FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteelCity91 said:
Can someone briefly explain the whole broke tv situation and why its important?
Click to expand...
It is very confusing to me, and I hope someone can explain it better than me. What I got from testimony by Lacasse was the tv was a gift from CA to WA as a divorce present the year prior. The tv was purchased by DA/HA originally and CA reimbursed them later. Lacasse said the tv was damaged where it couldn't be watched, and he referenced that the damage didn't look like something a small child's toy would have done. It seems this tv was damaged in June some time, and it was not serviced until July 18 in the morning hours. I guess it just sat there for a month without repair. WA said the children broke it and still made everyone watch the broken tv for whatever reason despite there being another tv in another room.
The appointment for the repair was made by DA because she originally purchased it ( that makes zero sense to me). The tv couldn't be repaired and it would have been cheaper to purchase a new one; so WA called CA to find out how much a new tv cost. That is what I got out of the testimony. It was baffling to me. I hope others post what they know. It all seems bizarre and unusual.
 
Tapeartree said:
I think June is still holding on to a fairytale or fantasy, and I feel sorry for her. Lacasse, to me, is the most believable witness in this case. I think he was truly in love with WA, and she used him or strung him along. I think GC is handling this case better than I could if I was an attorney. The whole thing is frustrating and mind boggling.

On another note, I wonder if WA was being truthful when she said she had a great life in Tallahassee. I think in retrospect, she probably thinks it wasn't so bad. Time goes by so quickly, and her boys would be off to college. At that point,she would be free to go anywhere she wanted. She wasn't stuck in Tallahassee forever, but she is stuck coming back here to be grilled by the courts year after year. So, yeah her life in Tallahassee wasn't so bad. JMO
Click to expand...
That’s what I find so tragic about this whole thing. The fight over the relocation was bad for the A family, but it was just a snapshot, a moment in time. Things like this happen in divorce, emotions run high. But things change, circumstances change, life is long. Eventually, Dan might have gotten a job elsewhere, or the boys might have grown to a point where Dan was comfortable visiting from further away, or Wendi might have been able to bring her motion up again and reach a better result, or compromise with him. She wasn’t trapped in Tally FOREVER, as Donna’s emails say. Thats ridiculous to believe. Nothing is forever like that. She should have set moving as a long term goal, and worked toward it. Remember- that motion was filed at the beginning of what was to Dan a sudden and awful divorce and loss of his family. Of course he wasn’t going to agree. (Wendi says now that he did tell her he would agree but I don’t think that happened.). The judge wasn’t inclined to, either, and her lawyers knew that. Think about it: this was the first the judge had seen of the case, there were a lot of other issues, and as far as she could see, both parents were profs at FSU and the boys had stable lives. There was no compelling reason to grant the petition, and I’m sure the judge was mystified as to why one party was asking. Again, any one of those things could and would likely have changed. The judge was looking at a snapshot.

But these people strike me as extremely immature and undeveloped emotionally, in the sense that they were unable to look beyond their immediate circumstances and black-and-white thinking. This is not how adults are supposed to think; by the late 20’s the brain is sufficiently developed to be able to think of long-term consequences. These people (I believe it was Donna who was driving this thing) believed what they were experiencing right then was FOREVER, and they wanted a solution RIGHT NOW. (That’s how Donna’s emails read to me.). And they (allegedly) didn’t care what they had to do to get it, and didn’t care about hurting others. And it’s just so sad, for these children. It all was so avoidable.

The defense, and Wendi, appear to be arguing this very point now. Wendi seemed to indicate she thought the relocation could ultimately be worked out in the future, and that she was not too upset about it and was making a life in Tallahassee. The defense seems to want the jury to believe the same. Now.
 
TrialLurking said:
It is very confusing to me, and I hope someone can explain it better than me. What I got from testimony by Lacasse was the tv was a gift from CA to WA as a divorce present the year prior. The tv was purchased by DA/HA originally and CA reimbursed them later. Lacasse said the tv was damaged where it couldn't be watched, and he referenced that the damage didn't look like something a small child's toy would have done. It seems this tv was damaged in June some time, and it was not serviced until July 18 in the morning hours. I guess it just sat there for a month without repair. WA said the children broke it and still made everyone watch the broken tv for whatever reason despite there being another tv in another room.
The appointment for the repair was made by DA because she originally purchased it ( that makes zero sense to me). The tv couldn't be repaired and it would have been cheaper to purchase a new one; so WA called CA to find out how much a new tv cost. That is what I got out of the testimony. It was baffling to me. I hope others post what they know. It all seems bizarre and unusual.
Click to expand...

What's baffling to me is WA calling CA to find out how much a new TV costs when you can look online in seconds.

Here's hoping the continuous lies of WA will catch up with her ...
 
The significance of the TV is 1. Charlie saying he bought her a TV cause it was cheaper than hiring a hit man and 2. The tv repair was set up to be an alibi for Wendi when Dan was getting killed. 3. Donna speaking in code said to Charlie after the bump “the tv that costs 5k” or something like that referring to the “extortion.” JMO
 
TrialLurking said:
It is very confusing to me, and I hope someone can explain it better than me. What I got from testimony by Lacasse was the tv was a gift from CA to WA as a divorce present the year prior. The tv was purchased by DA/HA originally and CA reimbursed them later. Lacasse said the tv was damaged where it couldn't be watched, and he referenced that the damage didn't look like something a small child's toy would have done. It seems this tv was damaged in June some time, and it was not serviced until July 18 in the morning hours. I guess it just sat there for a month without repair. WA said the children broke it and still made everyone watch the broken tv for whatever reason despite there being another tv in another room.
The appointment for the repair was made by DA because she originally purchased it ( that makes zero sense to me). The tv couldn't be repaired and it would have been cheaper to purchase a new one; so WA called CA to find out how much a new tv cost. That is what I got out of the testimony. It was baffling to me. I hope others post what they know. It all seems bizarre and unusual.
Click to expand...
Wendy says she was home on the day of the murder because her TV broke and Geek Squad came to repair it. She claims the kids threw something at the screen. She claims this happened a long time before.

There is evidence that suggests it was Donna who called the Geek Squad. This might indicate Donna was setting up an alibi. That’s why the defense wanted to show that the only reason Donna had to set up the appointment was because the purchase was in her name, and she had the Geek Squad contract. So, a lot of testimony to try to show that the only person who can book the appointment is the person who bought the TV. That’s why Donna did it, not to provide an alibi.

There is a phone call from Wendi to ChArlie that morning for 19 minutes around the time of the murder. It can be argued that they were talking about the murder, or that she was advising him of where Dan was. So, the defense must show what it was they were talking about. So Wendi testifies on the stand that she was having a long conversation with him about whether to repair the TV or get a new one. For 19 minutes. The morning of the murder.

Finally LaCasse: Wendi can’t say when the TV broke, but implies it was a while back. LaCasse says it was no more than a month before the murder, and he can show the exact date. He says she called him to ask whether it was broken. When he got there to check it out, he says it looked obviously broken. It looked like a large and heavy object had been thrown into the screen. It didn’t look like the kids could’ve done it by throwing a toy. It was unwatchable, you couldn’t see the picture. He offered to buy Wendi a new one Several times. She continually refused his offer. This was no more than a month before the murder.

hopefully the rest of this will come out later in the trial so it makes sense, especially the phone call with Charlie and the Geek Squad alibi. But Wendi already testifies about that. Was the alibi part unclear?
 
Sustained said:
What's baffling to me is WA calling CA to find out how much a new TV costs when you can look online in seconds.

Here's hoping the continuous lies of WA will catch up with her ...
Click to expand...
I think she stated this to explain why she made a call to CA on the morning of 7/18. I wonder if the call was more likely CA reaching out to see if she heard from DM. It's interesting how she just hopped into her car and drove down Trescott afterwards.
 
clearskies1 said:
Adding on to what others said above: The upshot is that there is suspicion that her tv was intentionally broken so that Wendi would/did have an alibi (tv repair) for the time of the murder. JMO.
Click to expand...
Yep. Can you imagine the Adelsons sitting around plotting this murder and saying ‘how can we create an alibi for Wendi since she will be the main suspect?’ And then Donna says ‘I know let’s buy her a TV and then have her break it and we can set up a repair visit. Someone has to be able to say she was at home at the murder time.’ Then the fool goes to the crime scene to check if it’s been done.

ETA: If anyone on the jury has had to replace a broken TV they will know it’s cheaper to buy a new one. Especially if the issue is a BROKEN SCREEN. They literally tell you that when you call Samsung - ‘we’ll send you a new one 30% off!’
 
amicuscurie said:
Wendy says she was home on the day of the murder because her TV broke and Geek Squad came to repair it. She claims the kids threw something at the screen. She claims this happened a long time before.

There is evidence that suggests it was Donna who called the Geek Squad. This might indicate Donna was setting up an alibi. That’s why the defense wanted to show that the only reason Donna had to set up the appointment was because the purchase was in her name, and she had the Geek Squad contract. So, a lot of testimony to try to show that the only person who can book the appointment is the person who bought the TV. That’s why Donna did it, not to provide an alibi.

There is a phone call from Wendi to ChArlie that morning for 19 minutes around the time of the murder. It can be argued that they were talking about the murder, or that she was advising him of where Dan was. So, the defense must show what it was they were talking about. So Wendi testifies on the stand that she was having a long conversation with him about whether to repair the TV or get a new one. For 19 minutes. The morning of the murder.

Finally LaCasse: Wendi can’t say when the TV broke, but implies it was a while back. LaCasse says it was no more than a month before the murder, and he can show the exact date. He says she called him to ask whether it was broken. When he got there to check it out, he says it looked obviously broken. It looked like a large and heavy object had been thrown into the screen. It didn’t look like the kids could’ve done it by throwing a toy. It was unwatchable, you couldn’t see the picture. He offered to buy Wendi a new one Several times. She continually refused his offer. This was no more than a month before the murder.

hopefully the rest of this will come out later in the trial so it makes sense, especially the phone call with Charlie and the Geek Squad alibi. But Wendi already testifies about that. Was the alibi part unclear?
Click to expand...
Thank you for that recap! I don't think it was brought out yet but do we know if Donna requested Geek Squad to come out on July 18th? If so..IMO thats very suspicious. Or does anyone know if when you make an appointment with Geek Squad, they come out that same day?
 
SteelCity91 said:
Thank you for that recap! I don't think it was brought out yet but do we know if Donna requested Geek Squad to come out on July 18th? If so..IMO thats very suspicious. Or does anyone know if when you make an appointment with Geek Squad, they come out that same day?
Click to expand...
A lot of the evidence in this case seems to be presented backwards. The defense in this case is basing its strategy on admitting the state‘s evidence, anticipating their arguments, and refuting them. “It all happened like the state says, Dan was killed, Charlie paid the killers, it looks like a murder for hire, but it’s not.“

The state seems to be playing into that. Before, they would ask Wendi all about the geek squad appt., and who booked it, and did Donna book it. And then the defense would argue that Donna had to book it, because Donna bought the tv. But this is the third time they’ve done this trial. So, now, they skipped right to “Donna booked the appointment because she bought the tv,” without the state having established some question as to why that was Important or contested.

A lot of this seems backward this time, like each side knows what the other is going to say, and is shooting that down before they can say it. We are not getting a straightforward chronology for the jury. In the past, the state spent a lot of time on how the murder happened and how they caught the killers, with cell phone records, etc. They showed how they were able to connect the murderers to Katie, and then to Charlie. They havent done that here, yet. They’re starting with Charlie already knowing Katie, and the murder already committed, and Katie extorting him, right in their opening statements. With the other trials, the openings were “I had nothing to do with this murder and knew nothing about it.”

If the defense can make this trial about the alleged “extortion” and whether it took place, that could distract the jury enough to create reasonable doubt. That’s something the prosecution needs to look out for. They shouldn’t be playing defense to the defense. they shouldn’t try this case as though it is an extortion case. They should prove there WAS a murder for hire, not that there was NOT extortion. The defense doesn’t even need to present a theory of the case at all. They’re presenting one to take the teeth out of the state’s case against their client. It’s bogus, but it might create reasonable doubt. Of course, it’s not reasonable to believe that extortion works this way. But juries can believe a lot of things, and sometimes they confuse doubt with reasonable doubt.
 
amicuscurie said:
A lot of the evidence in this case seems to be presented backwards. The defense in this case is basing its strategy on admitting the state‘s evidence, anticipating their arguments, and refuting them. “It all happened like the state says, Dan was killed, Charlie paid the killers, it looks like a murder for hire, but it’s not.“

The state seems to be playing into that. Before, they would ask Wendi all about the geek squad appt., and who booked it, and did Donna book it. And then the defense would argue that Donna had to book it, because Donna bought the tv. But this is the third time they’ve done this trial. So, now, they skipped right to “Donna booked the appointment because she bought the tv,” without the state having established some question as to why that was Important or contested.

A lot of this seems backward this time, like each side knows what the other is going to say, and is shooting that down before they can say it. We are not getting a straightforward chronology for the jury. In the past, the state spent a lot of time on how the murder happened and how they caught the killers, with cell phone records, etc. They showed how they were able to connect the murderers to Katie, and then to Charlie. They havent done that here, yet. They’re starting with Charlie already knowing Katie, and the murder already committed, and Katie extorting him, right in their opening statements. With the other trials, the openings were “I had nothing to do with this murder and knew nothing about it.”

If the defense can make this trial about the alleged “extortion” and whether it took place, that could distract the jury enough to create reasonable doubt. That’s something the prosecution needs to look out for. They shouldn’t be playing defense to the defense. they shouldn’t try this case as though it is an extortion case. They should prove there WAS a murder for hire, not that there was NOT extortion. The defense doesn’t even need to present a theory of the case at all. They’re presenting one to take the teeth out of the state’s case against their client. It’s bogus, but it might create reasonable doubt. Of course, it’s not reasonable to believe that extortion works this way. But juries can believe a lot of things, and sometimes they confuse doubt with reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they are hoping to clear up this extortion claim when KM testifies. Of course, the defense will claim she is not credible.
 
SteelCity91 said:
Thank you for that recap! I don't think it was brought out yet but do we know if Donna requested Geek Squad to come out on July 18th? If so..IMO thats very suspicious. Or does anyone know if when you make an appointment with Geek Squad, they come out that same day?
Click to expand...

No one calls Geek Squad to come out and repair a TV with a destroyed screen unless you're trying to create an alibi for your daughter. Normally if you call Geek Squad for an appointment, they will ask you what's going on with the TV before actually setting up the appointment. Possibly, there are notes available from the call to them by DA.

IMO, all part of the master plan to call on 7/18 and have WA turn down JL's request to buy her a new TV.
 
Sustained said:
No one calls Geek Squad to come out and repair a TV with a destroyed screen unless you're trying to create an alibi for your daughter. Normally if you call Geek Squad for an appointment, they will ask you what's going on with the TV before actually setting up the appointment. Possibly, there are notes available from the call to them by DA.

IMO, all part of the master plan to call on 7/18 and have WA turn down JL's request to buy her a new TV.
Click to expand...
I thought I saw the Geek Squad guy on the witness list. He’s probably just going to confirm the times, but it will be interesting to see what he says about the damage to the tv. I admit, LaCasse’s testimony about how the TV looked when he got there, and how she seemed to him to want him to come over to confirm it was broken when you could see that it was, was chilling to me. He said it looked like someone had taken a heavy object to it!
 
amicuscurie said:
A lot of the evidence in this case seems to be presented backwards. The defense in this case is basing its strategy on admitting the state‘s evidence, anticipating their arguments, and refuting them. “It all happened like the state says, Dan was killed, Charlie paid the killers, it looks like a murder for hire, but it’s not.“

The state seems to be playing into that. Before, they would ask Wendi all about the geek squad appt., and who booked it, and did Donna book it. And then the defense would argue that Donna had to book it, because Donna bought the tv. But this is the third time they’ve done this trial. So, now, they skipped right to “Donna booked the appointment because she bought the tv,” without the state having established some question as to why that was Important or contested.

A lot of this seems backward this time, like each side knows what the other is going to say, and is shooting that down before they can say it. We are not getting a straightforward chronology for the jury. In the past, the state spent a lot of time on how the murder happened and how they caught the killers, with cell phone records, etc. They showed how they were able to connect the murderers to Katie, and then to Charlie. They havent done that here, yet. They’re starting with Charlie already knowing Katie, and the murder already committed, and Katie extorting him, right in their opening statements. With the other trials, the openings were “I had nothing to do with this murder and knew nothing about it.”

If the defense can make this trial about the alleged “extortion” and whether it took place, that could distract the jury enough to create reasonable doubt. That’s something the prosecution needs to look out for. They shouldn’t be playing defense to the defense. they shouldn’t try this case as though it is an extortion case. They should prove there WAS a murder for hire, not that there was NOT extortion. The defense doesn’t even need to present a theory of the case at all. They’re presenting one to take the teeth out of the state’s case against their client. It’s bogus, but it might create reasonable doubt. Of course, it’s not reasonable to believe that extortion works this way. But juries can believe a lot of things, and sometimes they confuse doubt with reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Right! This trial seems to be the Cliffnotes version of the 1st trial. It’s great for those of us who watched the 1st two trials. We’re ready to skip to Charlie’s testimony and then swiftly to verdict. But this is the first time the jury is hearing any of the facts of this murder plot.

It is extremely important to tell a story so the jury can follow along easily and understand who all the players are and their roles. Instead GC is just getting her facts into evidence as quickly as she can through testimony so she can argue at the end. When she was examining Luis Rivera it felt like she fed him the answers beforehand. Rushing through the testimony implies this is not that important. JMO

Right now the evidence is coming in like a laundry list.
 
Weki said:
Right! This trial seems to be the Cliffnotes version of the 1st trial. It’s great for those of us who watched the 1st two trials. We’re ready to skip to Charlie’s testimony and then swiftly to verdict. But this is the first time the jury is hearing any of the facts of this murder plot.

It is extremely important to tell a story so the jury can follow along easily and understand who all the players are and their roles. Instead GC is just getting her facts into evidence as quickly as she can through testimony so she can argue at the end. When she was examining Luis Rivera it felt like she fed him the answers beforehand. Rushing through the testimony implies this is not that important. JMO
Click to expand...
I agree they seem overconfident and overfamiliar with the evidence. People new to the case might not get why what they’re asking is important. They better explain well that reasonable doubt doesn’t mean any doubt. If the defense said aliens did it, that’s not reasonable, even if it might fit with some of the evidence. I’ve got to say, Rashbaum is earning his fee. It’s a Hail Mary, but it’s really the best you could come up with for this Defendant, when there’s so much evidence against him. Just admit it, but say aliens did it!
 
amicuscurie said:
I agree they seem overconfident and overfamiliar with the evidence. People new to the case might not get why what they’re asking is important. They better explain well that reasonable doubt doesn’t mean any doubt. If the defense said aliens did it, that’s not reasonable, even if it might fit with some of the evidence. I’ve got to say, Rashbaum is earning his fee. It’s a Hail Mary, but it’s really the best you could come up with for this Defendant, when there’s so much evidence against him. Just admit it, but say aliens did it!
Click to expand...
Yeah we’re so used to watching trials so we get it! But most ppl off the street have no clue about this process. It’s very easy for jurors to be confused and be apathetic. So if prosecutors don’t take their time, seem passionate and indignant and treat this like a serious thing jurors might be like well darn it maybe he was being extorted. You have to spoon feed the evidence to jurors and lead them where you want them to go. GC is not good at that imo. But she’s lucky the evidence is overwhelming here but there’s always one or two jurors who can hang a jury. You can never take it for granted!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 231 more.
Total: 2,072 (members: 232, guests: 1,840)

Online statistics

Members online
232
Guests online
1,840
Total visitors
2,072
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,382
Messages
18,095,205
Members
230,854
Latest member
k2910
Back
Top