FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #22

[Going Rogue]

In my opinion it’s entirely possible that the idea for the murder, and plan, could have been initiated without her knowledge. In other words, it’s possible Charlie and Donna came up with the idea and Charlie started talking to Katie about finding someone to do it, all without informing Wendi that this was in discussion.

However, I believe she had to have been informed at some point, and at the very least prior to the second attempt, especially given that evidence shows she send a text to Dan - while with her family in South Florida - asking if he was going to be home on the day of the murder, and she has given many contradictory and changing explanations for some of her behavior that day, both during her interview and later at the three trials. JMO.

I mentioned in the past that I’d love to see the text history between Wendi & Dan to see if she had inquired on his travel plans the other weeks he had custody based on the Wednesday crossover day and the specific terms of the custody arrangement re travel and the Wednesday crossover day. If that was the one and only week she asked, it looks bad and I agree it is very suspect. As far as the contradictory and changing explanations, I think that is behavior that can also be attributed to her attempt to protect her family and distance herself. If she wasn’t involved, she knew her family was involved and clearly protected them.

 

[Zedzded]

He said that generally speaking when you have a group of individuals involved in a crime, the person that hasn’t been caught, but is involved, will placate the other parties – his point was that Wendi didn’t do that in her cold response to Donna. She basically turned her back on Donna and Charlie and that is more consistent with the behavior of someone that was not involved. It’s an interesting observation.

Nah. Putting aside WA's own agenda, feelings or whatever her lawyer would have told her in no uncertain terms to distance herself as much as possible from her family, especially after CA's conviction. It's not a good look for her to be seen embedded with family members who killed her kids father. It's a case of either you distance yourself or go down with the ship.

 

[Going Rogue]

Nah. Putting aside WA's own agenda, feelings or whatever her lawyer would have told her in no uncertain terms to distance herself as much as possible from her family, especially after CA's conviction. It's not a good look for her to be seen embedded with family members who killed her kids father. It's a case of either you distance yourself or go down with the ship.

No doubt the advice from her attorney was to distance herself as much as possible, but, per Donna, during the hot mic call, she said Wendi hadn’t visited them in 9 years! You would think if Wendi was involved she would have been scheming with the family in an effort to make sure the tracks were covered. After the bump, Wendi was not brought into the fold. That’s doesn’t mean she was not involved, but it definitely supports the argument.

 

[Zedzded]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

<modsnip - perosonalizing> And in order to demonstrate WA's lack of complicity they will pull apart one specific potentially implicatory factor such as her circuitous route down Trescott. "That was her normal shortcut therefore she is innocent". "She has distanced herself from her co-conspirators therefore she is innocent". etc etc ad nauseum. But as I said in a previous posts, the evidence against WA is circumstantial, so easy to pick apart one piece of evidence. You can have 2 or 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence and still be innocent. But you can't have 30+. And that is what WA has 30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence.

Lets say for example a guy walks out an apartment block where a murder happened. So what hundreds of people live there. But he knew the murder victim. So what lots of people knew the murder victim. A witness saw man with a white t-shirt leaving the victims apartment. So what, white t-shirts are common. He was white. So what, the area is predominated by white people. He had a motive, he didn't like the victim. So what, lots of people didn't, the victim was an unscrupulous character with lots of enemies.
<modsnip>. Of course simply because someone was wearing the same colour t-shirt as the suspect is not going to count for much in court. But you need to add ALL the circumstantial evidence together and suddenly that person is going to look very guilty. <modsnip> And the most important thing is on top of all that incriminating, circumstantial evidence, WA made the biggest boo boo, she lied. Not just once but dozens of times. And lied about important stuff. And lied in court. And lied to the police..... innocent people don't lie, especially when they're a suspect in a murder trial. Even someone without a law degree knows how incriminating it is to lie when you're a suspect. What a fantastic way to make the police even more suspicious.

 

[Going Rogue]

<modsnip> And in order to demonstrate WA's lack of complicity they will pull apart one specific potentially implicatory factor such as her circuitous route down Trescott. "That was her normal shortcut therefore she is innocent". "She has distanced herself from her co-conspirators therefore she is innocent". etc etc ad nauseum. But as I said in a previous posts, the evidence against WA is circumstantial, so easy to pick apart one piece of evidence. You can have 2 or 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence and still be innocent. But you can't have 30+. And that is what WA has 30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence.

Lets say for example a guy walks out an apartment block where a murder happened. So what hundreds of people live there. But he knew the murder victim. So what lots of people knew the murder victim. A witness saw man with a white t-shirt leaving the victims apartment. So what, white t-shirts are common. He was white. So what, the area is predominated by white people. He had a motive, he didn't like the victim. So what, lots of people didn't, the victim was an unscrupulous character with lots of enemies.
<modsnip>Of course simply because someone was wearing the same colour t-shirt as the suspect is not going to count for much in court. But you need to add ALL the circumstantial evidence together and suddenly that person is going to look very guilty. Now I'm sure you could have a good crack at explaining away 10/15 pieces of circumstantial evidence, but not 40. And the most important thing is on top of all that incriminating, circumstantial evidence, WA made the biggest boo boo, she lied. Not just once but dozens of times. And lied about important stuff. And lied in court. And lied to the police..... innocent people don't lie, especially when they're a suspect in a murder trial. Even someone without a law degree knows how incriminating it is to lie when you're a suspect. What a fantastic way to make the police even more suspicious.

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped> IMO, the problem with a lot of the ‘evidence’ is we all know for a fact that her family was directly involved and Wendi is assumed guilty by association and the ‘evidence’ is viewed with a strong confirmation bias. She may have been directly involved or family may have done it without her, no one knows for sure, but MANY are 100% convinced – that is clear. I disagree on the numbers you are claiming - ‘30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence’, it’s nowhere close to that number… at least evidence linking her to the murder. I know there are a lot of ‘lists’ out that that are ‘indicators of guilt’ but many of the individual items are primarily ‘motive’ based and I agree they are probably valid points that prove that Wendi hated Dan, had a motive and also prove that she is a pathological liar. The problem with that is we know for a fact her family murdered Dan so even if she had a motive so did her family and they may have carried this out without her – it is a possibility. Also, Lacasse testified that she was a pathological liar. Personally, I believe him and he made that assessment PRIOR to Dan being murdered, so your point that innocent people don’t lie doesn’t mean much as it relates to Wendi if we believe Jeff’s assessment. I think that case against Wendi is not nearly as strong as the general public or those that are avid case followers seem to believe. As far as the circumstantial evidence in the case against Wendi, I acknowledge there are a few key pieces of evidence (nowhere near the numbers you are giving), but in my opinion, they can be easily explained away OR we need more information to make any definitive conclusions. That is the reason that short of new evidence, it will be very hard to nail Wendi down – strictly basing that comment / opinion on information publicly available.

 

[ch_13]

He specifically referenced Wendi’s text to Donna (the one Donna read aloud on the hot mic call) and said Wendi did not act like someone that was involved in the conspiracy. He said that generally speaking when you have a group of individuals involved in a crime, the person that hasn’t been caught, but is involved, will placate the other parties – his point was that Wendi didn’t do that in her cold response to Donna. She basically turned her back on Donna and Charlie and that is more consistent with the behavior of someone that was not involved. It’s an interesting observation.

It may be an interesting observation, but just because something is generally true doesn't mean that it is true in every situation. In this case, these are not just a group of conspirators who got together to commit a crime, but rather a family with a very particular set of dynamics which plays a huge role in how they interact with one another.

IMO, Wendi knows that Donna will never, ever turn on her no matter what. Not only would it be a total repudiation of the importance that Donna places on her family, it would also mean leaving her own grandchildren without a mother. And it's possible that the Markel's could end up with custody, which would be Donna's worst nightmare.

So if Wendi doesn't fear Donna ratting her out, why would she need to placate Donna?

 

[Going Rogue]

It may be an interesting observation, but just because something is generally true doesn't mean that it is true in every situation. In this case, these are not just a group of conspirators who got together to commit a crime, but rather a family with a very particular set of dynamics which plays a huge role in how they interact with one another.

IMO, Wendi knows that Donna will never, ever turn on her no matter what. Not only would it be a total repudiation of the importance that Donna places on her family, it would also mean leaving her own grandchildren without a mother. And it's possible that the Markel's could end up with custody, which would be Donna's worst nightmare.

So if Wendi doesn't fear Donna ratting her out, why would she need to placate Donna?

I agree it’s not true in every situation and you are probably correct that Wendi knows Donna wouldn’t turn on her – but would Charlie? I did find it very surprising that Donna said Wend hadn’t visited them in 9 years. Couple that knowledge with Donna and Charlie not reaching out to Wendi after the bump (or at least no proof of that), and it does support the case she 'may' not have been involved. I think it’s important to objectively discuss the evidence and details – I hope people don’t take this as me supporting Wendi

 

[Zedzded]

I disagree on the numbers you are claiming - ‘30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence’, it’s nowhere close to that number… at least evidence linking her to the murder.

There is no direct evidence linking her to the murder. That's my point! For example, she texted CA on the day of the murder "this is so sweet" and she deleted that text. So what?! She could be referring to a box of chocolates CA bought her and perhaps she's a bit quirky and likes to delete text messages. That text message on it's own means nothing and is of zero evidentiary value. A piece of circumstantial evidence is valueless on it's own and can easily dismissed. It needs other pieces of circumstantial evidence to give it value. And don't forget human behaviour is considered evidence. So we start looking at WA's behaviour the week preceding the murder, the week after the murder and the day of the murder and we are no longer looking at 30 pieces of human behaviour, we're looking at 50+. e.g her crying about a broken $200 TV is circumstantial evidence.

If you have a man leaving an apartment where a woman was killed, there is 1/600 chance he killed her, as there are 600 people in the apartment so 0.17% chance. But the witness said he was male, that removes 300 people as suspects, he was white, another 30, he knew the victim, another 10, he had a otive another 5 etc etc you use a probability equation and there is going to something like a 70% chance he killed her. You are looking at each piece singularly, not adding them up.

 

[Zedzded]

I agree it’s not true in every situation and you are probably correct that Wendi knows Donna wouldn’t turn on her – but would Charlie? I did find it very surprising that Donna said Wend hadn’t visited them in 9 years. Couple that knowledge with Donna and Charlie not reaching out to Wendi after the bump (or at least no proof of that), and it does support the case she 'may' not have been involved. I think it’s important to objectively discuss the evidence and details – I hope people don’t take this as me supporting Wendi

But Jeff Lacasse said WA had stated to him CA was considering hiring a hitman. You think JL was lying?

 

[opt]

. Also, Lacasse testified that she was a pathological liar. Personally, I believe him and he made that assessment PRIOR to Dan being murdered, so your point that innocent people don’t lie doesn’t mean much as it relates to Wendi if we believe Jeff’s assessment.

It would be amusing to see Wendi’s defense lawyer discount her changing explanations by asserting that she always does that because she’s a pathological liar.

 

[Zedzded]

I do believe that many of the theories that the masses believe as it relates to Wendi’s potential involvement are not objectively discussed.

But you're not objectively discussing them either. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is no other REASONABLE explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. They key word is reasonable. What CA, DA, WA and DR have all done to dispute evidence is produce farcical answers expecting people to believe them because any answer is better than no answer. e.g DR saying DA wanted to go to Vietnam for a break, he frequently bought one way tickets, WA taking a "shortcut" down Trescott, WA driving past 4 liquor stores to get to the one she went to, WA wanting to repair a $200 TV etc etc These answers are not reasonable. We are looking at behaviour patterns and looking for reasonable behaviour. That's where we get our opinions from, no hidden agenda. WA, the boys and JL watching a movie on a broken TV with a perfectly good TV sitting in the other room is not reasonable behaviour. You might want to argue that point with something like "WA wanted the boys to appreciate poverty so made them watch a movie on a broken TV".... that's great. But that's not something a jury is going to believe. There needs to be logical, reasonable answers for the 40+ pieces of evidence that are incriminating WA. Not answers that a 4 year is going to laugh at.

 

[Zedzded]

It would be amusing to see Wendi’s defense lawyer discount her changing explanations by asserting that she always does that because she’s a pathological liar.

WA will be dead and buried when she finally takes the stand in her trial. She has 4 different versions of the her route the day of the murder. GC is going to have a field day.

 

[cottonweaver]

I agree it’s not true in every situation and you are probably correct that Wendi knows Donna wouldn’t turn on her – but would Charlie? I did find it very surprising that Donna said Wend hadn’t visited them in 9 years. Couple that knowledge with Donna and Charlie not reaching out to Wendi after the bump (or at least no proof of that), and it does support the case she 'may' not have been involved. I think it’s important to objectively discuss the evidence and details – I hope people don’t take this as me supporting Wendi

Donna said something different on that hotmic - if you listen to it.

If that's still not enough for you, consider the contents of the 2016 call recordings where it's clear that Wendi and Donna have not been estranged over the last 9 years and have been in and out of each other's homes regularly.

PS Regarding my previous post - post 541 -from the hotmics which you've already listened to you, isn't it also suggestive to you, that Jorge is being also used as a go-between? IMO it seems as if lawyer Wendi thinks this keeps her 'records' cleaner, just in case.
I agree with Demko's opinion of Wendi's prodigious pre-planning tendencies

 

[Knitpicker]

<modsnip> And in order to demonstrate WA's lack of complicity they will pull apart one specific potentially implicatory factor such as her circuitous route down Trescott. "That was her normal shortcut therefore she is innocent". "She has distanced herself from her co-conspirators therefore she is innocent". etc etc ad nauseum. But as I said in a previous posts, the evidence against WA is circumstantial, so easy to pick apart one piece of evidence. You can have 2 or 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence and still be innocent. But you can't have 30+. And that is what WA has 30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence.

Lets say for example a guy walks out an apartment block where a murder happened. So what hundreds of people live there. But he knew the murder victim. So what lots of people knew the murder victim. A witness saw man with a white t-shirt leaving the victims apartment. So what, white t-shirts are common. He was white. So what, the area is predominated by white people. He had a motive, he didn't like the victim. So what, lots of people didn't, the victim was an unscrupulous character with lots of enemies.

W<modsnip> Of course simply because someone was wearing the same colour t-shirt as the suspect is not going to count for much in court. But you need to add ALL the circumstantial evidence together and suddenly that person is going to look very guilty. Now I'm sure you could have a good crack at explaining away 10/15 pieces of circumstantial evidence, but not 40. And the most important thing is on top of all that incriminating, circumstantial evidence, WA made the biggest boo boo, she lied. Not just once but dozens of times. And lied about important stuff. And lied in court. And lied to the police..... innocent people don't lie, especially when they're a suspect in a murder trial. Even someone without a law degree knows how incriminating it is to lie when you're a suspect. What a fantastic way to make the police even more suspicious.

She lied about her account of Trescott. Altering versions starting with the interview (she went on Trescott near the house) to the 1st trial (she never turned bc she saw tape-impossible from Centerville), then 2nd trial she went back to her interview account, and at Charlies trial went back to the crime tape at the entrance to Trescott.
Impossible and yes she lied.
Only guilty people lie the way she did about Trescott.

So based on her previous testimony, she should be going back to the first account she gave.thats just once instance of her lying. And guilt associated with it. “Electrical storm’..”I thought there was a tree down”…

 

[Knitpicker]

WA will be dead and buried when she finally takes the stand in her trial. She has 4 different versions of the her route the day of the murder. GC is going to have a field day.

It’s actually 2 version she alternates with.
Isom- She drove on Trescott
1st trial- she couldn't turn onto Trescott bc of the tape so she turned around.
2nd trial back to the Isom account
Charlies trial- back to the 1st trial account.

 

[Knitpicker]

<modsnip>

Wendi stating on her podcast that she knew whoever killed her “latex’ husband was a “professional” was very concerning. That was 1/2015, months before the first arrest of SG.
Just one piece of evidence. They all have been discussed already if you start reading this blog from 2014. It took an entire weekend to read through.

 

[Knitpicker]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed based on unapproved source
“The state isn’t going to decide to arrest me”..WA with confidence.

 

[Zedzded]

It’s actually 2 version she alternates with.
Isom- She drove on Trescott
1st trial- she couldn't turn onto Trescott bc of the tape so she turned around.
2nd trial back to the Isom account
Charlies trial- back to the 1st trial account.

I thought it was:
1.she couldn't turn on to Trescott because it was blocked off, so she carried straight on Centerville
2. She turned onto Trescott but did a K-turn
3. She drove down Trescott and then turned at the tape, police car which was the crime scene.

 

[dotr]

“The state isn’t going to decide to arrest me”..WA with confidence.

Ex-wife Wendi Adelson testifies under immunity in Dan Markel case

Adelson said she knew some of her family members were angry with Markel during their divorce, but was unaware of the state's theory about the murder.

www.tallahassee.com

''Under questioning, Adelson briefly discussed her immunity, which prevents her testimony from being used against her but does not preclude the state from ever charging her. When asked about whether she may ever be arrested, Adelson broke into a smile.

“The state isn’t going to decide to arrest me,” Adelson said.''

https://tenor.com/view/wendi-adelson-state-arrest-markel-gif-15277269

 

[Knitpicker]

Ex-wife Wendi Adelson testifies under immunity in Dan Markel case

Adelson said she knew some of her family members were angry with Markel during their divorce, but was unaware of the state's theory about the murder.

www.tallahassee.com

''Under questioning, Adelson briefly discussed her immunity, which prevents her testimony from being used against her but does not preclude the state from ever charging her. When asked about whether she may ever be arrested, Adelson broke into a smile.

“The state isn’t going to decide to arrest me,” Adelson said.''

https://tenor.com/view/wendi-adelson-state-arrest-markel-gif-15277269

Yep!