FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #21

[amicuscurie]

Cross exam of Luis R at5:25 minutes
GC: When did you turn your cell phones back on?
LR: I think right away I think
GC: After leaving Tallahasse
LR: Yah if I remember. I don't really remember but, it got turned on
GC: Sometime after the murder they got turned back on
LR: Yah.
GC: ok, Do you remember what who made the first phone call out of the two of you?
LR: Uh I didn't make no phone call, he did.
GC: Who did he call?
LR: I think he called Katie. Or he called katie, He called Katie. He called Katie.
GC: He called Katie and were you able to hear the conversation with Katie
LR: Yes, Ma'am
GC: And what was that conversation
LR: He told her everything is done....and she like "I know" (mumbles) and the money...
GC: Ok, I'm going to back up just a little bit. How did she know it was done?
LR: I think she, she got a phone call right away, before we did.
GC: Alright. But, somehow she indicated she knew.
LR: Yes.
GC: Alright and you asked about the money. Did you personally ask about the money or was that Garcia? Who asked about the money
LR: It was Garcia
GC: What did she say about the money?
LR: You'll get it tomorrow.

My point is GC is making the point Katie was very aware the murder had occurred very soon after it occurred...so aware and confident that she says "You'll have your money tomorrow!!!!!! Doesn't sound like extortion, if she already knew in advance the money was a sure thing from the get- go.
It is so hard to transcribe because it goes so fast..so excuse if I missed an uh, hmm,ah, or ok

Note that Luis is does not testify that he knows that Katie got a phone call to tell her it was done, he says “I think” she was called. To me he appears to be guessing, in an attempt to come up with a possible answer to Georgia’s question. All we know is that according to Luis, he heard Katie say “I know.” Remember, he also testified that he heard Katie tell Sig that the woman they saw walking with kids in front of the house on the day before the murder was Wendi; it has been confirmed that the boys were in school at that time, and thus that they could not have been with Wendi outside the house. We don’t know why Katie may have said “I know,” or if she actually knew because she had been told. We don’t know if Luis heard correctly. We do know that at least one thing she is alleged to have told Sig on the phone during the second attempt was not true. Katie, in my opinion, is unreliable, and Luis, testifying about what he heard second hand from Sig’s phone, is even more so. JMO.


ETA- it is interesting that Georgia asks him how Katie knew it was done. Perhaps this indicates the state knows more about this, or thinks it’s important. But, perhaps Georgia just wanted to clarify that Luis didn’t actually know for sure how, or if, Katie may have known. Georgia may have felt it was important to set the record straight for the jury and not create a false impression in the record that might open up grounds for an argument, on appeal, that the jury’s decision may have been based on information not actually in evidence.

 

[ch_13]

We don’t know why Katie may have said “I know,” or if she actually knew because she had been told.

RSBM.

Sometimes in real life people say weird things or don't get their phrasing correct. The other day, someone held open a door for me and instead of saying "thank you", I said, "you're welcome." I have no idea why I said it, maybe just some synapses misfiring.

I can only imagine what would be discussed on message boards if footage of me walking through the door ever became part of a murder trial.
"He said 'you're welcome', clearly that was a code phrase indicating that he knew about the murder."
"And he was wearing a red shirt. Red is the color of blood. That was a secret signal that the job was done."

 

[clearskies1]

DBM

 

[Knitpicker]

One thing I've learned on Websleuths, if you think someone is wrong or that you should clarify what someone said, sometimes you should just let it go and not always be the one to have the last word. I will try to follow through on this in the new year. Happy 2024

Theres always room for improvement! Happy New year to you too.

 

[Misy]

One thing I've learned on Websleuths, if you think someone is wrong or that you should clarify what someone said, sometimes you should just let it go and not always be the one to have the last word. I will try to follow through on this in the new year. Happy 2024!

Happy New Year everyone!

 

[IQuestion]

....SNIPPED FOR FOCUS:
"ETA- it is interesting that Georgia asks him how Katie knew it was done. Perhaps this indicates the state knows more about this, or thinks it’s important."
I think it is important. In my opinion it is important. I remembered the info and spent a lot of time trying to lay the ground before and after so that my point is not taken out of context. (It is extremely difficult for me to listen and type testimony) But apparently, even transcribed testimony is open to different interpretation. (Not a bad thing as it does encourge conversation and an exchange of ideas...even when my "gut hunch" seems to be supported by testimony.) In my mind. I have already figured out how WA knew. Despite a week of dodging conversations with DM, she indicates she is finally ready to talk to him within minutes of his murder and he doesn't answer the phone...right? Yah, right? (Isom's interview, cell phone record, emails &voice mail confirmation exists. I have cemented that part, and can not be swayed otherwise.)
Now, How did WA convey that info to KM or a co-conspirator? Burner phone, Track Me app, WhatsApp? "Two rings and hang up?" A pre-established code word? Just saying not out of the realm of possibility. I certainly would not have lied about having the money to/for two men who just confirmed they were willing to kill a complete stranger for money!
LR: He told her everything is done....and she like "I know" (mumbles) and the money...
GC: Ok, I'm going to back up just a little bit. How did she know it was done?
LR: I think she, she got a phone call right away, before we did.
GC: Alright. But, somehow she indicated she knew.
LR: Yes.

 

[cottonweaver]

I thought that the brand name of the bourbon was a little too coincidental, until we discovered that it is a real brand. However, the question remains as to why she couldn't have purchased it after her lunch date. That's why I believe the trip to that liquor store is a poor attempt at an alibi for her drive by of Dan's house.

I would also like to know whether the state contacted the mortician (!) party host just to double-check that Wendi received that invite in the post in July 2014.
Just so that we never have to wonder about it again.

That invite and tag was not in her car when the cops searched her vehicle. Only the bottle & receipt. ( I did check the state's last exhibit list but I can't find a WS approved link for the list)

 

[amicuscurie]

....SNIPPED FOR FOCUS:
"ETA- it is interesting that Georgia asks him how Katie knew it was done. Perhaps this indicates the state knows more about this, or thinks it’s important."
I think it is important. In my opinion it is important. I remembered the info and spent a lot of time trying to lay the ground before and after so that my point is not taken out of context. (It is extremely difficult for me to listen and type testimony) But apparently, even transcribed testimony is open to different interpretation. (Not a bad thing as it does encourge conversation and an exchange of ideas...even when my "gut hunch" seems to be supported by testimony.) In my mind. I have already figured out how WA knew. Despite a week of dodging conversations with DM, she indicates she is finally ready to talk to him within minutes of his murder and he doesn't answer the phone...right? Yah, right? (Isom's interview, cell phone record, emails &voice mail confirmation exists. I have cemented that part, and can not be swayed otherwise.)
Now, How did WA convey that info to KM or a co-conspirator? Burner phone, Track Me app, WhatsApp? "Two rings and hang up?" A pre-established code word? Just saying not out of the realm of possibility. I certainly would not have lied about having the money to/for two men who just confirmed they were willing to kill a complete stranger for money!
LR: He told her everything is done....and she like "I know" (mumbles) and the money...
GC: Ok, I'm going to back up just a little bit. How did she know it was done?
LR: I think she, she got a phone call right away, before we did.
GC: Alright. But, somehow she indicated she knew.
LR: Yes.

So you think WA surmised based on the fact that Dan did not answer the phone that the murder had, in fact, been done, and then called Katie.

 

[jennyjenny]

Happy New Year to all from little ole Texas ... hoping 2024 brings final justice for Dan Markel!!
Thanks to all for your great conversations.

(jmo - the ridiculous owl shirt was ugly LOL)

 

[amicuscurie]

I would also like to know whether the state contacted the mortician (!) party host just to double-check that Wendi received that invite in the post in July 2014.
Just so that we never have to wonder about it again.

That invite and tag was not in her car when the cops searched her vehicle. Only the bottle & receipt. ( I did check the state's last exhibit list but I can't find a WS approved link for the list)

We don’t have to wonder about it again.

Why? Because, the parties stipulated in court that the invitation, and the party, existed. A copy of the invitation was shown to the judge. It was not entered into evidence, perhaps due to issues with authenticating it or accounting for its chain of custody. That does not matter.

Why not? Because the state stipulated that it was a copy of the invitation. The state agreed that the invitation looked like that and said what it said. They have not raised any issue as to the party or the invitation, and they are not likely going to in any future trial.

Of course, any of us is free to wonder whether Wendi did, indeed, receive such an invitation. But if the state isn’t wondering about that, and they don’t appear to be, then neither am I. There is an invitation, it says to being Bulleit Bourbon.

I get that there hasn’t been a lot of new information on the case recently, and I get the intense fascination and desire to speculate. As I‘ve said, many a time, I’m obsessed. But there is more than enough admissible evidence and suspicious behavior, in my opinion, that it is not necessary to stretch logic and the rules of evidence in order to reach for more.

 

[Knitpicker]

....SNIPPED FOR FOCUS:
"ETA- it is interesting that Georgia asks him how Katie knew it was done. Perhaps this indicates the state knows more about this, or thinks it’s important."
I think it is important. In my opinion it is important. I remembered the info and spent a lot of time trying to lay the ground before and after so that my point is not taken out of context. (It is extremely difficult for me to listen and type testimony) But apparently, even transcribed testimony is open to different interpretation. (Not a bad thing as it does encourge conversation and an exchange of ideas...even when my "gut hunch" seems to be supported by testimony.) In my mind. I have already figured out how WA knew. Despite a week of dodging conversations with DM, she indicates she is finally ready to talk to him within minutes of his murder and he doesn't answer the phone...right? Yah, right? (Isom's interview, cell phone record, emails &voice mail confirmation exists. I have cemented that part, and can not be swayed otherwise.)
Now, How did WA convey that info to KM or a co-conspirator? Burner phone, Track Me app, WhatsApp? "Two rings and hang up?" A pre-established code word? Just saying not out of the realm of possibility. I certainly would not have lied about having the money to/for two men who just confirmed they were willing to kill a complete stranger for money!
LR: He told her everything is done....and she like "I know" (mumbles) and the money...
GC: Ok, I'm going to back up just a little bit. How did she know it was done?
LR: I think she, she got a phone call right away, before we did.
GC: Alright. But, somehow she indicated she knew.
LR: Yes.

She claimed she never said “I know”

 

[cottonweaver]

We don’t have to wonder about it again.

Why? Because, the parties stipulated in court that the invitation, and the party, existed. A copy of the invitation was shown to the judge. It was not entered into evidence, perhaps due to issues with authenticating it or accounting for its chain of custody. That does not matter.

Why not? Because the state stipulated that it was a copy of the invitation. The state agreed that the invitation looked like that and said what it said. They have not raised any issue as to the party or the invitation, and they are not likely going to in any future trial.

snipped

If you would kindly provide a link, that would be constructive because this part of the hearing isn't how I recall it.
The last time I mentioned a stipulated fact I provided the link- simply cause the onus was on me and it makes it so much easier and quicker for everybody else

 

[LinasK]

This only makes sense if you assume she knew about Luis’s random sighting of an owl, all photographic evidence of which was deleted immediately, and that even if she did, the conspirators would understand this random reference.

It can be because of the nickname "Tuto" or owl symbols meaning death. It doesn't have to link to his sighting. We don't know what Wendi knows.

 

[Misy]

We don’t have to wonder about it again.

Why? Because, the parties stipulated in court that the invitation, and the party, existed. A copy of the invitation was shown to the judge. It was not entered into evidence, perhaps due to issues with authenticating it or accounting for its chain of custody. That does not matter.

Why not? Because the state stipulated that it was a copy of the invitation. The state agreed that the invitation looked like that and said what it said. They have not raised any issue as to the party or the invitation, and they are not likely going to in any future trial.

Of course, any of us is free to wonder whether Wendi did, indeed, receive such an invitation. But if the state isn’t wondering about that, and they don’t appear to be, then neither am I. There is an invitation, it says to being Bulleit Bourbon.

I get that there hasn’t been a lot of new information on the case recently, and I get the intense fascination and desire to speculate. As I‘ve said, many a time, I’m obsessed. But there is more than enough admissible evidence and suspicious behavior, in my opinion, that it is not necessary to stretch logic and the rules of evidence in order to reach for more.

Just for the record, day 2 of ca’s trial begins with continuing testimony from wa from day 1. Rash states during his cross that the police found the invite in her mini van when they searched it.

 

[amicuscurie]

snipped

If you would kindly provide a link, that would be constructive because this part of the hearing isn't how I recall it.
The last time I mentioned a stipulated fact I provided the link- simply cause the onus was on me and it makes it so much easier and quicker for everybody else

Oh, I’m sorry- I thought I heard that here! Is it not the case? I know a copy was shown at trial and the state didn’t contest it or raise an issue.

 

[Zedzded]

ETA- it is interesting that Georgia asks him how Katie knew it was done. Perhaps this indicates the state knows more about this, or thinks it’s important. But, perhaps Georgia just wanted to clarify that Luis didn’t actually know for sure how, or if, Katie may have known. Georgia may have felt it was important to set the record straight for the jury and not create a false impression in the record that might open up grounds for an argument, on appeal, that the jury’s decision may have been based on information not actually in evidence.

Interesting.

I would have thought their plan was for SG to contact KM when the hit was done, then KM informs CA, but if KM already knew, then the inference is that she was informed by WA? SG's phone was off, initially, post-murder so if KM knew by the time he phoned her, it must have been WA. Which comes back to WhatsApp. LE looked at WA's phone initially and obviously didn't pick up on any messages or calls to KM otherwise she would have been interviewed straight away and dots connected. GC alludes to the fact that WA had WhatsApp and was contacting KM on that app. I'm guessing WA messaged/called KM via WhatsApp, then deleted the app prior to being interviewed.

Has KM been asked about contact with WA on the day of the murder or asked about WhatsApp usage?

 

[Zedzded]

I think WA was all over the place with her emotions the day of the murder and she just did not have the control or discipline to stay away from the crime scene. When she saw that it was a crime scene she would have been seriously adrenalised and would have wanted to spread the news. So I reckon 30 seconds after she drives past DM's house, she texts KM and whilst the State might not have the content of that message, the fact WA messaged KM is very incriminating and there is no way WA can argue her way out of that one. She has stated she did not message KM ever and she was not a contact on her phone.

 

[Zedzded]

NO. I suggested that WA may have sent a selfie of herself, wearing the symbolic owl t-shirt, verifying she saw with her own eyes, that the hitjob did in fact occur. The selfie may have been sent via WhatsApp to KM and/or the Adelson Team of conspirators (CA, DA, HA) "or" recovered from her cell/computer and not brought into evidence yet. Remember when SG phoned KM, KM already knew the hitjob occurred, how could that be? IMO, WA is a part of the events of that day, it was pre-planned, they knew the time it would occur. She is the one who told everyone about DM, JL and children schedules and the best time to perform the hitjob. Why did her conspirators rent a car like JLs? Another coincidence? Doubt it. WA very much involved with the hitjob. IMO
The video interrogation tapes permitted us to see the clothing she wore that day, what a coincidence, an owl!

I always thought one of the few smart things the Adelson's did was to keep WA out of the loop as much as possible. As moronic as they are, I think they all knew that WA would be the default prime suspect as the ex-wife and so would have tried to ensure WA had alibis for the day of the murder and had no incriminating phone calls/text messages. If she's contacted KM then that will bury her.

 

[Zedzded]

How soon after the murder did KM/SG/JR receive the money?

 

[LetsSolvIt]

Good point, I think she could have known he was there at least as of when he posted the owl pic.

Not sure what to believe about the potential of owl coincidences but to get a photo of an owl during the day would be extremely rare — at least to my knowledge. I think without exception they are nocturnal.

Makes me wonder if the posted owl photo was fake as far as actually being taken by one of the murderers. A stock owl photo posted on SM could have served as a signal.

OMO. Just a thought.