I would presume that each invite had a different bottle of alcohol on it: bourbon, gin, tequila, etc. Just so the recipient doesn't end up with a half dozen bottles of vodka.
In my opinion that behavior also showed a tremendous degree of self-involvement. This is a person who has been separated from Dan for almost two years. To me she is acting as though she is the widow and this is a terrible tragedy that has happened to HER. I do understand that it is her kids’ father. But to me her behavior demonstrates an outsized concern for herself, and what SHE should do, and how so many people know about this and are calling HER. The interview over the course of five hours becomes all about HER, in my opinion, and she seems to me to be enjoying the attention and even the opportunity to present “her side“ of the divorce and other material she wants to get across (JMO).
In my opinion she also seems to me like she’s just not very bright.
I’m not sure where, but the word “couples” should have an apostrophe, I think, and it’s bothering me.
I don't recollect Wendi claiming in Trial Three anything about her customarily using GPS that day or any other day but by the time Wendi testifies again, likely she'll be on her fifth conflicting version of her Trescott drive-by
Assuming hypothetically that she was involved or knew in advance about the murder, it still might not have been apparent to the lunch companions, because her conduct to date including at the police interview and at three trials suggests to me that she is a very good actress.
The Bourbon is not highlighted, it is specifically requested on the little sheet tied to the invitation. She was tasked with bringing that type of bourbon.
Right. But was she intending to take one before lunch and didn’t, or was she always intending to take one later, before the party? To me she seems to say both things.
According to Charlie in one of the calls, she has such a bad sense of direction that in order to go to the one liquor store she remembered (because she hardly ever drinks), she had to actually go to her old house and orient herself and then drive to the liquor store from there. Of course, his explanation for the drive by is constantly evolving throughout these calls. But that is one explanation he gives, that she only knew the way there from starting at her old house, so she had to go there first.
I believe her lunch restaurant was at or near the Market Square shopping plaza, and there was a Publix there as well.
Mozaik was on the other side of Timberlane. She could have walked it. I've gotten my car washed next to where Mozaik was and walked to Market Square to look around.
She can adopt that as her version 6 for Trial 4. Almost two years after moving out of Trescott she could only think of one store and that she still has to use the house as her starting position to get her bearings.
In my opinion that is exactly what it was. It’s not so much that there isn’t a reasonable explanation for choosing that store, people have raised several. To me, it’s the fact that she gave several different explanations for choosing that route through three trials and even at different times during her interview at the police station. And now, on the calls, Charlie gives several different explanations as well as he seems to me to be coming to terms with this drive by and the effect he believes it had on the jury. Speaking generally and not about anyone in this particular case, people who are telling the truth do not need to remember what they said before.
