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

[iamshadow21]

View attachment 474424View attachment 474425View attachment 474426

No, honey, I'm afraid you're not getting an upgrade.

 

[opt]

No, honey, I'm afraid you're not getting an upgrade.

An extreme case of involuntary denied boarding.

 

[clearskies1]

My understanding is that if you lie, those lies can be used to impeach your credibility in a future proceeding. So they can come in, but the state wouldn’t be using them for the substance (which is not true), but to show that she said something different before.

I'm not aware of any legal support for that in the case of someone who testified with use/deriv use immunity. It would help if you cited something -- I'm not talking generally but for someone with limited immunity, like Wendi.

 

[amicuscurie]

I'm not aware of any legal support for that in the case of someone who testified with use/deriv use immunity.

Oh, I haven’t studied the law on this specifically, Im just basing that on my general understanding of impeachment. Sometimes testimony that would otherwise be excluded can be used for impeachment, like with hearsay for example. Also, experts keep saying that the immunity means “anything she testifies to TRUTHFULLY” can’t be used against her. So to me that implies that if she testifies un-truthfully that could be used against her. And one way stuff that wouldn’t come in normally can come in is for impeachment.
After all, if hypothetically, she told a lie, the state perhaps wouldn’t want to use that actual testimony to prove what she said, because it’s hypothetically a lie, and would probably not be actually helpful to prove their case. But showing that she possibly lied before IS helpful. Hope that makes sense.

 

[B4igo2it]

Yeppers....in my opinion...WA talks in circles until something fits her agenda/story/actions. Such as why she was on Trescott is a classic example:
a) I am geographically challenged
b) I drive by often as a way of dealing with, coming to terms with my divorce (2 years earlier.) Ironically when DM or JL were encountered (outside of her planned dalliances), she labeled them as "stalkers." LOL....classic reaction formation!
c) Trescott was a shortcut to the liquor store (that was 15 fmiles out of her way)
d) Since the first letter of middle name starts with "A," we lost an honor to both our families. But Adelson starts with an "A" so go figure!

I suspect WA stalked DM, until the day he died. Coincidence? IDK. IMO, WA was jealous and obsessed with DM. He challenged her, and she could not win. She could not compete. Control-Alt-Delete. She is the mastermind. IMHO

 

[Marysmith]

I suspect WA stalked DM, until the day he died. Coincidence? IDK. IMO, WA was jealous and obsessed with DM. He challenged her, and she could not win. She could not compete. Control-Alt-Delete. She is the mastermind. IMHO

I don’t know if she’s the mastermind - I believe that to be DA who asked CA to arrange the murder however I 100% believe that WA knew the plan was murder and she went along with it which she could have stopped it.

 

[GordonX]

Hit Men Are Easy to Find in the Movies. Real Life Is Another Story.

Robert Baer, a former CIA officer and the author of several books, including “The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins,” said he has known many bad guys during his decades in law enforcement and espionage. But even he said finding a real-life killer would stump him.

“I could not find you a hit man,” he said. “And I know a lot of murderers.”

Dennis Kenney, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, concurred, calling the public perception of a slick, skilled hit man “pretty much myth,” adding that a for-hire killer is usually “nothing more than a who offers or agrees to a one-off payday.”

“Which is why they get caught,” Kenney said.

Hit Men Are Easy to Find in the Movies. Real Life Is Another Story.

It’s a scene as old as celluloid: a shadowy figure named Luca Brasi or John Wick or Barry Berkman lurking in the darkness, outfitted with sinister intent and nifty weapons, effortlessly committing a murder for cash, animus or cold political calculations. Whether they’re called hit men, contract...

www.yahoo.com

 

[GordonX]

“Charlie put his life in the hands of two guys that shot a hole in the gas line of a Prius and in this stripper.” - Monica Jordan

 

[amicuscurie]

“Charlie put his life in the hands of two guys that shot a hole in the gas line of a Prius and in this stripper.” - Monica Jordan

Bottle girl.

 

[opt]

“Charlie put his life in the hands of two guys that shot a hole in the gas line of a Prius and in this stripper.” - Monica Jordan

Unclear antecedent. They didn’t shoot a hole in any stripper. That we know of.

 

[amicuscurie]

Unclear antecedent. They didn’t shoot a hole in any stripper. That we know of.

Excellent point!

 

[amicuscurie]

Prediction: Donna’s defense might likely be that Charlie did this without her knowledge, and then came to her with the extortion story and told her to start writing checks to Katie. Who thinks this defense has a shot of working on a jury who knows nothing else about the case?

 

[cottonweaver]

Prediction: Donna’s defense might likely be that Charlie did this without her knowledge, and then came to her with the extortion story and told her to start writing checks to Katie. Who thinks this defense has a shot of working on a jury who knows nothing else about the case?

Donna will say that he committed murder without her knowledge?

So basically she throws her son under the bus even though he can't seem to admit what he's done to himself or his closest confidants like B?

Anything's possible but I'd be very shocked if she went that route

 

[amicuscurie]

Donna will say that he committed murder without her knowledge?

So basically she throws her son under the bus even though he can't seem to admit what he's done to himself or his closest confidants like B?

Anything's possible but I'd be very shocked if she went that route

I believe she would throw him under the bus to save herself, just like her son threw Katie under the bus to save himself, but that’s just my opinion, of course. I also believe he would not admit to having committed the murder on a recorded phone call, and he can’t or won’t admit it to himself, assuming he did it. Those are my opinions, of course. Arguably he doesn’t have to admit anything for Donna to use this defense. She wóuld just, hypothetically, have to say he told her the extortion story and she believed it. He testified on the stand that he told her the extortion story after the murder, when he came to her and asked her to write the checks. Does anyone else find it interesting that Rash, who offered that extortion story at Charlie’s trial, now represents Donna?

 

[BSBC]

Donna will say that he committed murder without her knowledge?

So basically she throws her son under the bus even though he can't seem to admit what he's done to himself or his closest confidants like B?

Anything's possible but I'd be very shocked if she went that route

The defense that @amicuscurie posited doesn't depend on DA saying that CA committed murder. She can say (as CA testified at his trial): "CA came to me and said he was being extorted, and that I needed to write checks to KM. And if I didn't pay, the hitmen will kill him." This defense could potentially work even if the jury doesn't believe that CA was actually extorted. In other words, the jury could potentially believe that CA really did hire the hitmen, but that he did so without DA's involvement. And then CA lied to DA about being extorted -- and she believed him, and wrote the checks.

Would that work? I think it's still a longshot, but it has the potential to work better than CA's "extortion" defense, because it doesn't actually require one to believe CA's (unbelievable) version of it. And it would probably require DA to testify as to what CA actually told her, which I suspect her attorneys will want to avoid if at all possible.

 

[Zedzded]

The defense that @amicuscurie posited doesn't depend on DA saying that CA committed murder. She can say (as CA testified at his trial): "CA came to me and said he was being extorted, and that I needed to write checks to KM. And if I didn't pay, the hitmen will kill him." This defense could potentially work even if the jury doesn't believe that CA was actually extorted. In other words, the jury could potentially believe that CA really did hire the hitmen, but that he did so without DA's involvement. And then CA lied to DA about being extorted -- and she believed him, and wrote the checks.

Would that work? I think it's still a longshot, but it has the potential to work better than CA's "extortion" defense, because it doesn't actually require one to believe CA's (unbelievable) version of it. And it would probably require DA to testify as to what CA actually told her, which I suspect her attorneys will want to avoid if at all possible.

It would almost work.
But once all the evidence is presented, it's pretty clear she knew about the murder and was involved in the planning of it. Her and HA dropped money at CA's house before DM died (he was in hospital) and before the extortion had taken place. The bump is very incriminating. It could be argued that when she said "it involves us" that was the extortion she was referring to, but it lacks credibility as she then starts talking in code,mentioning the TV was $5000.... and why on earth would she want WA to bring her little sunshines to Miami where the hitman were located?! If they were concerned about the kids safety, get them to stay in Tallahassee! And the fleeing the country buries her.

Superficially the evidence might sound insufficient, but put it all together, the case is strong. And we still have a ton of digital evidence that will be unearthed. I also read something about GC having some of WA's emails? Anyone know anything about that?

 

[cottonweaver]

The defense that @amicuscurie posited doesn't depend on DA saying that CA committed murder. She can say (as CA testified at his trial): "CA came to me and said he was being extorted, and that I needed to write checks to KM. And if I didn't pay, the hitmen will kill him." This defense could potentially work even if the jury doesn't believe that CA was actually extorted. In other words, the jury could potentially believe that CA really did hire the hitmen, but that he did so without DA's involvement. And then CA lied to DA about being extorted -- and she believed him, and wrote the checks.

Would that work? I think it's still a longshot, but it has the potential to work better than CA's "extortion" defense, because it doesn't actually require one to believe CA's (unbelievable) version of it. And it would probably require DA to testify as to what CA actually told her, which I suspect her attorneys will want to avoid if at all possible.

Yes I think she will claim a variation of what he has previously testified to in court. I pasted the timestamp as a reminder on the previous page - just for his claimed 'first extortion'

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

I agree with you. That’’s what I think will be the defense. I am so surprised that with all their cash they didn’t just pay K in cash. The trap was that she needed a G-v plan for the insurance -so she needed to prove employment. she needed the paycheck. The fact that the last check was right...

www.websleuths.com

That doesn't involve Donna throwing him under any bus or testifying that CA committed the murder - that's the element I don't agree with

Prediction: Donna’s defense might likely be that Charlie did this without her knowledge.....

did the murder?!
and

I believe she would throw him under the bus to save herself, just like her son threw Katie under the bus to save himself, but that’s just my opinion, of course.

I think their enmeshed relationship and his fragile ego precludes Donna throwing him under any bus and I don't think Katie's relationship with Charlie is comparable with that of him and his mother.
Anyway, these are only opinions but I agree that it's interesting to mull over what potentially will or won't work for Donna.
The trial clip I signposted still only covers his ' first layer of extortion' not the second. She has to straddle both 'extortions' plus a long list of other minefields dating from after the Undercover bump.

Question : The tricky bit is how do we discuss what might actually work for Donna which covers layer 1 & 2 and her actions thereafter without doing the Defense's work for them for free? (Every time somebody's posted a trial clip, most of us must be registering specific items- but not vocalising- which are either problematic or exploitable for Donna.)

That question might sound silly but I've heard that point made repeatedly over the last couple of weeks.)
Should we? Or should we keep it vague? I'd be interested in what everybody thinks before putting anything detailed on WS. ( or does one do it via a DM group instead?)

We heard that Dan R was surfing blogs while prepping Charlie's defense. We also heard that he was hoping for the element of surprise.
Joke: I hope one of his interns signs up here under a pseudonym and proposes ideas, so we can all say ' wow! that's a brilliant idea, I would buy that if I was a juror !'

 

[Zedzded]

Yes I think she will claim a variation of what he has previously testified to in court. I pasted the timestamp as a reminder on the previous page - just for his claimed 'first extortion'

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

I agree with you. That’’s what I think will be the defense. I am so surprised that with all their cash they didn’t just pay K in cash. The trap was that she needed a G-v plan for the insurance -so she needed to prove employment. she needed the paycheck. The fact that the last check was right...

www.websleuths.com

That doesn't involve Donna throwing him under any bus or testifying that CA committed the murder - that's the element I don't agree with



That question might sound silly but I've heard that point made repeatedly over the last couple of weeks.)
Should we? Or should we keep it vague? I'd be interested in what everybody thinks before putting anything detailed on WS. ( or does one do it via a DM group instead?)

I don't think we need to.

 

[amicuscurie]

I don't think we need to.

I don’t think the defense needs us for ideas, I’m sure they’ve come up with most of this already. As I said, I’m not a great lawyer, and even I (eventually) came up with it.

BUT- I do think there is some merit to the argument that the defense MAY peruse these boards to get a sense of how people are thinking about the case, and how their proposed defenses might fare should they raise them in court.

 

[Misy]

Yes I think she will claim a variation of what he has previously testified to in court. I pasted the timestamp as a reminder on the previous page - just for his claimed 'first extortion'

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

I agree with you. That’’s what I think will be the defense. I am so surprised that with all their cash they didn’t just pay K in cash. The trap was that she needed a G-v plan for the insurance -so she needed to prove employment. she needed the paycheck. The fact that the last check was right...

www.websleuths.com

That doesn't involve Donna throwing him under any bus or testifying that CA committed the murder - that's the element I don't agree with

did the murder?!
and

I think their enmeshed relationship and his fragile ego precludes Donna throwing him under any bus and I don't think Katie's relationship with Charlie is comparable with that of him and his mother.
Anyway, these are only opinions but I agree that it's interesting to mull over what potentially will or won't work for Donna.
The trial clip I signposted still only covers his ' first layer of extortion' not the second. She has to straddle both 'extortions' plus a long list of other minefields dating from after the Undercover bump.

Question : The tricky bit is how do we discuss what might actually work for Donna which covers layer 1 & 2 and her actions thereafter without doing the Defense's work for them for free? (Every time somebody's posted a trial clip, most of us must be registering specific items- but not vocalising- which are either problematic or exploitable for Donna.)

That question might sound silly but I've heard that point made repeatedly over the last couple of weeks.)
Should we? Or should we keep it vague? I'd be interested in what everybody thinks before putting anything detailed on WS. ( or does one do it via a DM group instead?)

We heard that Dan R was surfing blogs while prepping Charlie's defense. We also heard that he was hoping for the element of surprise.
Joke: I hope one of his interns signs up here under a pseudonym and proposes ideas, so we can all say ' wow! that's a brilliant idea, I would buy that if I was a juror !'

I totally agree with this so thank you for posting cottonweaver. IMO of course the defense is keeping current on WS, and Reddit at least. I truly (truly) believe that this/these communities are collectively way smarter than the defenses and some brilliant potential defenses have been discussed here. I am beginning to refrain from even liking an idea that I agree with. We are indeed doing the work for them and regrettably could affect the trial defense narrative. (Donna’s for starters, and potentially Wendi’s). MOO