The brand of bourbon, or the owl T-shirt, is just not one of those “coincidences” that really resonate with me. I think these really are coincidences.

Driving by the scene, in my opinion, is not, because she has offered several different and inconsistent explanations for that and for exactly how far she drove down Trescott.

 

[Weki]

I think Rivera is an honest witness and told the truth. But I also think they were high and paranoid on this trip! A lot of coke as he testified. So I think some of the things he said like seeing Wendi and KM saying “I know” are from his imagination. Even if he said SG agreed. I don’t think either of those things happened. I don’t think he’s lying but I think ‘seeing Wendi’ was a paranoia thing and I think the “I know” comment was something his mind filled in in hindsight.

I have been dismissive of the idea that the Adelsons will turn on each other but Katiecoolady said something interesting yesterday on her live - Donna is the kind of mother who has no problem cutting off from her children ie Robert. And now I’m wondering if Donna is mad enough to implicate Wendi. I still think it’s doubtful but hmmm….

JMO