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

[amicuscurie]

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!

Extortion is defined as making someone give you something or do something for you through coercion or threats of force. So, here, they made Charlie give them money through threats of force. Like, a shakedown? I’ve said this before, if you’re going to do that, why kill Dan? Was that to show what they were capable of? The defense seems to argue that it was more of a murder in anticipation of getting paid, because they knew he had money and wanted Dan killed. Do you know what that’s called? Murder for hire.

 

[Hiller]

Questions/thoughts on the the repair-as-alibi. Why involve someone else and thereby give up some control of the situation when it would be quite simple to establish your whereabouts yourself (buy something at a store with a credit card, go to the health club, etc.)? Was there some reason WA had to be at home just prior to the murder and therefore had to have a witness in her home (but even then a long phone call could establish where she was)? I don't think WA was concerned at all about being a suspect in the actual physical murder, that's why she didn't avoid indulging herself and driving to the murder scene.

I have said months ago on this forum that I think the one immutable rule for this murder was make sure the boys are absolutely, positively at school before the final "go" decision was given to the killers. Could this have something to do with needing to be home? I don't think so.

Was WA actually planning to drive past the house and then stop "in shock" at what she found? Why would she have assumed that the street would be blocked? It's unlikely that she would have planned to merely drive by given that all of the neighbors know her and her car. I can't recall if there is any evidence of a pretense to have to go to his house to give something to Dan (clothing for the boys, papers regarding the boys school, etc.) On the other hand, she could have executed the same plan when she was stopped at the roadblock.

 

[Weki]

Extortion is defined as making someone give you something or do something for you through coercion or threats of force. So, here, they made Charlie give them money through threats of force. Like, a shakedown? I’ve said this before, if you’re going to do that, why kill Dan? Was that to show what they were capable of? The defense seems to segue that it was more of a murder in anticipation of getting paid, because they knew he had money and wanted Dan killed. Do you know what that’s called? Murder for hire.

It’s going to get even crazier when Charlie testifies!

I just pray to the trial gods that Sara Duggan is the one to cross examine him and not GC! Sara did a stellar job with Katie and in the Henry Segura retrial when the defendant testified. *chefs kiss*

 

[dyannaON]

Quick question fine folks!
I’m watching the bond hearing for the defendant from last year.

Why is there a new judge? Tia!
Eta. Was the ex bf sought after prior to his murder all along to try to pin this on him?!!!

 

[Ferpo]

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!

It was also interesting to hear that Wendi forced the kids and LaCasse to watch a DVD from Red Box on the broken TV, even though a portion of the screen was unviewable and the kids were crying about it during the movie. LaCasse said that there was a similar TV in the bedroom and he offered to hook it up to the DVD player but Wendi refused.

Seems like it was hard enforcement for the construction of the alibi.

I would like to hear from the Best Buy employee. 45 minutes seems like too long of an onsite visit for a cracked screen but maybe he was somehow retained there by Wendi, asking a lot of questions about repair/replacement options.

 

[Ferpo]

Why is there a new judge? Tia!

Internal transfer of previous Judge (Wheeler) to Family Law division. No other reasons given.

 

[Weki]

I’m not really all that surprised by the defense strategy. It makes sense to me that they would try to separate Charlie from the 3 and say they did it on their own. The reality is there is no logical defense narrative when you’re guilty.

Of course defense can always just stick to the reasonable doubt defense. They can poke holes and say the state has not proven their case so you have to find my client not guilty. Except it’s very hard to do that when your client’s voice can be heard on audio evincing consciousness of guilt.

 

[amicuscurie]

Questions/thoughts on the the repair-as-alibi. Why involve someone else and thereby give up some control of the situation when it would be quite simple to establish your whereabouts yourself (buy something at a store with a credit card, go to the health club, etc.)? Was there some reason WA had to be at home just prior to the murder and therefore had to have a witness in her home (but even then a long phone call could establish where she was)? I don't think WA was concerned at all about being a suspect in the actual physical murder, that's why she didn't avoid indulging herself and driving to the murder scene.

I have said months ago on this forum that I think the one immutable rule for this murder was make sure the boys are absolutely, positively at school before the final "go" decision was given to the killers. Could this have something to do with needing to be home? I don't think so.

Was WA actually planning to drive past the house and then stop "in shock" at what she found? Why would she have assumed that the street would be blocked? It's unlikely that she would have planned to merely drive by given that all of the neighbors know her and her car. I can't recall if there is any evidence of a pretense to have to go to his house to give something to Dan (clothing for the boys, papers regarding the boys school, etc.) On the other hand, she could have executed the same plan when she was stopped at the roadblock.

The alibi has never made sense to me because she says that the TV guy left way before the time of the murder. She was home, alone, during the time of the murder. She has no alibi until around 1, when she went to the liquor store. She pretty quickly notes this in her interview with police, and offers emails and time stamps from the paper she was writing on her computer that morning. (Did she have a laptop?) She says this before they ask her, in order to prove she was at home. It’s obvious now she was not the trigger person, but what was the purpose of all of this? Why call the Geek Squad for an alibi if they were going to leave before the murder? Could they have been relying on a “window,” like he said he would be there between 9-11, so she had to sit home waiting for him? If so, that didn’t work, he got there right away and then left. (Because, of course, the TV couldn’t be fixed, the screen was broken). She did take a call from Charlie during that time, maybe they thought the Geek Squad visit could be used to explain the call? That seems far fetched. The whole idea of the TV alibi for her is strange. But Donna, in my opinion, does not always have a firm grip on reality, at least in her emails. This is the person who believed that converting the children to Christianity would be MORE likely to make Dan allow them to move hundreds of miles away, because once they moved Wendi would agree to put them in Jewish school. (The emails do say all of this, it’s pretty wacky.)

ETA- I’ve got it- Donna/Charlie wanted her at home so she wouldn’t accidentally drive by while the murder was going on. Maybe?

 

[clearskies1]

I'm having a hard time seeing this trial from the perspective of a juror because I've seen the evidence so many times. The prosecution obviously has to present it differently since many of the facts are conceded by the defense. The issue is not leaving out evidence that allegedly shows advance planning by CA.

 

[clearskies1]

It was also interesting to hear that Wendi forced the kids and LaCasse to watch a DVD from Red Box on the broken TV, even though a portion of the screen was unviewable and the kids were crying about it during the movie. LaCasse said that there was a similar TV in the bedroom and he offered to hook it up to the DVD player but Wendi refused.

Seems like it was hard enforcement for the construction of the alibi.

I would like to hear from the Best Buy employee. 45 minutes seems like too long of an onsite visit for a cracked screen but maybe he was somehow retained there by Wendi, asking a lot of questions about repair/replacement options.

And repeating to him CA's hitman joke!

 

[amicuscurie]

The biggest thing that connects CA to this is that the killers had no relationship to Dan, their only connection was to Katie, who had a connection to Charlie. That’s how the police put it all together in the first place. Thats usually enough for a lot of people to conclude Charlie/his family had something to do with it. Here, though, the defense is conceding that connection. So, it kind of takes away the surprise of the prosecution making that connection for the jury. They did that well in Katie’s trial. Dateline and the other shows do it well, too. It’s the simplest explanation, and the most damning evidence against Charlie, his relationship with Katie. So now he says he’s being extorted by her.

The other evidence against ChArlie is the hitman joke and other statements, the wiretapped calls, and Dolce Vita. The stapled money was also a big piece of evidence in the past, but the defense here is not denying that.


If Charlie testifies, he’s toast. But if he doesn’t, the state has to make its case like it did against Katie, by showing the Prius, the cell towers, the bump, Rivera, etc. I hope they’re not going so quickly through this because they are waiting for Charlie’s testimony to ruin his case. Because if he doesn’t testify, then they might not have presented the other evidence in a strong enough way for the jury to understand. He doesn’t have to testify. But they do need to make the jury understand exactly what happened here and how the killers were caught. So far they’re going too fast. They needed to take more time with Rivera. In the past, he went through BOTH attempts in detail. The fact that they tried to do this twice kind of takes away from the extortion theory. Or did they plan to extort Charlie the first time, too? That’s a lot of work to put in when you’re not sure you will be paid. Rivera is a good witness. He seemed like he had forgotten a lot this time, and nobody had prepped him.

 

[nodamselindistress]

The whole TV repairman thing was not just to provide WA an alibi but also to be a reason for her call to CA that morning (should I replace or repair the TV?). Which is absolutely absurd because anyone with a brain knows it is cheaper to buy a new one, but WA likes to play dumb alot.

The Dolce Vita tape is going to be used as proof of the "double extortion" resulting from the bump by the defense IMHO. They will explain that is why CA and KM are now on the same side, we now have new extortionists. At least that is what I expect them to do!

 

[amicuscurie]

The whole TV repairman thing was not just to provide WA an alibi but also to be a reason for her call to CA that morning (should I replace or repair the TV?). Which is absolutely absurd because anyone with a brain knows it is cheaper to buy a new one, but WA likes to play dumb alot.

The Dolce Vita tape is going to be used as proof of the "double extortion" resulting from the bump by the defense IMHO. They will explain that is why CA and KM are now on the same side, we now have new extortionists. At least that is what I expect them to do!

Wonder if any of this will work on a jury? Will they see how just ridiculous it would be to extort someone this way? How do they explain “If they had anything, we would be at the airport by now?” How do they explain that they thought it might be the police and not the extortionists? Why would they think it was the police? No arrests had been made yet. Any guesses? And if they thought it was the police, why not just go to the police and say “I know you’re trying to pretend you’re a blackmailer, but there’s a real blackmailer, and I know who it is.” Did they think they didn’t need to do that because the second blackmailer would go away? Did they think they would get in trouble? For what?

 

[nodamselindistress]

LOL, great questions and no clue how the jury will see it (hopefully like we do, that it is beyond ridiculous). I stil think the defense theory is not believable but was all they had.

 

[amicuscurie]

LOL, great questions and no clue how the jury will see it (hopefully like we do, that it is beyond ridiculous). I stil think the defense theory is not believable but was all they had.

Agreed. I still see the state as kind of going through the motions with this one. Hope it doesn’t hurt them. Rashbaum is no Kawass. He’s much more highly paid. He can afford jury consultants. State employees are not used to going up against defendants with these kinds of resources, and they don’t have them at their disposal.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Although I know the facts of this case well, I did not watch anything other than Dateline/20-20 shows and excerpts on Court TV from the previous 2 trials. I just retired this year and became a full time trial watcher so I have not seen the prior 2 trials and looking at this differently than the rest of you, but I think the State is doing fine.

 

[stamplewie]

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.

the defense has put the prosecution on the defense by presenting their defense in opening. the prosecution has not YET spent more time disproving extortion than proving murder for hire, but i see how this can become the prosecution's downfall. that is why they should not rush through the storyline and just slow down.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I’ll try to find the article, but it might be behind a paywall. I read that some jurors in the last trial were interviewed and they said the Dolce Vita tape was an integral part and why they were convinced of KM’s role in the conspiracy to murder Dan. I realize the defense strategy is different this time, so we shall see what impact it has on the jury’s decision. But so far, the defense theory is so unbelievable I can’t see a reasonable person buying it.

 

[Gypsy Road]

The trial is suppose to go 3 weeks, correct? We are only on day 2. I’m anxious to see what else the state has, what the defense has.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Don't see how it can go the full 3 weeks unless CA testifies. The defense only listed 2 witnesses and they are not disputing and not questioning many of the state's witnesses.