FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *3 guilty* #16

[Chelly]

I have zero compassion for CA, as well as WA and DA.

I think this smart jury recognizes the overwhelming lies in CA's testimony and will focus on the factual evidence that proves him guilty. I'm just concerned that WA and DA won't be brought to justice for their rolls in the murder conspiracy. imo

 

[Mrspratcher]

Me too!! I have been obsessed with this case since the day I heard about it. I live about 2 1/2 hours away from beautiful Tallahassee and there was lots of media here. There were very few leads in the very beginning. I remember people thinking that maybe Dan had upset a student, and a student murdered him, or a disgruntled colleague. I read and read and read and googled this story often. I couldn’t get it off my mind. When the pieces finally started to come together and LR and SG were arrrested, and then Katie, I was so relieved, but obviously I knew there should be more arrests made. It was obvious it was a murder for hire and it was obvious who did the hiring. But I started losing hope after Katie’s first trial. I’ll never forget watching the news one night and on the bottom scrolling ticker —- I saw Charlie had been arrested!! I remember literally jumping out of my seat -I was so happy they finally arrested him! Now I’m praying for Donna’s arrest. I personally don’t think Wendy or Harvey will ever be charged. I am praying that the Markels get the Justice they deserve. This has been a long tragic road for them and I can’t even imagine being in their shoes. Not only have they had to deal with the tragic death of their beloved son and brother, they’ve had to deal with not being able to see the two most important things that connect them to Dan - his precious sons. And on top of this, they have had to endure the slow wheels of Justice and a narcissistic, family who has political ties to people who can protect them. It’s just SO HEAVY! I admire Ruth so very much. I don’t know if I could have held up this many years. My heart goes out to Dan’s family I pray there is Justice for Dan.

Same! Proud FSU grad here! I’m confident GC is going to tie all the evidence into a nice bow for the jury tomorrow.

Justice for Dan Markel and his family and friends.

 

[justice1960]

I thought he got very testy when Georgia brought up the tv being a code word! You could visually see him bothered. His feathers were ruffled, and he didn’t know how to answer, but as usual he was quick on his feet and emphatically denied it was a code word and claimed the State has it wrong. Um hello… it was an obvious code word. Everything centered around that freaking TV- from the hitman joke, to Wendy having a tv repairman come the morning Dan was murdered so she would have an alibi, to the tv code word again used in the wire tapes after the bump. He must think he’s so smart, but again… his answer was an OBVIOU

I have zero compassion for CA, as well as WA and DA.

I think this smart jury recognizes the overwhelming lies in CA's testimony and will focus on the factual evidence that proves him guilty. I'm just concerned that WA and DA won't be brought to justice for their rolls in the murder conspiracy. imo

In reference to WA & DA. "When the case is closed, Law Enforcement will announce that, Until then anything can happen" -Deleted member 173651

 

[Sustained]

In reference to WA & DA. "When the case is closed, Law Enforcement will announce that, Until then anything can happen" -Deleted member 173651

Leave the case open, wiretap the A's indefinitely, and get a prison informant to get big-mouth CA talking.

 

[amicuscurie]

I think CA is guilty as sin, but it's just not accurate to say "There is no evidence of duress or force, even in the Defendant’s own testimony." CA testified that KM told him after the murder that he would be killed if he didn't pay the extortionists within 48 hours. If CA's testimony is true, then it would indeed constitute evidence that he paid KM under duress, given the threat of force.

To be clear, I think CA "extortion" defense is complete nonsense, and that the evidence is overwhelming that he was the "maestro" behind the murder-for-hire plot. But he did introduce evidence (i.e., his testimony) that he was extorted by KM and others.

Good point! So, instead, the state should say that the Only evidence is what Charlie says happened that night. Katie says that didn’t happen. The defense wants you to believe Katie is not credible. However, Katie also testified she conspired to commit murder. The Defendant himself believes that is true. His story depends on it, on him first believing that she was not part of it, but now realizing that he was. It is very convenient that he believes her when she days there was a conspiracy, but he doesn’t believe her when she says she never came to him and told him he had. 48 hours to pay up. Which is it?

Think that would work in closing?

 

[cottonweaver]

<modsnip - quoted post, response removed for discussion of an unapproved source>

Anyway, going back to prosecution of DA, being optimistic in that she also gets convicted, do people/legal types on WS think there's any scope for future prosecution of any of the others as accessories after the fact? eg Harvey covering-up? ( Charlie has now testified that he told his father although IDK whether it could be proven that HA knew that DA was signing those cheques)

 

[vislaw]

IDK, she said it on her 'live' yesterday and then said that she's more motivated by fighting for justice.
Maybe she doesn't read the threads here? IME WS is more 'sleuthy' & fact-based

Anyway, going back to prosecution of DA, being optimistic in that she also gets convicted, do people/legal types on WS think there's any scope for future prosecution of any of the others as accessories after the fact? eg Harvey covering-up? ( Charlie has now testified that he told his father although IDK whether it could be proven that HA knew that DA was signing those cheques)

I believe Donna's indictment is almost a sure thing, but WA and HA are real longshots. Unless there is evidence we don't know about, it would be very difficult to make a case against either beyond a reasonable doubt. Knowledge after the fact won't cut it and both appear to have been insulated rather well. Few believe Charlie will cooperate, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Sustained]

I believe Donna's indictment is almost a sure thing, but WA and HA are real longshots. Unless there is evidence we don't know about, it would be very difficult to make a case against either beyond a reasonable doubt. Knowledge after the fact won't cut it and both appear to have been insulated rather well. Few believe Charlie will cooperate, but stranger things have happened.

BBM - we know that CA likes to talk and wouldn't surprise me for him to relate the whole plot in detail to another inmate. If that inmate needed some help on his sentence ...

Although CA could be moved to an out-of-state prison if it was determined he was in physical danger in a FL prison.
Similar to Michael Dunn.

 

[Hiller]

I believe Donna's indictment is almost a sure thing, but WA and HA are real longshots. Unless there is evidence we don't know about, it would be very difficult to make a case against either beyond a reasonable doubt. Knowledge after the fact won't cut it and both appear to have been insulated rather well. Few believe Charlie will cooperate, but stranger things have happened.

If CA is convicted, would DA's guilt about her son spending his life in prison as a result of trying to please her (he wasn't doing this for his princess sister) and her not having the sense not to agree to his plan, result in an attempt at a family plea deal to reduce CA's time and spread the pain? Could WA end up being forced into this as the others can testify to the truth? I wonder.

 

[cottonweaver]

jaw-dropping details on CA's arrest. circa 39mins , author-lawyer Steven Epstein

 

[Marysmith]

BBM - we know that CA likes to talk and wouldn't surprise me for him to relate the whole plot in detail to another inmate. If that inmate needed some help on his sentence ...

Although CA could be moved to an out-of-state prison if it was determined he was in physical danger in a FL prison.
Similar to Michael Dunn.

And Jarred Harrell.

 

[Marysmith]

jaw-dropping details on CA's arrest. circa 39mins , author-lawyer Steven Epstein

Thank you for sharing that!
They did a great job.

 

[amicuscurie]

Thank you for sharing that!
They did a great job.

I like Epstein, I liked his book. However, he is of the opinion Wendi was not involved and did not know anything about the murder. He supports this with the fact that she spoke to the police for so long and revealed so much information. He just thinks nobody would do that if they knew something. The police interview is puzzling to me. Why would someone with prior knowledge sit there for five hours answering questions and volunteering stuff like her phone and computer? But I learned a lot of things in this trial that would seem to implicate her, in my opinion. Do you think Epstein’s opinion has changed since he saw this trial? There was some stuff there I hadn’t heard before.

 

[amicuscurie]

I noticed something in the cross. There is a recording of Katie talking with Sig’s lawyer and he tells her he has talked with the A family lawyer, and the family is not talking to police. On cross, Georgia asked Charlie specifically whether his family’s attorneys had been in touch with Katie’s and assured her they weren’t talking. He said no. But then she didn’t play the tape To impeach him. Why did she ask if she wasn’t going to play the tape? It shows that he lied on the stand. Is there a legal reason? Is she saving it? Was there an objection? Why did she ask this specific question?

I was just looking at the Justice for Dan FB page, and they have posted this tape which shows Charlie was lying when he said his/the family’s lawyers never assured Katie/Sig’s lawyers they weren’t talking. I still don’t get why Georgia asked him about this and got him to deny it if she wasn’t going to play the tape.

 

[Marysmith]

I like Epstein, I liked his book. However, he is of the opinion Wendi was not involved and did not know anything about the murder. He supports this with the fact that she spoke to the police for so long and revealed so much information. He just thinks nobody would do that if they knew something. The police interview is puzzling to me. Why would someone with prior knowledge sit there for five hours answering questions and volunteering stuff like her phone and computer? But I learned a lot of things in this trial that would seem to implicate her, in my opinion. Do you think Epstein’s opinion has changed since he saw this trial? There was some stuff there I hadn’t heard before.

I wonder if it has. IMO the fact that she did offer so much was because people would say she can’t be involved because of that.
Just getting more and more discouraged that she will never be arrested.

 

[MartinDupuis]

I like Epstein, I liked his book. However, he is of the opinion Wendi was not involved and did not know anything about the murder. He supports this with the fact that she spoke to the police for so long and revealed so much information. He just thinks nobody would do that if they knew something. The police interview is puzzling to me. Why would someone with prior knowledge sit there for five hours answering questions and volunteering stuff like her phone and computer? But I learned a lot of things in this trial that would seem to implicate her, in my opinion. Do you think Epstein’s opinion has changed since he saw this trial? There was some stuff there I hadn’t heard before.

Yes Wendi knew....she told Lacasse about Charlie looking for a hitman...she drove by the murder scene when it happened....she tried to set up Lacasse....she's guilty

 

[justice1960]

yes i listened to it already - see if I have misinterpreted it? IDK. It's around 14min

yes i listened to it already - see if I have misinterpreted it? IDK. It's around 14mins.

I think you did misinterpret it.

 

[cottonweaver]

I like Epstein, I liked his book. However, he is of the opinion Wendi was not involved and did not know anything about the murder. He supports this with the fact that she spoke to the police for so long and revealed so much information. He just thinks nobody would do that if they knew something. The police interview is puzzling to me. Why would someone with prior knowledge sit there for five hours answering questions and volunteering stuff like her phone and computer? But I learned a lot of things in this trial that would seem to implicate her, in my opinion. Do you think Epstein’s opinion has changed since he saw this trial? There was some stuff there I hadn’t heard before.

I never bought the book because so many people slammed him because he'd said on various podcasts that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Wendi nor assume she was involved.
Having only just listened to this interview with Judy, he sounds like a rigorous researcher and sounds like a good book. ( Even though, like you, I think she did give her consent at the very least)

 

[cottonweaver]

I think you did misinterpret it.

That's why I went back to listen again and then provided the time stamp & asked the question.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes Wendi knew....she told Lacasse about Charlie looking for a hitman...she drove by the murder scene when it happened....she tried to set up Lacasse....she's guilty

Interesting to hear Epstein say that Lacasse is working with HBO on their future production but didn't want to help with his book. ( Maybe like Stephen Webster said last week, Webster was under subpoena so he felt that he could only speak in public now. Also, same interview, not surprised to hear Jane MacPherson's response to Epstein's request)